thesis statement about second amendment

Second Amendment - List of Free Essay Examples And Topic Ideas

An essay on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution can analyze the historical context, legal interpretations, and contemporary debates surrounding the right to bear arms. It can delve into the arguments for and against gun control, the role of firearms in American culture, and the impact of gun violence on society. We’ve gathered an extensive assortment of free essay samples on the topic of Second Amendment you can find in Papersowl database. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

The Second Amendment – Firearm Legislation

Americans are being murdered at unprecedented rates and little action has been attempted to prevent similar events from reoccurring. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ninety-six Americans die by firearms every day (The Editorial Board). Ninety-six lives end because of a bullet. It is unethical and immoral for that many people to perish, and for there to be little change made. Unfortunately, legislators can not just simply change firearm laws due to the long-standing and well-respected second […]

Gun Violence and the Second Amendment

According the Cornell Law Studies Institute, the second amendment states, "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." The Second Amendment of the constitution is one of the most misunderstood and confusing sentences in the history of America. The 27-word sentence has a partial collectivist ora while still maintaining the individualistic right to keep and bear arms. Before discussing the reasons behind […]

Rights and Responsibilities of U.S. Citizens

United States citizens are some of the richest in the world when it comes to the rights that they are afforded. Along with those rights come responsibilities. The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are the foundation upon which these rights and responsibilities were carved. A right is a freedom or privilege that is granted to U.S. citizens by the constitution. A responsibility is a duty or obligation to be able to enjoy those rights. Rights and responsibilities go […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Negative Consequences of Second Amendment

In late pasts guns were the only means of survival. The gun was what kept the home front safe from unwanted intruders from invading your land. It was also used to hunt for food to be put on the dinner table. However, today guns, as of late, are being used in the mass killings of innocent lives. Many of those who are caught in the crosshairs of a mass shooters were children and young adults. No amount of blood and […]

Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights

Imagine waiting on the line at the cafeteria on campus and you notice there are people running because there is a gunman firing not too far from where you are located. As a concealed carry license holder, do you reach for you gun realizing it is not there because it is not allowed on campus, or do you run for safety like everyone else? The founding fathers of America gave the right to bear arms for self-defense with the passing […]

The Gun Problem in America

Introduction As stated in the Social Problems textbook, “Social problems: Continuity and change”, “A social problem is any condition or behavior that has negative consequences for large numbers of people and that is generally recognized as a condition or behavior that needs to be addressed” (2015). As a result, I decided to discuss the social problem of the second amendment. Since the founding of the United States of America, the right to bear arms has always been a hot button […]

Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

Heller was a special police officer in Washington D.C. He was allowed to carry a Handgun as part of his job. Wanting to keep a handgun at his home, he applied for a license with the District of Columbia. They denied the request making heller sue the District For violating his second amendment rights. Based on what the second amendment said the District Court Found that the second amendment does not create an individual right to gun ownership Unrelated to […]

Second Amendment Gun Control: Urgent Need for Stricter Laws and Licensing

The 2007 Virginia Tech shooting killed 32. The Orlando nightclub shooting last year killed 49. The 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School killed 27 first graders, all younger than six years old. Since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, not a year has passed without a mass shooting. Yet little has been done to restrict the sale of the very weapons used for these senseless murders. Understanding Gun Control Laws in America Gun Control, at least in America, […]

3d Printed Guns It is Constitutional

Even though this is an incredibly new technology, politicians and even presidents around the globe makers have recognized 3D printed guns and what’s behind it. Regardless of what their actual thoughts are on the topic, the laws that they have tried to put into place that obstructs the progress of the technology has risen the number of questions that deal with it. Questions such as whether or not it is constitutional to make them, distribute them or even use them. […]

Gun Control in the United States

Over the past few decades, the United States has witnessed various high- profile mass shootings in towns including Las Vegas, San Bernardino, Orlando, and Newtown. Even though most homicides receive little public attention, incidents of mass shooting are extremely salient. Gun violence is the primary cause of mass shootings in the US. Victor Hayes attributes increased gun violence to how easily an individual can access a gun in the US and further argues that such ease of accessibility acts as […]

Problems with Gun Control

When a problem arises, people are most likely to asses the situation, find what is causing the complication, and then take actions to exterminate the cause of the problem. In recent years problems with gun control have risen and politicians, in addition to the general public, seem to lack an understanding of the true problem. However, it is undeniable that the rate of gun violence has risen, and many debates have taken place on whether guns should be take away […]

The Second Amendment: the Essence of ‘Well-Regulated Militia

Let's talk about a phrase that's been batted around more than a ball at a baseball game: "well-regulated militia." It's one of those terms that feels like it's been pulled straight out of a history textbook, yet here we are, still debating its meaning in coffee shops, courtrooms, and online forums. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is its home, a place where it sits snugly between discussions of individual rights and collective security. But what's it really […]

DC V. Heller: a Landmark Decision in American Second Amendment Rights

In the annals of American jurisprudence, few cases have sparked as much debate and legal scrutiny as District of Columbia v. Heller. Decided in 2008, this landmark Supreme Court decision unequivocally altered the landscape of Second Amendment rights, marking a significant shift in the interpretation of the Constitution's provision on the right to bear arms. At its heart, the case revolved around Dick Heller, a licensed special police officer in Washington D.C., who challenged the district's handgun ban as unconstitutional […]

Deciphering the Core of the 2nd Amendment: Unveiling its Complex Layers

Embarking on an odyssey through the annals of American constitutional jurisprudence, the Second Amendment emerges as a captivating enigma, a succinct phrase laden with profound implications. Nestled within the hallowed precincts of the Bill of Rights, this venerable clause has ignited a veritable tempest of discourse, provoking an array of divergent perspectives and interpretations. Let's embark on an expedition into the heart of this constitutional labyrinth to unravel the true essence of what the Second Amendment proclaims. The Second Amendment, […]

Additional Example Essays

Should Social Media be Regulated: Safeguarding Freedom of Speech and the Press
Differences Between Articles of Confederation and Constitution
About Women in STEM Careers
Racial Discrimination in Justice System
Critical Race Theory: Guiding the Path of Black Lives Matter
Pros and Cons of Gun Ownership
The History, Politics, Stakeholders, and Legislation of Gun Control Laws
Why Gun Control Won’t Work
Pros and Cons of legalizing Marijuana
The Hate U Give: Illuminating Police Brutality and Racial Injustice
Should Same-sex Marriage Be Legalized?
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible

Second amendment: doctrine and practice.

U.S. Constitution Annotated

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.

For over 200 years, despite extensive debate and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there was no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause ( “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” ) and its operative clause ( “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” ). To perhaps oversimplify the opposing arguments, the “states’ rights” thesis emphasized the importance of the prefatory clause, arguing that the purpose of the clause was to protect the states in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. The “individual rights” thesis emphasized the operative clause, so that individuals would be protected in the ownership, possession, and transportation of firearms. 1 Footnote A sampling of the diverse literature in which the same historical, linguistic, and case law background shows the basis for strikingly different conclusions includes: Staff of Subcomm. on the Constitution, Senate Committee on the Judiciary , 97th Congress, 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Comm. Print 1982) ; Don B. Kates , Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment (1984) ; Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment (Robert J. Cottrol ed., 1993) ; Stephen P. Halbrook , That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (1984) ; Symposium, Gun Control , 49 Law & Contemp. Probs. 1 (1986) ; Sanford Levinson , The Embarrassing Second Amendment , 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989) ; Joyce Lee Malcolm , To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right (1994) ; Glenn Harlan Reynolds , A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment , 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461 (1995) ; William Van Alystyne , The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Bear Arms , 43 Duke L.J. 1236 (1994) ; Symposium, Symposium on the Second Amendment : Fresh Looks , 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 3 (2000) . Whatever the Amendment meant, it was seen as a bar only to federal action, not state 2 Footnote Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) . See also Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894) ; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281–82 (1897) . The non-application of the Second Amendment to the states was reaffirmed in Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove , 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982) , cert. denied , 464 U.S. 863 (1983) . or private 3 Footnote United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) . restraints.

One of the Second Amendment cases that the Court has heard, and until recently the only case challenging a congressional enactment, seemed to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force. In United States v. Miller , 4 Footnote 307 U.S. 174 (1939) . The defendants had been released on the basis of the trial court determination that prosecution would violate the Second Amendment and no briefs or other appearances were filed on their behalf; the Court acted on the basis of the government’s representations. the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.” 5 Footnote 307 U.S. at 178 . The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the states could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 6 Footnote 307 U.S. at 179 . Therefore, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” 7 Footnote 307 U.S. at 178 . In Cases v. United States , 131 F.2d 916 , 922 (1st Cir. 1942) , cert. denied , 319 U.S. 770 (1943) , the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said, “Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment , the Federal Government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the “ Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’” ). See also Hickman v. Block , 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff lacked standing to challenge denial of permit to carry concealed weapon, because Second Amendment is a right held by states, not by private citizens), cert. denied , 519 U.S. 912 (1996) ; United States v. Gomez , 92 F.3d 770 , 775 n.7 (9th Cir. 1996) (interpreting federal prohibition on possession of firearm by a felon as having a justification defense “ensures that [the provision] does not collide with the Second Amendment ” ). United States v. Wright , 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997) , cert. denied , 522 U.S. 1007 (1997) (member of Georgia unorganized militia unable to establish that his possession of machine guns and pipe bombs bore any connection to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia).

After that decision, Congress placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms, 8 Footnote Enacted measures include the Gun Control Act of 1968. 82 Stat. 226 , 18 U.S.C. §§ 921 -928. The Supreme Court’s dealings with these laws have all arisen in the context of prosecutions of persons purchasing or obtaining firearms in violation of prohibitions against such conduct by convicted felons. Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) ; Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (1976) ; Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977) ; United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971) . and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made. 9 Footnote E.g. , National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Working Papers 1031–1058 (1970) , and Final Report 246–247 (1971) . Miller , however, shed little light on the validity of such proposals. Pointing out that interest in the “character of the Second Amendment right has recently burgeoned,” Justice Thomas, concurring in the Court’s invalidation (on other grounds) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, questioned whether the Second Amendment bars federal regulation of gun sales, and suggested that the Court might determine “at some future date . . . whether Justice Story was correct . . . that the right to bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.’” 10 Footnote Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 937–39 (1997) (quoting 3 Commentaries § 1890, p. 746 (1833)). Justice Scalia, in extra-judicial writing, has sided with the individual rights interpretation of the Amendment. See Antonin Scalia , A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law , 136–37 n.13 (A. Gutmann, ed., 1997) (responding to Professor Tribe’s critique of “my interpretation of the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the Federal Government will not interfere with the individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense” ).

