Well Regulated Militia Pros And Cons

A well-regulated militia, what exactly does that mean? Well, first we must break it down into exactly what it is ‘well regulated’ and ‘militia’. Well-regulated is defined as something that has an official, or serious structure that every party involved has to follow. That perfectly defines the way of life of those who lived in America during the revolutionary era. Everything had to run according to schedule or according to the drawn out plan. If things went awry, there was a negative impact on efficiency or order. Now, moving along to militia, which is defined as a body of citizens enrolled for military service that will only be called during emergencies. Colonists had to live under stressing circumstances which forced them to be able to form

The Federalists included the second amendment to the bill of rights in order to please the Southern states (Coenen 507). The Antifederalists (typically Southerners) believed that the second amendment carried a huge amount of weight for individual rights. They felt as if it was up to the “common man” to protect himself, his community, and his state. The second amendment allowed them to do so because they were able to have firearms in their homes which allowed for the ideal formation of a minuteman militia (Nelson 459). The federalists also believed if they were to forego a larger standing army in place of the militia then the militia would not only have to be closely supervised but well regulated (Rossiter 178). The antifederalists felt that putting too many restrictions/regulations on being able to carry and own firearms were infringing upon the rights of the people causing tons of disputes between the two major

An ongoing debate that will probably continue long after we’re gone. Every case, ever opposition, every act, every law, and every regulation has boiled down into two major arguments thus far. Should the second amendment right be changed, removed, or kept the same? Many Southerners (Conservatives) prefer to keep the second amendment in order for the protection of person or personal property. Many Northerners (Liberals) believe that there should be better regulations put on ownership of guns and that owning them is not as necessary as it once was. Both stances on the debate have valid points, but each side has their own downfall. If each side were to listen to one another and create compromises that satisfied the stance of each position, or present their arguments in a way that appeals to the other side, then a mutual ground could be met. There would be no need to explain why we “need” access to firearms or why we “don’t”, and considering we no longer have the absolute need for a standing militia what’s the real weight of the second amendment? That’s your choice to