Essay on the Second Amendment

As an assignment I was asked to write an essay that not only argued against, but mocked, a belief that was strongly held by any group. The essay that I was given as an example quoted the Second Amendment, but the author had no real understanding of the meaning. In fact, I had never seen a controversial issue that has been so misunderstood.

There are two main groups that I see. There are the ones that believe the 2nd Amendment only gives the right for the military to carry guns, and those that believe the 2nd Amendment means that not only can everyone carry guns, but that there is no right to regulate gun rights at all. I say that neither of those are correct. Maybe if we could get over ourselves long enough to try to see what something means, and this applies to everything, we could do what is right, rather than spending all of our time and energy fighting over issues.

Ask yourself why it is that the most voiced opinions are always on one extreme or the other. Why can't the loudest of us see the truth in the middle of any debate?

When reading this, please keep in mind that it was required to mock, and therefore may come across as very strong.

Essay:

The Second Amendment is one of the most controversial amendments in today’s society. There are commonly two sides that fight with each other over the definition of this amendment. The pro-gun, or what is commonly referred to as “gun nuts”, have the firm belief that the American people have the right to not only carry a gun, but to carry any type of gun that they want, while anti-gun groups want to get rid of the right to carry a gun all together unless that person is a soldier or police officer.

The part of the Second Amendment that is quoted by both sides is always “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”. Did you know that there are actually two versions used by the federal and state government? The only difference is the punctuation. Congress passed, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Sate, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. The States ratified what Congress had passed to, “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”. Do the differences in punctuation and capitalization change the meaning?

Many people believe that the Second Amendment means that only the military should have the right to carry guns. They believe that “A well regulated militia” is referring to trained soldiers, when in fact, the Second Amendment was written in a time when militias were simply any man with a gun during a time of conflict. Also you will notice that the Second Amendment does not say that militias have the right to bear arms, it states very clearly that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Both versions of the Second Amendment separate the “militia” from the “people” with a punctuation. Only a closed minded fool would read into this amendment as meaning that only the military should have guns. Though, I also do not feel that this amendment means that the government cannot regulate the types of firearms either, especially when it comes to weapons that are obviously meant to only be used on human beings.

I do not want anyone to believe that I am only against one side, in fact, the reality is that I am opposed to both sides, yet agree with many points that both sides make. My argument is not against anti-gun groups, as it may appear, but it is against anyone that reads into the Second Amendment as anything but what it is. The Second Amendment is the protection of our rights to own guns. It does not protect our right to have automatic firearms, nor does it give any hint at all that it only protects the right of our military to carry guns.

The military has the right to carry guns, because they are the military. What kind of fool would get the idea that an amendment would ever be written to ensure that right? On the same note, what kind of fool believes that in a world that used muzzleloaders, and that never specifically listed any type of firearms, believes that the Second Amendment gives us the right to own a machine gun?

The right to own a gun is still to this day, a necessary right. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of documented cases show incidents where someone was attacked and was able to protect themselves with a gun. In the past, as a former law enforcement officer, and currently still in a field of criminal justice, I have seen and heard of many more incidents where an illegal act with a gun was done with an illegal firearm, not a legally purchased firearm. Just like drugs, making guns illegal will not get rid of them. It will simply make it so that only the criminals have them. Do we really want to live in a society that does not allow us to protect ourselves when a criminal breaks into our homes with a gun, or tries to rob us on the street with a weapon of any kind? Research the documented cases before you answer this question. My favorite stories are the ones where people that protest for guns to be banned are found using a gun in their own defense.

I will not make it difficult to figure out what my point is in this essay. My point is that you are a fool if you think that the Second Amendment does not give the American citizens a right to own guns, but you are also a fool if you think that in today’s world that a citizen should own an automatic weapon. I personally own two handguns that I carry as a private investigator when I am working, a couple of shotguns and a rifle that are used for hunting, and two old WWII rifles that I keep as collectables. This does not make me a “gun nut”, but I do not see any reason why I should need to own any gun that is more powerful. Common sense is necessary for the safety of others when regulating gun rights, but the government has not right whatsoever to ban guns altogether.