It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, 11 Footnote E. Volokh , The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y.U. L. Rev. 793 (1998) ; R. Barnett , Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia? , 83 Tex. L. Rev. 237 (2004) ; E. Volokh , “Necessary to the Security of a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1 (2007) ; What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment ? , 6 Georgetown J. L. & Pub. Policy (2008) . the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller 12 Footnote 554 U.S. 570 (2008) . confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, 13 Footnote The “right of the people,” for instance, was found in other places in the Constitution to speak to individual rights, not to collective rights (those that can only be exercised by participation in a corporate body). Id. at 578–80 . an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts. 14 Footnote Id. at 580–91 . In so doing, the Heller Court rejected the argument that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected” by the Second Amendment , as the “traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense.” Id. at 624–25 (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939) ) ( “We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” ); see also Caetano v. Massachusetts , No. 14-10078, Slip Op. (March 21, 2016) (vacating a ruling by a state court that a ban on stun guns did not violate the Second Amendment because such weapons were not “readily adaptable to use in the military.” ). Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription. 15 Footnote Heller , 554 U.S. at 594–96 . Similarly, the phrase “security of a free state” was found to refer not to the defense of a particular state, but to the protection of the national polity. Id. at 596–98 . Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

Using this “individual rights theory,” the Court struck down a District of Columbia law that banned virtually all handguns, and required that any other type of firearm in a home be dissembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. The Court rejected the argument that handguns could be banned as long as other guns (such as long-guns) were available, noting that, for a variety of reasons, handguns are the “most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” 16 Footnote Id. at 628–29 . Subsequently, in Caetano v. Massachusetts , the Court emphasized that, under Heller , the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers. See Caetano , No. 07-290, Slip Op. at 1028 (per curiam) (vacating and remanding a Massachusetts state court ruling upholding a state law that prohibited the possession of stun guns, in part, on the grounds that stun guns were not in common use when the Second Amendment was adopted). Similarly, the requirement that all firearms be rendered inoperable at all times was found to limit the “core lawful purpose of self-defense.” 17 Footnote Heller , No. 07-290, Slip Op. at 630 . However, the Court specifically stated (albeit in dicta ) that the Second Amendment did not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns. 18 Footnote Id. at 626 . The Court also noted that there was a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons” that would not be affected by its decision. 19 Footnote Id. at 627 . But see Caetano , No. 14-10078, Slip Op. at 1028 (rejecting, as inconsistent with Heller , the view that a weapon may be deemed “unusual” if it was not in common use at the time when the Second Amendment was adopted, as well as the view that the Second Amendment only protects weapons that are “useful in warfare” ). The Court, however, declined to establish the standard by which future gun regulations would be evaluated. 20 Footnote Heller , No. 07-290, Slip Op. at 629 n.27 (discussing the non-application of rational basis review). And, more importantly, because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, the Court did not have occasion to address whether it would reconsider its prior decisions that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The latter issue was addressed in McDonald v. Chicago , 21 Footnote 561 U.S. 742 (2010) . where a plurality of the Court, overturning prior precedent, found that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and is thus enforceable against the states. 22 Footnote The portion of the opinion finding incorporation was authored by Justice Alito, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy. Justice Thomas declined to join the plurality's opinion as regards incorporation under the Due Process Clause. Instead, Justice Thomas, alone among the Justices, would have found that the Second Amendment is applicable to the states under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. For a more detailed discussion of incorporation and the Privileges or Immunities Clause, see supra Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment , Privileges or Immunities. Relevant to this question, the Court examined whether the right to keep and bear arms is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” 23 Footnote Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149 (1968) . or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” . 24 Footnote Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court, relying on historical analysis set forth previously in Heller , noted the English common law roots of the right to keep arms for self-defense 25 Footnote McDonald , 561 U.S. at 742, 768 (2010) (noting that Blackstone had asserted that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen” ). and the importance of the right to the American colonies, the drafters of the Constitution, and the states as a bulwark against over-reaching federal authority. 26 Footnote 561 U.S. 742 , 768–70 (2010) . Noting that by the 1850s the perceived threat that the National Government would disarm the citizens had largely faded, the Court suggested that the right to keep and bear arms became valued principally for purposes of self-defense, so that the passage of Fourteenth Amendment , in part, was intended to protect the right of ex-slaves to keep and bear arms. While it was argued by the dissent that this protection would most logically be provided by the Equal Protection Clause, not by the Due Process Clause, 27 Footnote 561 U.S. 742 , 878–80 (2010) (Breyer, J., dissenting). the plurality also found enough evidence of then-existent concerns regarding the treatment of black citizens by the state militia to conclude that the right to bear arms was also intended to protect against generally-applicable state regulation.

The following state regulations pages link to this page.

Second Amendment Thesis

The second amendment states that people have a right to bear arms under a well-regulated militia. This amendment was added to the Bill of Rights because the Americans had just finished fighting The American Revolution with the British government for independence-- Gun control by the British was one of the catalysts of this war. With the revolution fresh in mind, the Americans had registered that there was a need to unite and form a union; however, some Americans felt that a union could result in something similar to the tyranny that the British had imposed on them. They were hesitant of placing the power on a small handful of people-- The second amendment helped take some power from the government and give it to the people. Moreover, another

Arguments Against The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms. When the Second Amendment was written it was for the right to arm oneself as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, gun advocates proclaim that guns are for the right to self-defense. Some people try to participate and uphold the law. We have seen how guns in the hands of children can cause fatal accidents and people have committed mindless crimes leading to

Rob Curtis's Argument Against The Bill Of Rights

In the Bill of Rights I am using the Second Amendment because that is the right to bear arms. This relates because back when this amendment was passed the Government realized that people need arms to protect themselves and to hunt. Know we are fighting to keep these arms just like how the colonies had to fight to get this amendment passed. This amendment was passed so that people could protect themselves from harm and danger. This amendment should not be tampered with because people need these guns for uses that benefit us.

Argumentative Essay: Gun Control And Firearm Regulation

The topic of gun control and firearm regulation has been subject to heated debate for a long while. Both sides have potent arguments, however the core of this issue ultimately boils down to the constitution itself. More specifically the second amendment. This argument quickly becomes quite complicated because gun control and firearm regulation concerns not only the right of citizens, but more importantly the safety of citizens. The second amendment helps to guarantee an imperative right belonging to all citizens.

Essay On Right To Bear Arms

In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause stated “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century as properly but, not overly regulated (Roleff 69).

2nd Amendment Research Paper

Updating the Amendment 2.0 The right to bear arms has been a favoured constitutional law since its establishment in 1791, but as more gun related violence and accidents occur, there has been increasing debate on whether or not guns should be banned in the US altogether, and if not, what regulations should be required for the purchase and handling of them. While guns should not be completely banned from the country, the rules and regulations of gun laws should be tightened. In the 2nd amendment, it clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While this statement still holds true, the evolution of firearms and how they have become more dangerous throughout the years is a clear sign of why the laws should be changed.

Essay On The 26th Amendment

The second amendment states “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.” Us americans don't need to “bear arms.” Some may say that many people use them to hunt but there are many other weapons you can use to hunt with as well as protecting yourself from danger. By having the second amendment, it gives criminals the right to go out and harm people, whether it be a family member, friend, someone you walk past. Statistics say that “The U.S. has an estimated 283 million guns in civilian hands.

Essay Against The Second Amendment

Two years ago, in June of 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that District of Columbia’s law which banned its citizens from keeping a handgun in their home violated the Second Amendment, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. When looking back on this case, it must be noted that the Supreme Court did not clearly define whether or not the Second Amendment applied to the States, since the District of Columbia is a federal territory, run solely by Congress. Fast forward to today in Oak Park, which is a suburb of Chicago, they have laws in place that ban almost all citizens from possessing a handgun. Otis McDonald, Adams Orlov, Colleen Lawson, and David Lawson filed a suit against the city, stating this ban has left them without a proper tool for self-defense against criminals, and that it violates their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Essay On First Amendment

Tierney Baumann Mr. Barnes Period 1 4/17/23 The First Amendment Hate speech has increased by 11.6% in the last 5 years. The first amendment allows hate speech. The first amendment is unfair, unjust and needs to change. The first amendment allows hate speech.

Essay On Second Amendment Rights

What I believe in is what every redneck in the United States believes in, 2nd Amendment rights. I personally collect guns from different eras of time (WWII, and Vietnam/ Korea). Back when our nation was first founded, many rights were under fire by a tyrant king several thousand miles away. Those loyal to the crown obeyed the new laws, those that were not so friendly…

Persuasive Essay On Right To Bear Arms

The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. The second amendment states, “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” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports.

Max Farrand: The Induction Of The Second Amendment

The United States Constitution was constructed from a set of rules, also known as amendments, which were written with the great intention of securing the basic rights of all United States citizens and as such, it serves as an outline for the laws of the land by dictating the powers of the people and what is acceptable under the watch of the United States government. These rights are considered a privilege afforded to the people and should be exercised as indicated within the document. The history behind the induction of the second amendment began in the nineteenth century when in the summer of 1787, the Framers (included US Presidents) conspired with one another to write the articles of the United States Constitution during the constitutional convention. Fifty-five men drafted this document which serves as the blueprint of the United States government today. The motivation to construct and devise such a plan was created in order to give American citizens the absolute rights to proper enjoyment over their own lives.

Argumentative Essay: The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment protects the right of people to keep and bear arms. This amendment was a controversial among different people in the government. It was between letting the people keep their weapons or to not let the people keep their weapons. This amendment was important to the framers of the Constitution because it provided the country with a well-regulated militia. The Second Amendment states "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.

Essay On 1st Amendment

The 1st Amendment You are talking about the government... BOOM!! You're in jail.

Mcdonald V. Chicago Case Study

Why 2nd Amendment Is So Popular Background Information The second amendment is probably the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment is stated in the Bill of Rights as, “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"(“Second Amendment”) This could mean that you have the right to possess a small gun for self-defence purposes only, but the real meaning is a very controversial argument. Focusing on this amendment is important because it is a very disputed amendment still debated today.

Argumentative Essay: Proposed Solutions For Gun Control

The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the right to bear arms, which gives American citizens a constitutional right to own and purchase guns. It states, "A well-regulated

More about Second Amendment Thesis

Second Amendment Essays (Examples)

903+ documents containing “second amendment” .

Filter by Keywords:(add comma between each)

Supreme court second amendment case.

District of Columbia v. Heller Case Brief Case Facts: The District of Columbia Code prohibited carrying an unregistered firearm and banned the registration of handguns through its provisions. However, the provisions granted the chief of police the liberty to grant one-year licenses for handguns. Additionally, the Code required individuals owning legitimately registered firearms to keep them unloaded and disassembled or with locked trigger unless they were in business places or being utilized for legalized recreational activities. A special police officer in Washington, D.C., Dick Anthony Heller, was permitted to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year registration license from the city of Washington for a handgun he wanted to keep at home. Based on the provisions of the District of Columbia Code, Heller's application was rejected. Consequently, he sued the District of Columbia on the premise that the provisions of this Code violated the Second Amendment. Heller argued….

Federalists on Anti Federalists on Second Amendment

The Second AmendmentThe Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 and is the Amendment to the US Constitution that protects the persons right to bear arms. Yet there have been numerous challenges to this Amendment, particularly since gun violence has increased in America in recent decades. Some believe the Amendment should be restricted or overturned, while others believe that the right to own and carry a gun is an inherent right in America that must be protected at all costs. This paper will discuss why the Second Amendment was added to the US Constitution and what the Supreme Court has had to say about it in important cases.The right to bear arms in the US was based upon common law in England, where it was held that the natural right to self-defense meant that one could bear arms. Sir Blackstones Commentaries laid the foundation for this system of natural rights and….

Bibliography

2nd Amendment, US Constitution.

Blackstone, Sir William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Accessed at https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

Madison, James. Federalist No. 46. Accessed at https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

2nd Amendments First Amendment &

" Still, a judge has ordered the State Board of Education "not to enforce the new law while a suit filed by the father of a public school student proceeds" (Keen, 2007). Barry Lynn of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the judge realizes "...that there is no motive for a moment of silence except a religious one." The First Amendment comes into play here because it prohibits government from promoting religion. TO: (Gun control): Recently the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation that prevents the use of lead ammunition in California Condor - a severely endangered species - recovery zones. The law thus requires hunters of game like deer and coyote to use copper bullets, because when lead bullets kill a deer, for example, the hunter normally leaves the guts of the carcass on the ground, condors feed on those guts, and if they….

Works Cited

Abrams, Jim. (2007). House Ok's right to protect sources: White House rips media shield bill.

Boston Globe. Associated Press report. Retrieved Nov. 15, 2007, at http://www.boston.com .

Environmental News Network. (2007). Schwarzenegger Approves Condor Protection Bill.

Retrieved Nov. 15, 2007, at http://www.enn.com/press_releases/2201/print .

Amending the Amendments

" The reality is that most jurisdictions have, in effect, changed this requirement by designating specific courts as small claims courts, where disputes are not settled by juries. Moreover, even in federal-level litigation, the amount in controversy required for most suits means that many litigants lack standing to proceed in a federal court, much less have a jury trial. What this amendment demonstrates is that the process for amending the Constitution has failed to keep up with the changes that are warranted by that process. To work around the fact that the modern court system would grind to a halt if every person with a twenty dollar dispute were entitled to a jury trial, the Courts have interpreted this amendment to mean that people are entitled to a jury trial if they would have been entitled to one under the common law. However, that is clearly not adhering to the text….

