Right To Bear Arms: Legal Purpose Of The Second Amendment

Right to Bear Arms The Second Amendment reflects the right of all Americans to own weapons for a legal purpose, such as self-defense in the home. It also recognizes the need for weapons to ensure safety for the citizens and keep a well-regulated militia. The prefatory clause refers to the concept of the militia being allowed to bear arms for the safety of the state. The operative clause is very controversial, as it discussed the average citizens ability to own a weapon. The District of Columbia vs. Heller case was centered on a Washington D.C. law that was enacted in 2008, prohibiting citizens to bear arms within their homes. The court claimed this law to be clearly unconstitutional, as it violated the command of the Second Amendment. A restriction still remained on the mentally ill and felon ownership of handguns, but every qualified individual was again granted permission to own a handgun for lawful purposes.
I personally do not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment’s operative clause, allowing all individuals (with some restriction) the ability to bear arms.
I can relate to home security; my safety and that of my family and friends matters to me. However, I see this clause as an unnecessary addition to the Constitution. From personal experience, I can confirm that safety does not lie solely within a gun. If a citizen is arguing that owning a weapon contributes to home security, another could argue that other means could be taken involving protecting yourself or the family. For example, a security system could be put in, or a guard dog could be purchased. I personally believe that guns lead to paranoia and that different actions can be taken to secure one’s personal safety and that of their
family. I agree with the Court’s decision to declare the law unconstitutional. It clearly states within the Second Amendment that every individual has the right to bear arms. However, I believe that this privilege is often taken too lightly, and guns are given to those who should not be qualified to own one. Recent disasters, such as the Sandy Hook Shooting, prove that handguns are given out to people that should not be allowed to carry one. Though I believe that citizens are granted the option to own a weapon that ensures their own security and that of their families, a more elaborate screening system needs to be put in place to keep horrible occurrences from taking place. There is not a sure way of knowing who will act dangerously under this freedom of the Second Amendment. The controversy lies behind where the line should be drawn on who is allowed to own a gun. I believe that this country could be just as functional and probably safer without the operative clause. That being said, the Constitution states clearly that it is within an individual’s rights to bear arms, making the Court’s decisions in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case to be justified.