The Second Amendment was adopted into the Bill of Rights to ensure the people’s ability to establish a militia and secure their rights to possess weapons such as guns for this reason. Historically, the belief that the government should not be allowed to infringe on citizens’ rights to guns was common in early America because of Great Britain’s tyranny. Americans feared having their rights to weapons being taken away because it would prevent them from not only hunting or defending their families, but also because they would not be able to fight back again if another controlling government formed. In modern times, the Second Amendment is interpreted much differently and the reasoning people support or oppose it has changed.
Today, debate surrounding the Second Amendment typically revolves around one question: Should American citizens have the right to bear arms? Answers vary from simply yes and no. Gun control solutions pose problem-solvers such as stricter-background checks for those who purchase guns, banning certain types of guns, and many other …show more content…
The idea of a militia is much different now. The concept of a militia being ran with weapons already owned by the citizens in it instead of weapons officially provided is not common anymore. According to constitutioncenter.org, “Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation)” (Lund and Winkler). In short, this means the right to bear arms in relation to militia duty is irrelevant today, while personal uses such as defense, hunting, and recreation are behind the arguments for the right to bear arms. Finally, it is also important to note modern guns are not the same as guns from 1791 in capability and power. This being said, the beliefs of each side must be
Today, debate surrounding the Second Amendment typically revolves around one question: Should American citizens have the right to bear arms? Answers vary from simply yes and no. Gun control solutions pose problem-solvers such as stricter-background checks for those who purchase guns, banning certain types of guns, and many other …show more content…
The idea of a militia is much different now. The concept of a militia being ran with weapons already owned by the citizens in it instead of weapons officially provided is not common anymore. According to constitutioncenter.org, “Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation)” (Lund and Winkler). In short, this means the right to bear arms in relation to militia duty is irrelevant today, while personal uses such as defense, hunting, and recreation are behind the arguments for the right to bear arms. Finally, it is also important to note modern guns are not the same as guns from 1791 in capability and power. This being said, the beliefs of each side must be