Jack M. Balkin, the Constitution in the National Surveillance State, Minnesota Law Review

93:1 (2008), available at http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Balkin_MLR.pdf

Allen Clifton, a Reality Many Americans Don't Want to Admit: Our Constitution is Outdated

and Broken, Forward Progressives, (Jul. 20, 2013), http://www.forwardprogressives.com/a-reality-many-americans-dont-want-to-admit-our-constitution-is-outdated-and-broken/

2nd Amendments According to the

The freedom of speech has also come under attack, most recently when a reporter was jailed for refusing to expose her sources. The amendment mentions "free exercise" of the right to say what one wishes or print what one wishes; however, if a person was to publicly endorse the assassination of the President, that person would be quickly arrested and most likely thrown in jail, an act that stands in deep conflict with the idea of "free exercise." The Second Amendment has also become the center of attention regarding a person's right to own firearms and issues related to gun control. The National Rifle Association (NRA) highly endorses the 2nd Amendment and goes to great lengths to lobby Congress for less restrictive measures related to owning specific kinds of firearms, such as machine guns, AK-47's and other high-powered weapons. With handguns, a good number of legal efforts in recent years have….

2nd Amendment to US Constitution

2nd Amendment to U.S. Constitution Laws regarding the use and safety of weapons in the United States date back to 1837, when Georgia's ban on handguns was ruled unconstitutional. Subsequent legislation has been scrutinized by courts -- including the High Court -- and in numerous cases the rulings have supported a citizens' right to keep and bear arms except in certain cases. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the last decision offered by the Supreme Court in 2007, a law banning handguns was struck down based on the Second Amendment. How this ruling will ultimately affect states and local governments remains to be seen, but this paper carefully reviews opinions from the majority and minority on the Court. This paper also presents what the Court considers enumerated rights and how the gun lobby might be impacted by the ruling -- as well as those advocating for gun safety. Scholarly, peer-reviewed articles and a thorough….

Gun Control and First Amendment

It would also be highly recommended that there are designated buffer zones between the convention and any designated First Amendment Zones. Additionally, these zones must be away from any other public areas. If they are too close to public areas, like malls, they may inadvertently disrupt the flow of the public and endanger passersby. There are also recommendations for general policy of the possible disruption of protest groups at the DNC event. If officers were to commence in disrupting the protest groups, it would be absolutely necessary to show they were acting in accordance with the misdemeanor violation of Section 870.02 in the 2002 Florida Statutes. Essentially, this would mean that officers would have to prove more than three individuals were acting in a way to disturb the peace, rather than to peacefully assemble. It is true, "no actual breach of peace needs to take place" (Unlawful Assembly Dispersal Order).….

Independent Review Panel. (2004). The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) Inquiry Report.

M6. (2013). "First Amendment Zones."

M6. (2013). "Unlawful assembly to commit a breach of the peace."

The Constitution and Amendments

Limiting Constitutional Rights to Bear Arms The capital issue in the hypothetical court case detailed within Application 1.2 is the boundaries for limitations on the personal right to bear arms. Those boundaries are unclear in this case, because the defendant is exercising his right to bear arms as denoted within the second amendment to the United States Constitution. However, this person (known as Lloyd) has stockpiled enough arms that his store is dangerous to others living around him, which is why they have sued Lloyd claiming that his actions under the second amendment violate their constitutional rights. Specifically, they are claim Lloyd is infringing their rights outlined in the fifth and ninth amendments to the constitution. The relevance of these amendments to this case is that the fifth amendment states no person should suffer the loss of their life or property, whereas the ninth mandates that rights granted in the Constitution….

Second Reconstructions One of the Most Dramatic

Second Reconstructions One of the most dramatic consequences of the Civil ar and Reconstruction was that the South was effectively driven from national power for roughly six decades. Southerners no longer claimed the presidency, wielded much power on the Supreme Court, or made their influence strongly felt in Congress But beginning in the 1930s, the South was able to flex more and more political muscle, and by the 1970s some began to think that American politics and political culture were becoming 'southernized'.u How did this happen and what difference did it make to the development of the South and the United States? Under segregation most blacks in the U.S. still lived in the South and were employed as sharecroppers, laborers and domestic servants, but the system of segregation and discrimination was also found everywhere in other sections of the country. Certainly virtually nothing was done for civil rights during the Progressive….

WORKS CITED

Brinkley, Allen. American History: A Survey, 14th Edition. McGraw-Hill, 2012.

Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War. Oxford University Press, 1995.

Foner, Eric. Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction. NY: Knopf, 2005.

Gold, S.D. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Marshall Cavendish, 2010.

How to Prevent Mass Shootings in the USA

Second mendment to the Constitution of the United States can often be as prevalent and potentially divisive as the First mendment, which covers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the establishment caused which has come to justify the perceived separation of church and state. While there are practical and common-sense applications for gun ownership and rights, there are some weapons that probably shouldn't be in the hands of normal civilians and some people should not be allowed to own guns period due to things like felonious history, mental health issues and other similar conditions. There has always been a butting of heads regarding what the Second mendment refers to and what it does not. To be precise, the ratified version of the Bill of Rights that was signed by Thomas Jefferson stated it "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the….

A map that shows where concealed carry is allowed and which states allow reciprocity with others.

Washburn, Michael. "Our Favorite Weapon." The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Jan. 2012. Web. 9 May 2014. .

A profile of prolific gun maker Glock and their ubiquity in the United States gun culture and the homes of owners.

Fourth Amendment it Is a Traditional Belief

Fourth Amendment It is a traditional belief in America that a man's home is his castle, meaning that he is lord and master of his home and no one may enter, not even the government, without his permission. This was such an important issue among the American colonists that it was included into the Constitution when they broke away from Great Britain. In short, the fourth amendment states that no private property could be searched or seized without a proper warrant; and a warrant could not be issued without due cause. Over time belief in this absolute principle has gradually softened and a number of exceptions to this rule have come into place. Police and other authorities have been given exceptions to this rule in certain circumstances and it is not uncommon for evidence, that was gathered without a warrant, to be accepted in a trial. This is the situation in….

"Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure." U.S. Government Printing Office.

Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO -

CONAN-2002-9-5.pdf

Georgia v. Randolph, 278 G. 614,604 S.E. 2d 835. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-1067/#writing-ZS

5th Amendment the History of

The privilege against self-incrimination originally came to pass through colonial history. It went against both the moral and physical compulsion of taking an oath to what was believed to be a vengeful God and having a pious soul. It also became a defensive weapon against society and the laws and proceedings that often took place, in that it allowed a person to insist that they did not have to and were not going to answer a particular question that was asked of them, and what was more, they did not have to answer the question because they were protected under the law. Somewhere along the way, though, this protection that was designed for a very specific purpose began to be extended to other purposes, therefore 'watering down' the importance of the 5th amendment and making it into somewhat of a joke as opposed to a serious legal matter that can….

Bart v. United States. 349 U.S. 219 (1954).

Counselman v. Hitchcock. 142 U.S. 547 (1891).

Emspak v. United States. 349 U.S. 190 (1954).

Mapp v. Ohio. 367 U.S. 643; 81 S. Ct. 1684; 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).

1st Amendment the First Amendment

Many conservatives believe that the Anti- Establishment Clause prohibits only the actual establishment of a national religion in the manner of the English Crown. To them, the right to freedom of religion is all that the First Amendment guarantees, not the right to be free from religion (Dershowitz, p. 202). Luckily for those who consider themselves atheists and agnostics, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to include the separation of church and state much more broadly, because under the conservative interpretation, the government might, in principle, be able to require some religious affiliation of its citizens provided it did not specify any particular religious faith. That issue has arisen numerous times and in many different forms over the years, including whether or not public schools may require recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" or "moments of private reflection" intended for prayer during school time. Most recently,….

Dershowitz, a.M. (2002) Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age. New York: Little Brown.

Friedman, L.M. (2005) a History of American Law. New York: Touchstone. Haynes, C., Chaltain, S., Glisson (2006) First Freedoms: A Documentary History of First Amendment Rights in America. London: Oxford University Press

1st Amendment Establishment of Religion

Jehovah's Witnesses are a good example of a religious entity that claims the right the First Amendment freedom of religion clauses. Jehovah's Witnesses may act as a thorn in many families across America, however, they have been the root cause of much of our freedom of religion laws. Jehovah's Witnesses brought many cases of religion to the court system in the 1930s and 1940s. Before then, the court system handled very few court cases regarding freedom of speech and freedom of religion. These cases formed the foundation of the First Amendment protection of all citizens. The Court has attempted to create and implement a system for determining church and state decisions. This is accomplished with a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. The determination if the law is constitutional is this: does it have a secular purpose? It should not advance or inhibit religion. Finally, it cannot foster an….

Fourth Amendment Protection The Homeless

" The full force and authority of a regular police officer is necessary to make such an intrusion. Yet, such a police officer would not be able to summarily search or seize on the premises of a regular home. The homeless person's effects are; therefore, protected from unlawful search and seizure. orks Cited http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5020427742 Citron, Eric F. "Right and Responsibility in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence: The Problem with Pretext." Yale Law Journal 116.5 (2007): 1072+. A www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000281312 Greenhalgh, illiam ., and Mark J. Yost. "In Defense of the "Per Se" Rule: Justice Stewart's Struggle to Preserve the Fourth Amendment's arrant Clause." American Criminal Law Review 31.4 (1994): 1013-1098. A www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5008791036 Joh, Elizabeth E. "The Paradox of Private Policing." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 95.1 (2004): 49+. illiam . Greenhalgh, and Mark J. Yost, "In Defense of the "Per Se" Rule: Justice Stewart's Struggle to Preserve the Fourth Amendment's arrant Clause," American Criminal Law Review 31.4 (1994). Eric F. Citron,….

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5020427742

Citron, Eric F. "Right and Responsibility in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence: The Problem with Pretext." Yale Law Journal 116.5 (2007): 1072+.

A www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000281312

Greenhalgh, William W., and Mark J. Yost. "In Defense of the "Per Se" Rule: Justice Stewart's Struggle to Preserve the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause." American Criminal Law Review 31.4 (1994): 1013-1098.

I\'m interested in debating School Shootings. Are there essay topics that present opposing viewpoints?

Yes, there are several essay topics that can present opposing viewpoints on the issue of school shootings. Some possible topics include: 1. Gun control laws: Should stricter gun control laws be implemented to prevent school shootings, or does the right to bear arms outweigh the potential risks? 2. Mental health services: Should more resources be allocated to providing mental health services in schools to identify and address potential threats of school shootings, or is this an invasion of privacy and stigmatizing those with mental health issues? 3. School security measures: Should schools invest in increased security measures such as armed guards, metal detectors,....

Title: The Complex Issue of School Shootings: Examining Opposing Viewpoints Introduction: School shootings have become a prevalent and disturbing issue in our society, sparking intense debates and discussions among individuals, communities, and policymakers. This essay aims to present opposing viewpoints on this complex matter, exploring the arguments for and against various approaches to preventing and addressing school shootings. Viewpoint 1: Stricter Gun Control and Mental Health Interventions Advocates of stricter gun control measures argue that these policies can effectively reduce the number of school shootings by limiting access to firearms and ammunition. They emphasize the need for comprehensive background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions....

Can you provide guidance on how to outline an essay focusing on Gun Control Laws

Outline for an Essay on Gun Control Laws I. Introduction A. Hook: Begin with a startling statistic or a thought-provoking question to grab the reader's attention. B. Background: Provide a brief overview of the gun control debate in the United States, including the history and evolution of gun laws. C. Thesis statement: Clearly state the main argument that will be supported in the essay, taking a stance on whether gun control laws should be strengthened or weakened. II. Body Paragraph 1: Arguments for Gun Control Laws A. Topic sentence: Present the first reason why gun control laws should be strengthened. B. Supporting....

I\'m interested in debating 1 page. Are there essay topics that present opposing viewpoints?

