The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to bear arms, or firearms. According to the Amendment, “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.” The Framers of the Constitution recognized that private citizens should be able to keep arms; in this way, the government could not become one of tyranny. However, in recent years, the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms has come under incredible scrutiny. Many individuals have called for a ban on all firearms or specific types of firearms.
The call to ban arms has resulted from a high level of gun violence in American society. Furthermore, a number of high profile mass shootings, such as the tragic shooting in Charleston, South Carolina this week, have led to calls for increased gun control. Despite this, communities with significant gun control laws, such as Chicago, Illinois, still suffer from a large number of gunshot victims. This paper will examine the issue of the right to bear arms in the United States. It will consider the various types of calls for gun control or banning of specific firearms. In the end, it will show that reasonable protections, such as a waiting period, are necessary to protect citizens from gun violence, while still allowing them to protect themselves.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"The Right to Bear Arms".
Until recent decades, the issue of the right to bear arms was not considered an issue. Individuals needed guns for hunting food in the early years of the United States. However, as the United States became more civilized and individuals could purchase meat from a market, the need for a gun for hunting decreased significantly. However, Americans were still fond of their guns for sport hunting and protection. As part of the Bill of Rights, many Americans strongly believed that it was an unalienable right intended by the Framers. Despite this, some historians have argued that this was not the true intent of the Framers of the Constitution. The Framers believed Americans should be able to keep arms at home for private use and self-defense; however, the arms should only be carried outside of the home for use in a militia (Halbrook, 1986, p. 151).
However, others contend that early drafts of the document, written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison clearly indicate that individuals should “bear arms” or “carry” them. Halbrook (1986) argues that Thus, in the minds of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, to “bear” a gun meant to carry it about in one’s hands or on one’s person, as for instance a deer hunter would do” (p. 152). The right to carry guns was not considered a political and civil rights issue until the 1970s. At this point, gun prohibition lobbies began to argue in favor of stricter gun control laws. The result was a change in policy stance from the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA had previously not been a lobbying organization; since the right to bear arms was not in question, there was nothing for them to lobby for or against. However, when public opinion began to shift in many regions against gun ownership, the NRA responded by becoming one of the most powerful political organizations in the country (Kopel, 2012, p. 126). The NRA sought to preserve what they believed the intent of the Framers of the Constitution was.
One must contend, however, that the world has changed since the Constitution was written. The advanced weaponry of today is nothing like the weapons used during the Revolutionary Period. Today’s guns range from simple firearms to assault weapons used in military situations. Many gun enthusiasts argue that all guns should be legal; others insist that more advanced weaponry should be illegal. According to a common argument, there is no need for an assault-style weapon for hunting or for self-protection. Tragically, these are the types of weapons that are used in mass shootings; they have the ability to fire multiple rounds per minute. Gun control laws in some areas have sought to limit the type of guns that an individual may own. In the aftermath of mass shootings, public support for gun control laws tend to increase. One mass shooting that created significant public discourse on the topic was the Sandy Hook Shooting, in which twenty-six individuals, including twenty kindergarten children, were killed with an assault-style rifle (Bennett, 2013, pp. 1-2).
Proponents of gun control laws maintain that the laws are in violation of the right to bear arms. They also argue that strict gun control laws do little to stop gun violence. The common argument is that if owning a gun becomes a crime, only the criminals will have guns. In reality, much of the gun violence in the inner cities, such as Chicago, occurs with illegal guns. However, gang violence is not the only type of gun violence. Many homicides, suicides and accidental gun shots occur every year; sadly, many of the accidental shootings occur with children. The State of Missouri repealed its permit to purchase laws in 2007. The homicide rates from guns increased in the following years sixteen percent (Webster, Crifasi & Vernick, 2014, p. 293). The permits did not limit the right to gun ownership; rather, they created a waiting period. In reality, the majority of Americans support a waiting period to buy a handgun. This waiting period allows the individual to receive a thorough background check; in other words, it prevents guns from following into the hands of the dangerous individuals.
The right to bear arms is a Second Amendment right. As such, it is viewed as unalienable by many individuals. However, recent events in the United States, such as an increase in gun violence and mass shootings, have resulted in many individuals questioning whether or not the country should have stricter laws. Reasonable gun control laws, such as a waiting period, do not infringe upon the right of a person to own guns. However, they do ensure that guns are sold only to individuals without criminal backgrounds.
