America's Second Amendment

America’s Second Amendment
The text of the Second Amendment of America’s constitution is as followed “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (U.S. Const. amend. II). This small portion of text has been widely debated and analyzed over the years to determine exactly what it entails in order to discover what rights it actually grants United States citizens, if any. Over the course of our nations brief existence we, as a people, have had the pleasure of practicing our right of self-preservation through the tools that have been bestowed upon us via the Second Amendment. However, some individuals have grown comfortable in an existence where
The debate surrounding this amendment has been to determine if the first portion of this sentence “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, is a restrictive or subordinate clause in regards to the continuation of the sentence being “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. In order to better analysis the true element of this amendment it is best for one to relieve themselves of their personnel opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject which may bare weight upon the individual’s analysis of the subject. In regards to the argument that the Second Amendment solely grants the right to keep and bear arms to a well-regulated militia is somewhat deplorable; since the sentence does not truly restrict the right, nor does it affirm or imply possession to any particular group. This sentence truly only exists to make a positive declaration of respect to a right for the people. The second portion of this sentence “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” does not truly grant the right to the people, however, its existence is more assumed as preexisting; the substance of this sentence is that these rights shall be
Heller the court exams the District of Columbia’s stringent firearm laws regarding handguns and the respondent’s argument of such strict firearm regulations violating citizen’s constitutional rights. The law within the District of Columbia prevents the possession of handguns by making it illegal to carry unregistered firearms and prohibit the registration of handguns making it impossible for law abiding citizens to legally carry a handgun in any manner. The laws of Washington D. C. are considered the strictest within our country, however, they do authorize the police chief to issue or deny 1-year licenses. The district of Columbia also necessitates that residents who lawfully possess firearms to keep them stored dissembled in a manner that they could not be rendered operable nor easily accessible for self-defense. Respondent Heller whom is a D. C. special policeman applied to register a handgun that he desired to keep at home, however, the District refused. Heller filed a suit seeking, on the grounds of the Second Amendment to admonish the District of Columbia to cease the city from enforcing its bar on handgun registration, due to its unconstitutional nature. As most would expect the District Court dismissed the suit, however, the D. C. Circuit reversed holding “That the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its