Topic 1: Capital Punishment Opposing Viewpoints: Proponents: Argue that capital punishment is a just and effective deterrent to crime, while also providing closure to victims' families. Opponents: Question the morality of state-sanctioned killing, its potential for wrongful convictions, and its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. Topic 2: Universal Basic Income Opposing Viewpoints: Supporters: Advocate for a universal basic income as a guaranteed safety net that would reduce poverty, stimulate economic growth, and foster innovation. Critics: Express concerns about the cost, the potential for disincentivizing work, and the inflationary impact on prices. Topic 3: Abortion Rights Opposing Viewpoints: Pro-choice advocates: Argue for the right of women....

Criminal Justice

Research Paper

The Second AmendmentThe Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 and is the Amendment to the US Constitution that protects the persons right to bear arms. Yet there have been…

Law - Constitutional Law

" Still, a judge has ordered the State Board of Education "not to enforce the new law while a suit filed by the father of a public school student…

Article Review

" The reality is that most jurisdictions have, in effect, changed this requirement by designating specific courts as small claims courts, where disputes are not settled by juries. Moreover, even…

The freedom of speech has also come under attack, most recently when a reporter was jailed for refusing to expose her sources. The amendment mentions "free exercise" of the…

It would also be highly recommended that there are designated buffer zones between the convention and any designated First Amendment Zones. Additionally, these zones must be away from…

Law (general)

Limiting Constitutional Rights to Bear Arms The capital issue in the hypothetical court case detailed within Application 1.2 is the boundaries for limitations on the personal right to bear arms.…

American History

Second Reconstructions One of the most dramatic consequences of the Civil ar and Reconstruction was that the South was effectively driven from national power for roughly six decades. Southerners…

Second mendment to the Constitution of the United States can often be as prevalent and potentially divisive as the First mendment, which covers freedom of speech, freedom of the…

Fourth Amendment It is a traditional belief in America that a man's home is his castle, meaning that he is lord and master of his home and no one may…

The privilege against self-incrimination originally came to pass through colonial history. It went against both the moral and physical compulsion of taking an oath to what was believed…

Many conservatives believe that the Anti- Establishment Clause prohibits only the actual establishment of a national religion in the manner of the English Crown. To them, the right to…

Mythology - Religion

Jehovah's Witnesses are a good example of a religious entity that claims the right the First Amendment freedom of religion clauses. Jehovah's Witnesses may act as a thorn in…

Research Proposal

" The full force and authority of a regular police officer is necessary to make such an intrusion. Yet, such a police officer would not be able to summarily…

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — American Law — 2Nd Amendment

Essays on 2nd Amendment

Writing an essay on the 2nd Amendment can be both interesting and thought-provoking. This topic allows you to delve into the history, politics, and ethical considerations surrounding the right to bear arms in the United States.

When choosing a topic for your 2nd Amendment essay, consider issues such as gun control, the historical context of the amendment, the impact of the 2nd Amendment on society, and the debate over individual rights versus public safety. Argumentative essays on the 2nd Amendment should focus on presenting a clear stance on the issue and supporting it with evidence. Cause and effect essays can explore the consequences of the 2nd Amendment on gun violence, crime rates, and public safety. Opinion essays allow you to express your personal views and beliefs about the 2nd Amendment, while informative essays provide factual information and analysis of the amendment's implications.

For an example of a 2nd Amendment essay, you can explore topics such as the impact of the 2nd Amendment on modern society, the historical context of the amendment, and the debate over gun control. A thesis statement for a 2nd Amendment essay could be, "The 2nd Amendment plays a crucial role in preserving individual liberties and protecting citizens from government overreach." When crafting an , consider providing background information on the 2nd Amendment, its historical significance, and its relevance in today's society. In the , you can summarize your main points and restate your thesis, leaving the reader with a thought-provoking message.

By writing an essay on the 2nd Amendment, you can explore a complex and controversial issue that has significant implications for society. It allows you to develop critical thinking skills and articulate your views on a topic that is important to many Americans. So, grab your pen and start exploring the world of the 2nd Amendment through your writing!

The Second Amendment: Origins, Intent, and Relevance

The gun control debate: the left's perspective on gun laws, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Everlasting Controversy Over The 2nd Amendment

The two sides of the 2nd amendment, why the 2nd amendment should not be repealed, 2nd amendment: should we keep guns, let us write you an essay from scratch.

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

A Review of Militias in America

The second amendment: support or abolish, discussion on whether america should repeal the 2nd amendment, why the 2nd amendment is not relevant in present day america, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The 2nd Amendment Should not Be Hiding The Current Gun Problems Behind Its Curtains

The second amendment – support or abolish, the main cause of debate in the second amendment to the united states constitution in the bill of rights, removing the bars the second amendment places on the supreme court would help reduce the number of gun related deaths in the united states, a historical overview and critique of the second amendment, research of campus crimes: concealed carry on campus and the safety of students, arguments against strict gun control in america, the second amendment and gun violence in america jefferson (third president of united states), arguments against gun control laws, the effectiveness of gun control in america, the need for stricter and more thorough gun control laws, relevant topics.

Civil Liberties
First Amendment
Bill Of Rights
Domestic Violence
Serial Killer
War on Drugs
Identity Theft
Juvenile Delinquency

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

< Previous

Home > CMC > CMC_STUDENT > CMC_THESES > 2116

CMC Senior Theses

The second amendment: a states’ right, for the people, protected by the federal government.

Marie Hardwick Follow

Graduation Year

Date of submission, document type.

Campus Only Senior Thesis

Degree Name

Bachelor of Arts

Andrew Busch

Terms of Use & License Information

Rights Information

This thesis explores the creation of the Second Amendment and how it has been interpreted over time. The purpose of this thesis is to understand present-day debates over gun control and offer an interpretation of the right that best suits the modern era. By analyzing the history of gun ownership in the United States, it is clear that the intention of the Second Amendment was to extend the right to the individual and should not be limited to collective use. As the Bill of Rights was extended to protect the people from state governments, the history of states’ rights in the regulation of firearms should be taken into account. With a country divided in their views on gun control policy, states should maintain the power to regulate arms, with federal courts intervening only when legislation is particularly radical. This thesis offers an interpretation of the Second Amendment best suited for the nation on both historical and practical by investigating the most prominent debates today: individual vs. collective rights, federal vs. states’ rights. With all things considered, this thesis concludes the most suitable interpretation of the Second Amendment for the people is: a right of the people protected, as individuals, from federal infringement, and regulated by the states, that are checked by the federal courts only when deemed necessary.

Recommended Citation

Hardwick, Marie, "The Second Amendment: A States’ Right, for the People, Protected by the Federal Government" (2019). CMC Senior Theses . 2116. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/2116

This thesis is restricted to the Claremont Colleges current faculty, students, and staff.

Since June 13, 2019

Advanced Search

Notify me via email or RSS
Colleges, Universities, and Library
Schools, Programs, and Departments
Disciplines

Author Corner

Faculty Submission
Student Submission
Policies and Guidelines

Useful Links

Claremont Colleges Library
Claremont Colleges Digital Library

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Gun Control Essay: Important Topics, Examples, and More

Gun Control Definition

Gun control refers to the regulation of firearms to reduce the risk of harm caused by their misuse. It is an important issue that has garnered much attention in recent years due to the increasing number of gun-related incidents, including mass shootings and homicides. Writing an essay about gun control is important because it allows one to explore the various aspects of this complex and controversial topic, including the impact of gun laws on public safety, the constitutional implications of gun control, and the social and cultural factors that contribute to gun violence.

In writing an essay on gun control, conducting thorough research, considering multiple perspectives, and developing a well-informed argument is important. This may involve analyzing existing gun control policies and their effectiveness, exploring the attitudes and beliefs of different groups towards firearms, and examining the historical and cultural context of gun ownership and use. Through this process, one can develop a nuanced understanding of the issue and propose effective solutions to address the problem of gun violence.

Further information on writing essays on gun control can be found in various sources, including academic journals, policy reports, and news articles. In the following paragraphs, our nursing essay writing services will provide tips and resources to help you write an effective and informative guns essay. Contact our custom writer and get your writing request satisfied in a short term.

Gun Control Essay Types

There are various types of essays about gun control, each with its own unique focus and approach. From analyzing the effectiveness of existing gun laws to exploring the cultural and historical context of firearms in society, the possibilities for exploring this topic are virtually endless.

Let's look at the following types and examples from our essay writing service USA :

Argumentative Essay : This essay clearly argues for or against gun control laws. The writer must use evidence to support their position and refute opposing arguments.
Descriptive Essay: A descriptive essay on gun control aims to provide a detailed topic analysis. The writer must describe the history and evolution of gun laws, the different types of firearms, and their impact on society.
Cause and Effect Essay: This type of essay focuses on why gun control laws are necessary, the impact of gun violence on society, and the consequences of not having strict gun control laws.
Compare and Contrast Essay: In this type of essay, the writer compares and contrasts different countries' gun laws and their effectiveness. They can also compare and contrast different types of guns and their impact on society.
Expository Essay: This type of essay focuses on presenting facts and data on the topic of gun control. The writer must explain the different types of gun laws, their implementation, and their impact on society.
Persuasive Essay: The writer of a persuasive essay aims to persuade the reader to support their position on gun control. They use a combination of facts, opinions, and emotional appeals to convince the reader.
Narrative Essay: A narrative essay on gun control tells a story about an individual's experience with gun violence. It can be a personal story or a fictional one, but it should provide insight into the human impact of gun violence.

In the following paragraphs, we will provide an overview of the most common types of gun control essays and some tips and resources to help you write them effectively. Whether you are a student, a researcher, or simply someone interested in learning more about this important issue, these essays can provide valuable insight and perspective on the complex and often controversial topic of gun control.

Persuasive Essay on Gun Control

A persuasive essay on gun control is designed to convince the reader to support a specific stance on gun control policies. To write an effective persuasive essay, the writer must use a combination of facts, statistics, and emotional appeals to sway the reader's opinion. Here are some tips from our expert custom writer to help you write a persuasive essay on gun control:

Research : Conduct thorough research on gun control policies, including their history, effectiveness, and societal impact. Use credible sources to back up your argument.
Develop a thesis statement: In your gun control essay introduction, the thesis statement should clearly state your position on gun control and provide a roadmap for your paper.
Use emotional appeals: Use emotional appeals to connect with your reader. For example, you could describe the impact of gun violence on families and communities.
Address opposing viewpoints: Address opposing viewpoints and provide counterarguments to strengthen your position.
Use statistics: Use statistics to back up your argument. For example, you could use statistics to show the correlation between gun control laws and reduced gun violence.
Use rhetorical devices: Use rhetorical devices, such as metaphors and analogies, to help the reader understand complex concepts.

Persuasive gun control essay examples include:

The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to own any firearm.
Stricter gun control laws are necessary to reduce gun violence in the United States.
The proliferation of guns in society leads to more violence and higher crime rates.
Gun control laws should be designed to protect public safety while respecting individual rights.

Argumentative Essay on Gun Control

A gun control argumentative essay is designed to present a clear argument for or against gun control policies. To write an effective argumentative essay, the writer must present a well-supported argument and refute opposing arguments. Here are some tips to help you write an argumentative essay on gun control:

Choose a clear stance: Choose a clear stance on gun control policies and develop a thesis statement that reflects your position.
Research : Conduct extensive research on gun control policies and use credible sources to back up your argument.
Refute opposing arguments: Anticipate opposing arguments and provide counterarguments to strengthen your position.
Use evidence: Use evidence to back up your argument. For example, you could use data to show the correlation between gun control laws and reduced gun violence.
Use logical reasoning: Use logical reasoning to explain why your argument is valid.

Examples of argumentative essay topics on gun control include:

Gun control laws infringe upon individuals' right to bear arms and protect themselves.
Gun control laws are ineffective and do not prevent gun violence.

If you'd rather have a professional write you a flawless paper, you can always contact us and buy argumentative essay .

Do You Want to Ease Your Academic Burden?

