Arguments Against The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment was drafted as a part of the Bill of Rights in 1789, and yet issues on its interpretation are still prevalent today. The amendment is so controversial that our jurisprudence related to the subject varies on all ends of the spectrum. We treat it as though all interpretations are ambiguous, even though simple reasoning proves otherwise.
The Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights guarantees that “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.” It is not a mistake, these two passages reconciled under the title of one amendment; they are related in more ways than one. The courts try to interpret these statutes as accurately as
The key words in the first half of the amendment are “A well-regulated militia…” In relation to the fear of an authoritarian government, they presented a citizen defense system, reliant on our own ability. The founders expected the private ownership of weaponry to serve as a form of governmental regulation by the citizens. This was intended to keep the power in the hands of the citizens and prevent any form of martial law or coup de tat without societal approval. It was meant to constrain the government to its legally and ethically defined boundaries. Furthermore, it ensured that if the government used the domestic military or another intelligence agency specifically against the people with no valid reason, or one of our forces went into an unsanctioned operation, that those same people would be readily able to defend themselves. It would also presumably defend against forces that are not necessarily government supported military, but are considered militarized. This prevention would have served as a constant warning to any offensive force, and to be affective, mustn’t be infringed. This, of course, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have reasonable regulations, time has evolved, and the Constitution is a living document, if only the basic morals are preserved. This amendment was written under certain assumptions about American responsibility, it was also written in the time of now antiquated weaponry, often with single shots. There wasn’t an issue about magazine capacity or weapon type. In short terms, the amendment is severely dilapidated due to time elapsed. That is why it is completely plausible and certainly sensible for the Constitution to be considered a living document in need of