The Second Amendment has become a sensitive topic of debate due to the differing perspectives people have about its usage. Due to the current society’s rise in violence, advocates of gun ownerships argue that the Second Amendment allows citizens to “bear arms” and their right to owning them should not be taken away because it is attacking their freedom. On the other hand, opponents of gun ownership claim that militias are the only ones who need to be equipped with firearms. This perpetual dispute is the reason why the writers of the Second Amendment should have phrased the amendment in a clearer and coherent way. Till this day, the issue that remains unsolved is figuring out what the amendment is intended for and who is entitled under it. The …show more content…
When the amendment was first drafted, a “well-regulated militia” did not refer to the fact that the militias were supposed to be monitored or controlled by the government. The Framers were already aware that the “well regulated” militias did not need to be scrutinized by the government; so that’s why they “forbid Congress from interfering with the states’ control of their militias” (Lund 2). If the writers would have verbalized that clearly, the discrepancies would not exist today. If the militias are controlled and run under the government then it will “result in an absence of uniformity in training, equipment, command, and…effective national fighting force could have been created” (Lund 2). This means that in order for a militia to be “well regulated,” the armed citizens that compose a militia need to have the correct equipment, tools, weapons, and training that is valuable and effective. This is what the Founder’s meant when they stated “well regulated militias” because they wanted the militias to be skilled with modern day military artilleries and strategies. The founders of the second amendment illustrate that they wanted little to no interference of the government in the matters of the militias because their job is to serve as a standing …show more content…
This is because as time is progressing, more violence is becoming prevalent. Mass shootings at concerts, schools, and public gatherings are on a rise epidemically. As a result of this, people tend to feel unsafe and as a precautionary measure, they carry guns just in case they are stranded in a difficult situation. People cannot be denied the right to carry a gun because they can refer to the Second Amendment because their right to carry guns or “bear arms” cannot “be infringed.” The government cannot interfere “because everyone agreed that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion” (Lund 3). When it comes to self-defense, people cannot be prohibited because their safety is important; but the utilization of guns can be regulated. Since almost everyone owns a gun nowadays, security is also needed because people use deceptive means and say they are buying a gun for their own safety, but instead they use it in a negative way which endangers the life of others. Due to this reason, the use and purchase of guns can be regulated through background checks because no one would know if a