Order a rhetorical analysis essay from our expert writers today and experience the power of top-notch academic writing.

How to Choose a Good Gun Control Topic: Tips and Examples

Choosing a good gun control topic can be challenging, but with some careful consideration, you can select an interesting and relevant topic. Here are seven tips for choosing a good gun control topic with examples:

Consider current events: Choose a topic that is current and relevant. For example, the impact of the pandemic on gun control policies.
Narrow your focus: Choose a specific aspect of gun control to focus on, such as the impact of gun control laws on crime rates.
Consider your audience: Consider who your audience is and what they are interested in. For example, a topic that appeals to gun enthusiasts might be the ethics of owning firearms.
Research : Conduct extensive research on gun control policies and current events. For example, the impact of the Second Amendment on gun control laws.
Choose a controversial topic: Choose a controversial topic that will generate discussion. For example, the impact of the NRA on gun control policies.
Choose a topic that interests you: You can choose an opinion article on gun control that you are passionate about and interested in. For example, the impact of mass shootings on public opinion of gun control.
Consider different perspectives: Consider different perspectives on gun control and choose a topic that allows you to explore multiple viewpoints. For example, the effectiveness of background checks in preventing gun violence.

You can also buy an essay online cheap from our professional writers. Knowing that you are getting high-quality, customized work will give you the peace of mind and confidence you need to succeed!

Pro-Gun Control Essay Topics

Here are pro-gun control essay topics that can serve as a starting point for your research and writing, helping you to craft a strong and persuasive argument.

Stricter gun control laws are necessary to reduce gun violence in America.
The Second Amendment was written for a different time and should be updated to reflect modern society.
Gun control and gun safety laws can prevent mass shootings and other forms of gun violence.
Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.
Universal background checks should be mandatory for all gun purchases.
The availability of assault weapons should be severely restricted.
Concealed carry permits should be harder to obtain and require more rigorous training.
The gun lobby has too much influence on government policy.
The mental health of gun owners should be considered when purchasing firearms.
Gun violence has a significant economic impact on communities and the nation as a whole.
There is a strong correlation between high gun ownership rates and higher gun violence rates.
Gun control policies can help prevent suicides and accidental shootings.
Gun control policies should be designed to protect public safety while respecting individual rights.
More research is needed on the impact of gun control policies on gun violence.
The impact of gun violence on children and young people is a significant public health issue.
Gun control policies should be designed to reduce the illegal gun trade and access to firearms by criminals.
The right to own firearms should not override the right to public safety.
The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from gun violence.
Gun control policies are compatible with the Second Amendment.
International examples of successful gun control policies can be applied in America.

Anti-Gun Control Essay Topics

These topics against gun control essay can help you develop strong and persuasive arguments based on individual rights and the importance of personal freedom.

Gun control laws infringe on the Second Amendment and individual rights.
Stricter gun laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.
Gun control laws are unnecessary and will only burden law-abiding citizens.
Owning a gun is a fundamental right and essential for self-defense.
Gun-free zones create a false sense of security and leave people vulnerable.
A Gun control law will not stop mass school shootings, as these are often premeditated and planned.
The government cannot be trusted to enforce gun control laws fairly and justly.
Gun control laws unfairly target law-abiding gun owners and punish them for the actions of a few.
Gun ownership is a part of American culture and heritage and should not be restricted.
Gun control laws will not stop criminals from using firearms to commit crimes.
Gun control laws often ignore the root causes of gun violence, such as mental illness and poverty.
Gun control laws will not stop terrorists from using firearms to carry out attacks.
Gun control laws will only create a black market for firearms, making it easier for criminals to obtain them.
Gun control laws will not stop domestic violence, as abusers will find other ways to harm their victims.
Gun control laws will not stop drug cartels and organized crime from trafficking firearms.
Gun control laws will not stop gang violence and turf wars.
Gun control laws are an infringement on personal freedom and individual responsibility.
Gun control laws are often rooted in emotion rather than reason and evidence.
Gun control laws ignore the important role that firearms play in hunting and sport shooting.
More gun control laws will only give the government more power and control over its citizens.

Example Essays

Whether you have been assigned to write a gun control research paper or essay, the tips provided above should help you grasp the general idea of how to cope with this task. Now, to give you an even better understanding of the task and set you on the right track, here are a few excellent examples of well-written papers on this topic:

Don’t forget that you always have a reliable essay writing service USA by your side to which you can entrust writing a brilliant essay for you!

Final Words

In conclusion, writing a sample rhetorical analysis essay requires careful analysis and effective use of persuasive techniques. Whether you are a high school student or a college student, mastering the art of rhetorical analysis can help you become a more effective communicator and critical thinker. With practice and perseverance, anyone can become a skilled writer and excel in their academic pursuits.

And if you're overwhelmed or unsure about writing your next AP lang rhetorical analysis essay, don't worry - we're here to help! Our friendly and experienced research paper writers are ready to guide you through the process, providing expert advice and support every step of the way. So why not take the stress out of writing and let us help you succeed? Buy essay today and take the first step toward academic excellence!

Looking to Take Your Academic Performance to the Next Level?

Say goodbye to stress, endless research, and sleepless nights - and hello to a brighter academic future. Place your order now and watch your grades soar!

Explainer: what is the 2nd Amendment and how does it impact US gun control?

Senior Lecturer in Politics, Keele University

Disclosure statement

Jonathan Parker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Keele University provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a touchstone for the many people who identify with American society’s enduring affinity for firearms. And every time there is an atrocity, such as the mass shooting in Orlando, debate inevitably settles on how this part of the Constitution effectively prevents the adoption of workable gun control measures.

But ironically, the Amendment played almost no substantial part in legal or constitutional jurisprudence involving gun ownership until 2008 and even the recent change in Supreme Court interpretations does not give it a significant role in gun regulation. The importance of the Second Amendment lies much more in its symbolism for those people defending gun ownership and as a rallying point for those supporters.

The Amendment is a telling reminder of America’s longstanding relationship with guns that goes back to its colonial heritage and has developed a strong and popular mythology surrounding this legacy. But it is not a clear endorsement of the right to own a gun. The text reads:

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.

The Amendment came out of the colonies’ longstanding suspicion of standing armies, accentuated by the recent War of Independence against Great Britain. It sought to enshrine protections for local and state militias, who would provide a bulwark against any possible encroachment of power by the new national government – and its national army – which was established by the Constitution in 1789.

The Second Amendment was always about federalism, protecting the power of the states to have and regulate militias rather than granting individual rights, and the courts interpreted it that way consistently until two cases in 2008 and 2010 completely upended more than two centuries of legal and constitutional history.

Legal frontiers

In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) , the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm – independent of any service in a militia – for legal purposes such as self-defence. In a subsequent case, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) , the Court extended this protection against bans by all state and local governments.

These cases established the individual right to gun ownership for the first time – but, significantly, they were only applied in relation to absolute bans. The Supreme Court continues to allow almost all restrictions on firearms short of an outright ban. It is the politics of gun regulation that is much more important if you want to understand the gun debate in the US. The Second Amendment, meanwhile, is a political symbol rather than a strong legal protection.

Declining ownership and homicides

An understanding of the place of guns in American culture is needed to fully understand the issue of gun regulation. The General Social Survey (GSS) , has found that gun ownership has declined from 49% of households in 1973 to 34% in 2010, though Gallup opinion polls report a lower figure, unchanged from 1972 to 2010 at 43%. Whichever figure is most accurate, a substantial portion of American households own a gun. Traditionally, hunting was the main purpose for gun ownership but it has declined from 49% in 1999 to 32% in 2013. Personal protection has now become the main reason cited by gun owners, rising from 26% in 1999 to 48% in 2013 .

Despite worries over personal safety, fuelled by widespread media coverage of regular mass shootings, the homicide rate from firearms has fallen hugely in the US since the 1990s . Compared with 1993, the peak of US gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010. The rate for other violent crimes with a firearm was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993 . While violent crime has plummeted since the 1990s, however, mass shootings consume most efforts around gun control today. People believe that crime has gone up rather than down – and this continuing fear of crime influences gun policy.

Opinion polarised

Public opinion has been decidedly in favour of stricter gun control for decades, but the recent polarisation of politics in the US has also influenced people’s views on guns. Support for gun control is now roughly matched with support for gun rights in the wider population.

The main areas of gun regulation concern limiting who can purchase a gun. There have been large majorities in favour of restrictions such as background checks for those with criminal records, limiting access for the mentally ill, and creating a national database to track gun sales. Bans on assault rifles, such as the AR-15, used in Orlando are more controversial. These sorts of weapons were banned in 1994 under the Clinton administration but the law was allowed to lapse in 2004 and stands no chance of being re-enacted by the current Congress.

Party lines

Differing views of gun control across party lines are much more evident now, with Republicans less likely to support a national database or assault weapon ban. These issues have erupted into the presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton called for stronger background checks and a national database, while Donald Trump – who used to support stricter gun control – accepted the endorsement of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and claimed that Clinton “ wants to take away Americans’ guns ”. These statements are largely symbolic as neither party appears eager to engage in a strong attempt to enact gun control due to the potential for a backlash from gun enthusiasts.

The most prominent change in state laws regarding guns in recent times has been to make guns more, rather than less, available. In reaction to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, Wayne LaPierre, the NTA vice president, argued that “the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”.

States adopted this approach, with 41 adopting laws allowing the carrying of concealed guns by 2014 . Debates rage over whether this availability makes the public more or less safe, but it is the sharp edge of the current debate in the states. Meanwhile, in Sandy Hook, Newtown – and now Orlando – hundreds of families continue to mourn their dead as mass shootings continue with a dispiriting regularity.

Mass shootings
US Constitution
Second Amendment
US gun control
Orlando shooting 2016

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 181,800 academics and researchers from 4,938 institutions.

European journal of American studies

Home Issues 12-2 Summer 2017 Articles The Fight to Bear Arms: Challengi...

The Fight to Bear Arms: Challenging the Second Amendment and the U.S. Constitution as a Sacred Text

This article examines the manner in which constitutional law in the United States serves to preserve, accentuate and institutionalise what Robert Bellah referred to as the ‘Civil Religion’ of the nation (1967). As the U.S. Supreme Court manages the evolution of the nation, it does so through an institutional deference to the authority of the nation’s founders. The United States is not unique in the glorification of the nation’s ‘Founding Fathers’. It does, however, stand alone in the manner it seeks to maintain a temporal connection with these iconic national figures through the law and the interpretation of that law. U.S. constitutional law seeks to reiterate and reproduce the principles of the Founding Fathers and the ideals that they espoused. This fact is explicated in this article through an examination of the case of the District of Columbia v Heller (2008). This article seeks to account for two key nationalistic phenomena in the United States relating to constitutional law and the U.S. Constitution’s infamous Second Amendment. Firstly, the profound institutional reverence for the national heroes that first begat the nation. And, secondly, a precise hermeneutical deference to those Founding Fathers - in law - that is largely unmatched in the developed world.

Index terms

Keywords: .

i U.S. Const., Amend. II. 1791.

1 One of the most contentious issues that persists in American life today is the constitutional right to personally own and possess firearms. The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees citizens of the nation this right through a single sentence which states 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.” i

2 Controversy surrounding this amendment is ongoing and individual political standpoints on this issue tend to denote the broad political allegiance of individuals as well as local and municipal districts. The Second Amendment and the enmity that it arouses has seen it endure only limited testing in the Supreme Court. Challenges to this amendment are seen in some quarters as a challenge to cherished individual freedom itself and as a consequence invoke a great deal of public indignation. Quite apart from the practical need to possess firearms in the nouveau frontier nation that was eighteenth century America, the essence of this right rests on the view that an armed populace could not and would not be subjugated. It existed (and exists) as a final bulwark against the spectre of tyranny. It ensured that the individual citizen could always keep an unjust regime or civil threat at bay through that citizen’s feasible potential to resort to violent dissent on their very threshold. All efforts to dilute this right are perceived in many quarters as a direct attack on the sovereignty of the individual and an effort to subjugate or neutralise the masses.

