Gun Control Essay

“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” (Madison, 1791). What does that statement mean? Is it even open to interpretation? Should it be viewed as an individual right to possess firearms, or should it be believed that firearms should only be possessed in times of crisis? What is the definition of a crisis? A criminal trying to steal personal property or harm a life is a crisis in most people’s book. For too long, many have created ever-changing interpretations to the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, these interpretations have been presented and accepted by an uninformed society. As this debate rages on, the facts and the Founding Fathers have all the answers.

One such interpretation: The collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. Collective rights advocates believe that the Second Amendment only grants the right to bear arms within a militia. In their eyes, the right to bear arms does not apply to private militias, only government organized militias, such as the Armed Forces. The Founding Fathers feared the government’s control of its citizenry by disarming them; therefore the collective rights interpretation would be the exact opposite of the amendment’s intent.

Another is the states’ rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. States rights advocates believe that the Federal Government cannot force the states into a situation that could invade a state’s protected interest. By possessing firearms, a populace would not be a credible threat to any state protected interest. Without proper evidence to show how a citizenry bearing arms invades any state’s protected interest, this interpretation is far-fetched.

The individual rights interpretation is the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. In the Second Amendment it states, “the right of the people” (Madison, 1791). This phrase was used only two