“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”(US Const. amend. II) The meaning of this amendment to the United States Constitution has been heavily debated topic for decades. For me, the meaning of the Second Amendment was never controversial because I grew up in a household where my family held in high regard the rights granted to us by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, I never personally examined the meaning of each clause. It was not until recently that I began to learn about opposing views that exist among American citizens. It appears to me that the Second Amendment gives rise to more disagreement among American
…show more content…
After looking into this further, I believe that this is simply not the case. Daniel J. Schultz, a trial lawyer and life member of National Rifle Association, pointed out the use of the word “a” instead of “the” in “a well regulated militia”. Instead of pointing towards a state or city militia. This is because the Founding Fathers recognized that a militia was required for the security of a free state but that militia did not need to be recognized by a government as the people were all members of the militia. (Schultz) When examining the first clause of the Second Amendment, analysis of how the word “regulated” or how regulation was used in the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights is needed in order to better understand the amendment. As Schultz states in his article the The Second Amendment: The Framers’ Intentions “...the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulated" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.”(Schultz)
This implies that the members of the militia, the people, needed to “well regulate” themselves be that alone or in a group. In other words, the individual needs to be …show more content…
Waldman takes the position that there is no right for an individual protected by the United States Constitution to own a firearm. Waldman throughout his article also makes his distaste of firearms quite clear lamenting the ruling of the District of Columbia v. Heller case, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms in self defense and the supposed victory of gun rights activists due to the ruling. Waldman’s assessment of the Second Amendment is wrong. While it is true that the Second Amendment was interpreted differently for a while after the Second Amendment was written, that does not automatically disqualify the Schultz 's interpretation of the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the Merriam Webster defines “bear” as in to “bear arms” as, “to be equipped or furnished with something.” By definition alone, the Tennessee Supreme Court in the 1840’s, the very ruling he cites to argue his point, is wrong. The ruling is incorrect because their justifying statement is that since a citizen cannot bear arms that the Second Amendment does not pertain to an individual citizen. However, since an individual is capable of equipping or furnishing a firearm, the right does pertain to them; meaning that the Second Amendment
After looking into this further, I believe that this is simply not the case. Daniel J. Schultz, a trial lawyer and life member of National Rifle Association, pointed out the use of the word “a” instead of “the” in “a well regulated militia”. Instead of pointing towards a state or city militia. This is because the Founding Fathers recognized that a militia was required for the security of a free state but that militia did not need to be recognized by a government as the people were all members of the militia. (Schultz) When examining the first clause of the Second Amendment, analysis of how the word “regulated” or how regulation was used in the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights is needed in order to better understand the amendment. As Schultz states in his article the The Second Amendment: The Framers’ Intentions “...the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulated" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.”(Schultz)
This implies that the members of the militia, the people, needed to “well regulate” themselves be that alone or in a group. In other words, the individual needs to be …show more content…
Waldman takes the position that there is no right for an individual protected by the United States Constitution to own a firearm. Waldman throughout his article also makes his distaste of firearms quite clear lamenting the ruling of the District of Columbia v. Heller case, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms in self defense and the supposed victory of gun rights activists due to the ruling. Waldman’s assessment of the Second Amendment is wrong. While it is true that the Second Amendment was interpreted differently for a while after the Second Amendment was written, that does not automatically disqualify the Schultz 's interpretation of the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the Merriam Webster defines “bear” as in to “bear arms” as, “to be equipped or furnished with something.” By definition alone, the Tennessee Supreme Court in the 1840’s, the very ruling he cites to argue his point, is wrong. The ruling is incorrect because their justifying statement is that since a citizen cannot bear arms that the Second Amendment does not pertain to an individual citizen. However, since an individual is capable of equipping or furnishing a firearm, the right does pertain to them; meaning that the Second Amendment