3 Second Amendment rights are jealously guarded and their protection is the focus of powerful Washington lobby groups as well as very vocal, civil libertarian associations such as the National Rifle Association. The Second Amendment furnishes America with not just one of the most hotly debated lines in the United States’ canon of law but also a classic case of eighteenth century logic uncomfortably co-existing with twenty-first century reality and sensibility. The United States of the late eighteenth century had a number of practical realities that had to be considered. Firstly, firearms were a practical imperative from both a private and commercial point of view. There was the threat of the lawless element of a frontier society, of invasion from abroad or ‘insurrection’ by Native Americans or the enslaved African-American populace as well as the very real and present danger of wild animals. These were all seen to necessitate personal protection. Also, hunting supplemented dietary requirements and was practised as a commercial pursuit. Secondly, the Second Amendment ensured a measure of personal autonomy within the new Federal State. It was an insurance policy that ensured if the polling booth was to fail to yield a satisfactory and equitable society (or was suspended entirely), a popular uprising could not be prevented through a federal monopoly over weaponry. It was a practical law that would ensure good order and deter the temptation toward the path of tyranny by any subsequent federal government. The population could rest assured that if they, or their descendants, were ever to realise absolute exasperation with their government, it was their right - and (potentially at least) a practical possibility - to overthrow such a regime. This idea tallied with John Locke’s thesis that legitimised revolution in extraordinary circumstances of oppression or injustice as had been the Founding Fathers’ justification for war with the British and eventual independence. It was thought that a nation with a facility such as this could never be subjugated or oppressed.

4 The United States is no longer a frontier society or a novel, experimental democracy. Many of the practical everyday reasons that motivated the Second Amendment are no longer relevant. In a twenty-first century America - many of the original concerns could, potentially at least, be construed as archaic or perhaps, hyper-vigilant. This consideration is combined with the technological evolution of firearms and the problematic nature of delimiting, in this technologically advanced era, what constitutes ‘arms’ and what it is to ‘bear’ them. Are tactical nuclear weapons ‘arms’ in the sense that the framers of the Second Amendment envisioned them? Should one be entitled to ‘bear’ a bazooka? In answering this question the efficacy of the weapon in its intended purpose seems to be a less relevant factor than the manner of its conveyance. A previous Supreme Court judgement has delimited what is meant by ‘arms’ and what it is to ‘bear’ them (United States v. Miller, 1939). The Supreme Court recognised conventional firearms as being appropriate to the term ‘arms’ and therefore recognises all the ballistic descendants of the standard eighteenth century musket as being appropriate to this category. One is, therefore, entitled to ‘keep’ and ‘bear’ such a weapon in accordance with their constitutional rights, for the purposes of recreation or self-defence. Rapid firing semi-automatic rifles have been deemed to be appropriate to this category of weapon even though their rate of fire exceeds their technological antecedents by a factor of (conservatively) twenty or more.

ii United States Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. Firearms. 2008.

5 In the United States there are approximately thirty-three thousand gunshot fatalities per annum. Roughly 95% of these fall into the category of either homicide or suicide. The remaining 5% is divided between fatalities which are classified as ‘accidental’ or a smaller number that are deemed to fall under the category of ‘lawful’ (or ‘justifiable’) homicide. The majority of ‘justifiable’ homicides are the result of ‘legal intervention’ by law enforcement agencies as opposed to private citizens ii . This begs the question, especially it must be said from a European perspective, why is the Second Amendment so fervently guarded from interference or limitation? How - especially in the context of contemporary American society where the firearm has become so synonymous with crime, suicide and random massacres perpetrated by psychotics and terrorists - can the Second Amendment elicit the support that it has and remain entirely unaltered? It is a hugely divisive issue in which social and technological reality is pitted against political inheritance. The terms through which these rights are afforded through this amendment are hotly debated and the fact remains, that the rule of law is final, that the law in its original terms is paramount and any attempt to dilute or amend the words incarnate of the fathers and authors of the national inheritance (Founding Fathers) is a momentous and highly contentious task.

District of Columbia v Heller (2008)

iii Gallup. Guns. 2016 & Pew Research. 2016.

iv Tocqueville. Democracy. 106.

6 The Supreme Court case of the District of Colombia v Heller (2008) exemplifies the parameters of this debate and also highlights the focus on the hermeneutical examination of the original text and its meaning. The fact that roughly half of Americans favour controls or limitations on the ownership of firearms is not reflected in Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment (~ 46 – 55% respondents depending on the question asked & the investigating body/polling company) iii . If we accept for a moment that the majority of the American populace favours gun control (as Gallup currently suggests and most polls suggested at the time of DC v Heller in 2008) – this case counters prevailing attitudes to this issue. It rests as a classic example of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ (as envisaged by Tocqueville who popularised the phrase) being thwarted by due process, the rule of law and a Supreme Court judiciary’s absolute devotion to the literal text of the Constitution and its Amendments iv . The Court’s decision rested almost solely on their interpretation of the single line that is the Second Amendment. In the case of D.C. v Heller, a local law in Washington D.C. that had regulated the ownership of firearms (especially handguns) was constitutionally challenged under the provisions of that amendment. This local law in Washington D.C. (which was typical of many municipal districts in the United States) ensured (in summary) that the registration of handguns was restricted and that firearms kept in the home were to be either disassembled or have their triggers locked with a specialised locking mechanism. The court found this municipal law to be unconstitutional and contrary to Second Amendment rights.

7 Precedent with regard to the Second Amendment is relatively limited so this case focussed overwhelmingly on the substance of the text of the amendment. If the court found in favour of Heller’s petition and struck down the D.C. law - it would place firearms restrictions all over the United States in constitutional peril. The opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, began its assessment of the issue at hand by explicating the terms through which the amendment was to be assessed. Justice Scalia outlined the semantic context in the following terms:

v District of Columbia v Heller. 554 U.S. (2008). 3. The Second Amendment is divided into two parts; its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose…..Although the structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of State Constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose. v

vi Milbank, Gun Laws. 2008.

8 Such semantic precision is of course endemic to constitutional law all over the world. The function of constitutional courts everywhere is to debate the letter of the law and to pass judgement as appropriate. The difference with the United States and the textual analysis endemic to US constitutional law is that that law is hallowed and nationally revered. It is perceived and acknowledged as a political inheritance from the all-knowing, near infallible composers of that law. This loyalty to the letter of the law, the relative immunity of that law from change or modification, combined with the very prevalent ruminations on the exact intent of the Framers or even speculation as to what might have been their opinion on a current legal conundrum - suggests more than a simple loyalty to the letter of the law and its practical implementation. It suggests something beyond that, approaching a type of civil devotion to the heroic initiators of the nation. vi

vii District of Columbia v Heller. 554 U.S., 2008: 7

9 The opinion of the court in the case of D.C. v Heller, in its assessment of the operative clause of the Second Amendment, seeks to forensically examine the words employed and their meanings. The word ‘arms’ is defined with reference to eighteenth and nineteenth century dictionaries and is found to have much the same meaning as it does today vii . This is also the case with the relevant verbs to ‘keep’ and to ‘bear’. However, the court found that the phrase to ‘bear arms’ was not limited to military service or attachment to a militia.

viii Ibid., 554 U.S. (2008). 11. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organised militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to ‘bear arms in defence of themselves and the state’…. It is clear from those formulations that ‘bear arms’ did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organised military unit. viii

10 The focus is on context. The context in which the words were composed is paramount and an exact understanding of the implications of their meaning is sought. The original context trumps any pretence toward a reflection on contemporary conditions and the court restricts itself to interpreting eighteenth century logic and motivation.

ix Ibid., 12 The Phrase ‘bear arms’ also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: ‘to serve as a soldier, to do military service, fight’ or ‘to wage war.’ But it unequivocally bore that meaning only when followed by the preposition ‘against’ which in turn was followed by the target of the hostilities. ix

11 The Justices have assumed a theological/hermeneutical role in relation to constitutional law. Theirs’ is a task in which they must decipher the intent of the Framers of the constitution, the nation’s ‘Founding Fathers’. They must explicate what these intentions were and seek to apply them to contemporary society. Constitutional law in the United States is conducted on the assumption that all constitutional issues can be resolved through a conclusive hermeneutical interpretation of the letter of the law through which the most equitable and politically expedient resolution can be divined . We see this here with this semantic dissection of the single sentence that incorporates the Second Amendment. The Constitution represents the blueprint for freedom, liberty and all the other basic elements of the ‘American Creed’ while also demonstrating the limits and scope of these basic founding principles. A true America is beholden to this framework through which it was conceived as a nation.

x Ibid., 16, 29 & 31 respectively.

xi Ibid., 16.

12 This case is also typical in its references to the architects of the Constitution and the nation. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and other such historical luminaries are mentioned through the course of the opinion of the court in this case. x References to these national heroes and their private notes, annotations and drafts of the Constitution and other founding documents, are thought to offer key insights into the exact motivations and intentions of the framers of the Constitution and the other Founding Fathers. In the course of the legal archaeology that is U.S. Constitutional law, minute details amongst the private papers or public statements of the Founding Fathers provide clues and yield critical insight into the exact intentions of these revered national heroes of the initiation of the nation. James Madison’s original draft of the Second Amendment included a ‘conscientious objector clause’ that followed the text of the final draft with an additional clause which stated “…but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” xi Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent, contended that this original draft betrayed the fact that Madison’s intention in relation to the right to bear arms was inextricably linked to service in a militia at the behest of the federal state and was therefore a matter for military expedience rather than a personal and absolute right to possess firearms. This original clause, which was designed to facilitate the pacifist Quaker population resident in the United States, is used as current evidential support for a specific idea of what a key framer of the Constitution’s precise intentions were. Justices Scalia and Stevens argue and counter-argue over this provision that only ever reached the draft stage. This argument over a provision that would only ever be hypothetically included in the amendment demonstrates the gravitas of the most thoughtful ruminations or, conversely, the merest whims of the Framers of the Constitution. The Constitution rests as a body of law and the culmination of an existential and political consideration of the rights of the citizen and the operation of the government that was to oversee his/her welfare by men who came to be regarded as the heroic and ingenious ‘fathers’ of the nation. Their official words enshrined in the Constitution or, equally, their personal or temporary drafts, ruminations or conjecture have become sacrosanct and carry a weight unmatched in a contemporary context.

xii Ibid., 29.

13 Justice Scalia countered Justice Stevens’ argument by demonstrating that the Quaker exemption was an exemption from military service alone, it was a separate issue and in no way had any bearing on the right to bear arms in a general sense. This inquiry into the exact motives of the political ancestors of the nation continues with a speculative examination of what Thomas Jefferson would have thought about the matter. Jefferson, whilst drafting of the Constitution of the State of Virginia (which pre-dated the Federal Constitution), proposed the clause “No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements.” xii His proposed draft was omitted. The fact that Jefferson was away at the time of the composition of the Federal Constitution – preoccupied as he was in his role as ambassador to France - does not inhibit the Supreme Court from including in their consideration, Jefferson’s clear endorsement (on, at least, that occasion) of free and unimpeded ownership of firearms. Jefferson’s endorsement of the right, through a proposed clause in a separate constitution, lends weight to the argument and the finding of the court in support of Second Amendment rights.

xiii Ibid., 31.

14 Likewise, Samuel Adams is cited as someone who, through the composition of a state constitution (Massachusetts), made explicit his alleged support for personal ownership as opposed to ownership being tied exclusively to service in a militia xiii . This was also raised as evidential support for Second Amendment rights. The political inheritance of the nation is embodied in the ones who codified the nation’s elementary rights and design of government. The laws they enshrined and even the drafts that were proposed to be included in those laws but were ultimately rejected, colour contemporary decisions in a manner that is unmatched in any other Western democracy. The ideas that they enshrined at the point of their quills pervade fundamental ideological questions that are faced by the technologically advanced, globalised America of today. The Constitution is canonical and absolute. Interpretations of the hallowed text are, however, simultaneously beholden to the personal philosophies and political opinions of the heroic and ingenious patriarchy that composed the document and instigated the nation.

