Protecting Second Amendment Rights Essay Research Paper

The idea of owning a gun to some seems immoral and wrong. To others it s a way of protection and security. No matter how you view owning a gun, it s something that is protected under our second 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. Even though people try to take away our right to own guns, it is a right protected under the Bill of Rights. In my opinion, it would be damaging to our society if we abolished our right to arms. There needs to be gun control, but not to the extent of abolishing the second amendment of the Constitution.

People who are pro-gun control believe that the second amendment doesn t apply to us because of this; a well regulated militia. They believe that this amendment doesn t apply to us today, because we don t need a militia anymore. The Armed Forces have taken over the place of the militia. The founding fathers were expressing their preference of a militia over a standing army (Guncite).

St. George Tucker, a Lawyer, Revolutionary War milliliter officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court Judge, wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction (Guncite).

This need still exists today. If we didn t have the right to bear arms, our government could easily take control of every aspect of our nation, from economical to religious. With the right to own and bear arms, we can protect ourselves and our property from any attack; internally and externally.

According to Presser vs. Illinois, a Supreme Court case from 1886,:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question (the Second Amendment) out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government (guncite).

This states that all citizens capable of bearing arms have the right to do so.

People state that there is no need for a militia in this country, the armed forces will protect us no matter what. This is true, though if you take away the second amendment as well as all of our arms, we would be sitting ducks for martial law to take over. Martial law is when the federal government replaces over civil agencies (ie: police, sheriff, ) with the military. Then it is easy for the federal government to overrun the states and take control of our country. This is where the second amendment comes into play. Our right to bear arms will keep this from happening.

According to the case of the United States vs. Emerson on October 16, 2001; Judge William L. Garwood’s said the Constitution protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms – that are suitable as personal individual weapons (NRA)

The more gun control we have, the less guns would be on the streets. The only guns would belong to the police and the military. This is an absolutely absurd fallacy. Existent gun laws impact only those people who are willing to comply with them, good people who already honor the existing gun laws. Placing further impediments in the path of good citizens will further disproportionately disarm those good people – especially disarming good, poor people, the people who live in the areas of highest risk (2asisters).