Arguments Against The Abolition Of The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment states that “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”. Early American colonies found themselves using firearms in battles such as the French and Indian War from 1754 to 1763, and eventually led to the development of the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution, which included the Second Amendment, in 1791, and would essentially be the birth to one of the most well known controversial topics in American history (Gonzales 5-15). Sometimes the solution to a problem is far out of reach and attempting to change what is not looking for change is not the answer. Over the years, controversy developed that contemplates upon the interpretation of the amendment and whether or not it should be abolished and has formed two sides of support: those for the Second Amendment and those against it. Those against the
The wording in the Bill of Rights supports citizens in having the individual right to bear arms. The Second Amendment includes the term “the right of the people” which is used frequently throughout the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and most commonly indirectly refers to individual rights. The Second Amendment also references pre-existing individual rights with the statement of “shall not be infringed” which is a possible reference to the 1689 English Bill of Rights in which English citizens were allowed to bear arms (French 2-3). Individual liberties granted to citizens are directly stated in neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution. The controversy on whether the Second Amendment was meant to be a collective right is eliminated with the analyzation of the wording presented in the Bill of Rights, thus, stripping the Second Amendment would be a violation of individual