15 The hermeneutic and eschatological deciphering continues with an examination of contemporary public discourse and interpretations of the Constitution as well as established political philosophy and political inheritance of the day that undoubtedly coloured the existential predisposition of the framers of the document. In his delivery of the opinion of the court Justice Scalia quotes a roughly contemporary debate in the House of Lords at Westminster in which a certain Lord Richmond

xiv Ibid., 18. … described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as ‘a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defence’. In response, another member of Parliament referred to ‘the right of bearing arms for personal defence’ making clear that no special meaning for ‘keep and bear arms’ was intended in the discussion. xiv

16 The separate trajectory of English (later British) law regarding firearms is, of course, entirely arbitrary at this point. What is key to the argument is a contemporary interpretation of a mutual linguistic and political inheritance that is exemplified by these quotations. There is also an acknowledgement that this law was of the same legalistic lineage, namely the Act of Succession (1689) and the English Bill of Rights, and the key point is that these quotations help to delimit the exact meaning of the short phrase that is the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia engages in an extensive forensic dissection of seventeenth and eighteenth century English law and political discourse to further explicate the exact motivations behind the amendment. His focus was the issue of whether or not the Second Amendment was solely intended to facilitate the mobilisation of a militia or, was it in fact, to guarantee the personal right to possess firearms - as was ultimately concluded by a majority opinion of the court. To this end, the Game Act of 1671 is analysed in terms of how the Stuart monarchies attempted to restrict access to firearms by individual citizens and the English Bill of Rights is held as a direct response to what was perceived of as the threat of the Stuart regime to this established civil liberty. In an analysis of the English canon of law of the era preceding the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, an attempt is made to prove that the individual right to bear arms was foremost in the minds of the composers of this ancestral law to the American version. Further to this, William Blackstone who was a professor of law in England roughly at the time of the composition of the U.S. Constitution is referred to on numerous occasions through the course of the opinion of the court. Blackstone’s ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’ is considered a classic interpretation of Common Law and is relied on heavily by the court in order to ascertain a precise interpretation of the American version that the English canon of law had inadvertently contrived to initiate. US Constitutional law is inevitably conscious of the exact law as inherited. Beyond this, it takes cognisance of the political temperament and philosophy of those who composed that law as well as the political inheritance of that era which served to shape that law. The court engages in a type of eschatological, secular-theological inquiry in which the gospel of the nation is deciphered and solutions to social and political problems are divined through the hallowed words of the text and speculative analysis of the precise intentions of its authors.

17 In a chapter that analyses the ‘Golden Age’ of nations in Anthony D. Smith’s Chosen Peoples , Smith describes heroic ages and nascent epoch of the nation as follows:

xv Smith. Chosen. 175. Heroic and creative types of golden age often coexist in the same cultural community as cultural resources and as sacred pasts. Both can be used for purposes of legitimation and mobilization, but they may also be held in respect, even reverence, setting a standard that is hard to equal, let alone surpass. xv

18 It is doubtless that America’s Founding Fathers have ‘set a standard’ in this context and this fact is very obviously demonstrated by the reverence exhibited for the words of their political bequest to the nation. Of course, the US Supreme Court will resort to jurisprudence and regularly does. Equally the other branches of government will seek to advance or evolve the law according to the standards of the day or what’s typically termed ‘evolving standards of decency’. In that sense there is a very real effort to ‘surpass’ the ‘golden age’. However, all of this typically transpires in the context of estimating all political and legal action in the context of its constitutionality and therefore its validity in relation to the key terms set by the founders.

xvi Billig. Banal.

19 Michael Billig conceives of nationalism as persisting in the mundane, in institutional practice and beyond the fervour of nation building. He sees nationalism as equally prevalent in the institutional practices of established western nations as it is in the caldron of conflict and active struggle of nascent nations. The US Supreme Court’s routine deference to the authors of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights conforms to what Billig would conceive of as an ‘unflagged’ habitual expression of the nation’s core ideology and communal values xvi .

20 This dormant nationalism of the established nation is continuously reinforced. Billig utilises the verb ‘flag’ in order to demonstrate how nationalism is hugely endemic in more established nations albeit in a more subtle manner. The flag of the developing nationality, accompanied as it is so often, with a banner of protest or threat of violence is an overt ‘flagging’ of nationhood in support of the nationalist cause or struggle. The routine display of a flag in the established nation is an ‘unflagged’ nationalistic ritual. It is ‘banal’ in that it is unexceptional and uncontested. It is through this accepted status that it melts into the background and continues to exist in the everyday fabric of society. Billig’s use of the term ‘flagging’ encompasses all of the subtle reminders of nationhood. He describes how the nation is ‘flagged’ continuously and during the course of the most ordinary, everyday events including the practice of law and jurisprudence. Billig regards this as a subtle reinforcement of the nation, positioning the nation’s undoubted sovereignty as a most fundamental, given, fact of life in the minds of its citizenry. Equally, it could be argued, it serves to ingrain national ethos, delimit absolutes for that nation and identify the exemplary, the ideal type, the national hero and works to expound his/her/their values or perceived values. This conception of what constitutes nationalism is seen by Billig to exempt established nations from treatments that analyse their everyday, ordinary, ‘banal’ nationalisms. The subtle nationalism of the nation that is without a political cause or threat is lost to the spectacle of violent insurrection and the drama of the rhetoric of the freedom-fighter, terrorist, neo-fascist, or any exponent of the underdeveloped or unrequited nationalist cause.

21 Following Billig’s model of banal, ingrained nationalism, the essence of American nationalism emerges in the narrative of its inception and the institutional reverence for that formative era and the key characters that played a role in the birth of the nation. Radical in its conception, novel in its nature and scope, benevolent in its intent, the foundation of the United States exists for Americans as a permanent template for nationhood. It exists as the ideal moment in time and space. A perennial reminder. The parameters of governance and the ideology that is enshrined in the founding documents resulted in national devotion to the heroic characters that oversaw and implemented independence. National regard for the events of that era and the heroic characters of the narrative of independence are imperative to the inculcation of what is perceived of as the essential America and the Volksgeist of that nation as well as the practical workings of key institutions of state such as the Supreme Court.

22 America is exemplified by the aspirations of that time. It is in this regard that a most banal volksgeist emerges. The United States, through its origins, represents ‘Liberty’, ‘Justice’ and a myriad of other positive aspirations that fly in the face of tyranny and oppression. The manner in which organs of the state such as the Supreme Court harbour an institutional reverence for the figures of this era illustrates - for the nation - the foresight of the founders’ actions. This combined with the continuing success of the adoption and maintenance of their ideological departures lends immeasurable gravitas. Their actions are considered providential and vindicated through the flourishing of successive generations that ascribed to the original vision of the nation. They reside as heroes in the nation’s history and are seen to typify all that is positive about the United States. This represents a communal acceptance of a given fact, a largely indisputable historical precedent that the nation is expected to remain faithful to. Within Billig’s framework this fulfils the criteria of banal nationalism as observed throughout the western world. It contains all the trappings of a banal nationalism in that there is a perceived inherent superiority of the domestic political and ideological inheritance, and it is through this convention that it is transmitted through the generations as a noble and distinct departure. It is also uncontested, a given, taken for granted as it is and exists on the periphery of the conscious mind as a pillar of national self-perception.

A Sacred Text

23 Constitutional law throughout the world is invariably subject to semantic dissection as is practised in the United States. As law is codified and continuously interpreted a re-evaluation of the text that embodies that law is unavoidable - especially as novel legal circumstances arise. The United States and its Constitution is unique however in that constitutional law in that country moves beyond simple semantics and into the realm of what can only be called hermeneutics. Nowhere else are the intentions and personal philosophies of those that composed the law more readily assessed and debated. The analysis of the Constitution does not stop at the technical reality of language. It moves beyond this. It extends to the motivations and political inheritance of the framers of the document and even into the realm of speculation as to what they would perceive of a current legal conundrum. In this context, law is a cultural and political inheritance. It is a template through which correct action is to be forensically sought as the text itself endures - perceived as it is as an infallible guide to the operation of a society edging it ever closer to a sort of projected utopian perfection. In essence, all the clues to ideal and correct living are seen to be encoded between its lines and it is up to the contemporary generation to ensure that a legal and often, through that, a political exegesis is to be extracted in order to ensure a more satisfactory society.

24 This kind of institutionalised devotion to the words of the initiators of a communal group (the nation) is a characteristic of religious devotion and adherence. Likewise, the hermeneutic exercise is one that is, of course, inherited from Biblical inquiry and the struggle to provide a precise guide for the conduct of a truly Christian life through a precise scholarly interpretation of the word of God. Hermeneutics, therefore, entails the theory and methodology of interpretation of an established text (traditionally - Scripture). In theology, hermeneutics denotes the method through which Biblical exegesis is achieved. It is through this that it is thought that the secrets of a good and righteous life will be unlocked. The method of the Supreme Court is hermeneutical in the sense that it dissects the text of the document in the traditional manner of hermeneutical inquiry that sought to decode ‘truth’ and meaning from divinely inspired texts. The Supreme Court seeks to extrapolate fundamental meaning from a secular equivalent in a civil setting with the goal of administering and preserving justice. It seeks to identify the manner in which the essential American nationalist philosophy was conceived and ensures that it continues to be propagated through this hallowed document and contemporary interpretations of it. It remains faithful to the archetypal model of America that was constitutionally cast in the wake of its successful revolution.

xvii Ferguson, Phenomenological. 75.

25 The Reformation is recognised as the source of modern hermeneutics. The translation of the Bible into the vernacular, the theological arguments that ensued as well as the questioning of religious dogma, all hastened the necessity of a more clinical and interpretive brand of biblical scholarship. Harvie Ferguson points to the fact that the continuous problems with translation and contextualisation made apparent the fact ‘…no text could, in fact speak for itself…’, xvii no more so than when conflicting translations and contextualisations were emerging unabated. The narratives, events and types of experiences that the Bible sought to convey were inevitably compromised and in many instances, related in a contradictory manner. Exact meaning was, inevitably, elusive. The use of hermeneutics to define and ‘divine’ the meaning of scripture was a reflection the autonomous culture of Protestant biblical scholarship in general and the rejection of dogmatic religious authority with its monopoly of interpretation of the word of God. The Reformation bred this questioning analysis of scripture and through that a similar analysis of all textual testament as the written (or more pertinently, the printed) word became the cornerstone of Western civilisation. Harvie Ferguson puts it best with the following contention:

xviii Ibid. 75. This view is readily generalizable to all texts and, as in modernity all reality can be viewed as representations, everything that appears externally to be given as a world is best understood textually. All human activity is a process of active interpretation of the world in which it finds itself and which forms its arena. Hermeneutics is just the methodological implication of modernity as human self-activity; as the declaration of autonomy in which modernity is inaugurated. xviii

xix Dithey, Poetry. 35.

26 Wilhelm Dilthey highlighted the vital role of a communal and historical ‘processes’ in the construction of consciousness and through that, hermeneutics. Dilthey focussed on the role of these factors in the development of a communally acceptable hermeneutic interpretation of and consensus on what constitutes reality and what can be accepted as fact. Historical consciousness in the formation of national and other communal attitudes became hugely important in the eyes of Dilthey. He saw it as symptomatic of modernity that we have all become aware and appreciative of the historical inheritance of the communal group. Each group has a distinctive perspective on the nature of their own distinctive communal history and what it has meant. Dilthey describes how ‘We have entered an age of historical consciousness. We feel surrounded by an entire past’ xix and consequentially have become more hermeneutically inclined as that past maintains its relevance into the present and beyond. Interpretation is an imperative. It has emerged in modernity as the most natural of human inclinations. It must, however, still be based on a communal, transcendental set of precepts which orientate all enquiry toward a sustainable path that is of perennial value that transcends contemporary contexts to remain immutable as an entity in itself. As is the case with the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution.

xx Ibid., 59.

27 It is here that we observe the vitality of hermeneutics as we witness the perpetual interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Dilthey’s acknowledgement of the role of history in the human appraisal of the world that surrounds us led him to explore how the world of science and philosophy is influenced by this human consciousness of how the world is historically and socially constructed through cumulative knowledge acquired and modified through the ages. This ‘…totality of human existence through reflection…’ xx that emerged through the ages, furnishes us with a body of knowledge, that is historically constructed and so, colours our perception of what is current (e.g. the right to own and possess a firearm conceived of as a sacred political inheritance). Dilthey’s historical rationale provided a framework with which to assess the objectification of what he called the ‘human spirit’. Dilthey sought to provide specific examples of this objectification in action and did so through an assessment of various arenas of human endeavour including hermeneutics itself. He believed that our historical understanding was critical in our assessment of all action and circumstances. Concrete manifestations of the transcendental human spirit and references to it are imperative to our approach to all the elementary questions and novel scenarios that greet the communal group. The hermeneutical enterprise exists then as a rudimentary of human existence and a cornerstone of civilisation, manifesting itself in the most profound fashion as the goals and norms of society are questioned or contested in many arenas – not least of which being the law.

xxi Ricouer. Fallible.

28 Paul Ricoeur takes up this theme from Dilthey and stresses the importance of the Western tradition of narrative and textuality. Ricoeur engaged in a broad examination of the nature of consciousness and perception in the Western World throughout history. He sought to decipher the nature of our consciousness of this world and how humanity ‘interprets’ the new and as yet undefined throughout the course of history. His preoccupation is the manner of interpretation and the nature of the development of knowledge or standards for human behaviour. This is surveyed through an acknowledgement that the sum of human knowledge and perception ‘transcends consciousness’ or lives beyond singular perception. In short, we are a product of the world that we inherited and the hermeneuticism of many generations. However, Ricoeur maintains that in reality, this transcendental spirit does not detract from the fact that all that is transcendent is constituted in the conscious mind in order to be maintained and quantified. The mysterious, transcendental spirit has to be located and comprehended through what is an ultimately hermeneutic undertaking that seeks to define what is abstract and evasive. Ricoeur pointed to human fault and the hermeneutic preoccupation with defining what is evil, sinful or profane as was the original focal point of hermeneutics. xxi Harvie Ferguson outlines Ricoeur’s assessment of the implications of this hermeneutic focus on human fault:

xxii Ferguson. Phenomenological. 79. From defilement, through sin, to evil, the incomprehensible, as well as the transparently meaningful, has a cultural history and hermeneutics includes both in a developing and dynamic interrelation. Where hermeneutics began in a critical examination of the sacred text, it has been transformed with the development of modernity into an immanent social practice through which humanity takes account of its own impenetrability…. There is no uninterpreted social reality; but nor is there a single coherent ‘story’ that adequately interprets that reality. Society is the arena of hermeneutic contestation. xxii

29 The arena of law is frequently discussed in terms of where the realms of the sacred and profane collide. It is here that they converge and contest. It is not only where crime meets justice or where deviance is greeted by punishment but also in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, where society finds its moral equilibrium. Ethical and moral questions are hermeneutically divined from the template of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Justices can be conceived of as oracles of the age and the Court itself can be considered a type of American Delphi in which the eschatological issues that plague and persist in American society are at least partly resolved. Arbitration by the Supreme Court rests on the critical loyalty to the Constitution. This ‘sacred’ document acts practically and symbolically as the epistle of the fabric of American nationalistic sentiment and is the essence of the civil religion of state. It is pertinent to note that such arena of institutional contestation that seeks to define the standards of a society should take such a distinctly hermeneutic form just as Ricoeur observed of society in general.

30 Dilthey and Ricoeur’s perception of hermeneutics, with their emphasis on historical understanding and inheritance, is reflected in public regard for constitutional law in the U.S. We see the system of precedent combining with the esteem for the pure and original words of the Framers of the document to produce a brand of hermeneutics not unlike the conventional study of scripture that hastened its development. Christianity operates on the assumption of biblical inerrancy. In that context, hermeneutic anxiousness for accuracy existed in order to precisely convey the letter of that word which is considered infallible: the word of God. A precise analysis of the Constitution is vital as the archetypal canon of law that initiated the nation equally necessitates a precise and accurate interpretation. Supreme Court Justices operate in a sense as custodians of the moral and political standards of the nation and the ultimate scholastic authority on the intentions of the perfected heroes/prophets that forged this key national inheritance. They are the guardians of the political and judicial inheritance of America and the perennial archetype that composes the civil religion of the state. In a nation in which almost everything that is of public interest is televised, including legal proceedings, the Supreme Court remains sacrosanct and immune to the pervasive intrusion of the television camera. It persists as one of the few sacrosanct arenas, beyond this crass invasion and a sacred proceeding in terms of public and institutional estimation. The Justices that preside over constitutional law, masterfully interpret its intrinsic meaning and bestow precedent upon subsequent generations as they deem warranted and are seen to be engaged in the holiest of acts within the framework of the civil religion of state. Hermeneutic interpretation in this context is the vital, sacred, observable operation of the state in the perennial tradition of the hallowed and benevolent national ideology. It is, therefore, a definitive component of the civil religion of the nation devoted to deciphering the will of those that founded that nation.

xxiii Hammond, Constitutional Faith. 1989.

xxiv Ibid., 380.

31 Phillip E. Hammond who co-authored ‘Varieties of Civil Religion’ with Robert Bellah, explores this same theme in an article entitled ‘Constitutional Faith, Legitimating Myth, Civil Religion’ that included a review of ‘Constitutional Faith’ by Constitutional Law Professor Sanford Levinson. xxiii Hammond begins the article by exploring the nature of what he refers to as a ‘legitimating myth’, the largely agreed upon parameters according to which the nation (any nation) is defined. He points out the fact that such a legitimating myth will be understood differently by different segments of the relevant society. Just as a more basic myth may be understood as allegorical or literal by different elements of a society, the U.S. Constitution also elicits different levels of understanding and engagement. Hammond cites the example of how the Constitution can hang on the wall of a home, unread or not precisely understood but operating nonetheless, as a tacit symbolisation of what the nation represents to an individual citizen. Conversely, the Constitution can be equally as potently symbolic for the Harvard Law Professor who appreciates its intrinsic value on an altogether different level, acutely aware as s/he may be of aspects that s/he finds flawed or imperfect. This communal, legitimating myth appeals on differing levels and facilitates an adherence to the civil religion of the state regardless of a citizen’s exact engagement or understanding of the document. Hammond regards the Constitution as more than a simple symbol of the nation. He sees it as a sacred document, vital to a civil religion. It is here that Hammond makes the important distinction between patriotism and civil religion. He concedes that patriotism is something that may be ‘created’ or constructed. Civil religion on the other hand is a different matter. Hammond says that though patriotism can be ‘created’, religion, by its very nature must be ‘encountered’ and he believes that such a contention is as true of civil religion as any conventional religion; “Patriotism is wilful, and individuals can share in it to varying degrees; religion exists , whether or not individuals are aware of it or agree with it.” xxiv It is in this conception of the fundamental nature of religious adherence or even worship and thinking of it as a phenomenon that is to be ‘encountered’, that the true spirit of constitutional faith emerges.

xxv Durkheim. Sociological Method. 7.

xxvi Hammond, Constitutional Faith. 384.

xxvii Ibid., 389.

32 It has inherent to it more than the direct symbolisations of the flag or the anthem or the heroic national narratives. It is, of course, much more than a symbolic myth. The Constitution is the ideological and institutional facilitator of the national communion. It is a critical reality of the nation and a tangible continuance of the perennial national ideal. It exists beyond the individual, it is the communal social fact and through that - it elicits the devotion of the individual xxv . Hammond describes how the veneration of an object such as the Constitution “…may reflect its role as symbol…” xxvi He qualifies this however by insisting that the communal spirit connected to that symbol must precede the symbolisation. The object is not the foundation for this sense of community, the object emerges as a symbol of that community by virtue of the fact that the sacred can only be ‘encountered’ and cannot be ‘created’. In short, community itself trumps symbolic manifestations of that communal group. A final point that Phillip Hammond makes in relation to the Constitution concerns the issue of unity. The consideration of the Constitution as a facilitator of national unity and esprit is slightly ironic in the sense that the Constitution and the Supreme Court are, by their very nature, an object and an arena of contestation and even discord. Hammond confronts this anomaly by pointing to the Constitution as not so much a symbolic something that will unify Americans morally but as “…a vehicle for expressing moral unity” in that country and the agreed upon arbitrator of what morally divides, accentuating the command of national reverence for this secular sacred text. xxvii

33 This assessment of constitutional law combined with the method through which the Supreme Court analyses the cases with which it is presented and the manner in which they arrive at their decision (as outlined in the previous section) reveal a profound devotion to the words of the founders. The semantic dissection, the hermeneutic trawling through the lines of the Constitution, the emphasis on a true and precise interpretation and loyalty to the ones who composed the original draft over two hundred years ago are the hallmark of U.S. Constitutional Law. The lines of the Constitution are sacred and symbolic to the nation of all that is good and right about that nation. The Framers enjoy an aura of secular prophets that bequeathed to the nation a framework for good government and good citizenship as well as a system of what can only be called ‘clues’ to the path for an equitable, just society and a route to a more satisfactory and idealistic existence. Their genius is institutionally lauded and their words are all but final. In this ground-breaking document, inherited from English Common Law and perfected through a native ingenuity, a righteous path to an existential ideal is illuminated and signals for Americans and, perhaps, humanity in general - the ontological route to (or pretension toward) an earthly imitation of eternal paradise. This secular gospel inspired by a native genius and an actualisation of Enlightenment philosophy, or perhaps for the non-secularist believer, inspired by divine power itself, maps the true course to providence and is perceived as a blueprint for the secular utopia and the perfected, egalitarian homeland. As Supreme Court Justices sift through the sacred conclusions of the Founding Fathers, their task is to divine what is right and just and what is truest to the framework of the Constitution which continuously operates as a template for nationhood.

34 The Constitution, assuming as it does the trappings of a sacred text along with the institutional reverence for its exact words and an acknowledgement of the genius of those who composed it – has, all in all, an air of the holy . It is, in many ways, irreproachable. It is debated and hermeneutically scrutinized as close to infallible. It is discussed in reverential tones that suggest it is something prized beyond all in the pantheon of national symbols and artefacts. Institutionally, communally and mundanely it contains the distinct trappings of the holy. It is in this hermeneutical odyssey that is the canon of American constitutional case-law and jurisprudence that the Constitution maintains its vitality and relevance. The hermeneutic contestation that, by its very nature, constitutional law ensures - commands attention and devotion as it persists as the living, breathing embodiment of the American ideal. Hermeneutics lends vitality as the sacred text exists as something that is not absolutely definitive but is, rather, a sacred guide and template.

35 The Constitution is the solid base from which reactions to a world in a state of interminable flux can be reconciled with the core ideal of what America should entail. It is from the un-shifting edifice of the Constitution, the unyielding faith in the wisdom of those that composed it and the acknowledgement of the Supreme Court as the ultimate, apolitical arbitrator and interpreters-in-chief of the nation’s political inheritance that the definitive, practical implementation of what is right can be imparted. This transpires in accordance with the doctrine of the civil religion of the state and it is through this that the nationalistic ideal of the United States is tended and renewed.

Bibliography

Bellah, R. N. “Civil Religion in America”. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences . Vol. 96, No. 1, (1967). Pg. 1-21.

Billig, M. Banal Nationalism . London: Sage. 1997.

Bork, R. H. The Tempting of America; The Political Seduction of the Law . New York: Touchstone. 1991.

Capps, W. H. Religious Studies . Minneapolis: Fortress. 1995.

Dilthey, Wilhelm. Poetry and Experience. Translation, Makkreel, R.A. and Rodi, F., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 1985.

Dilthey, Wilhelm. The Formation of the Historical World in the Human Sciences , Translation, Makkreel, R.A. and Rodi, F., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 2002.

District of Columbia v Heller. 554 U.S. Opinion of the Court. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf [accessed 10 Mar 2013] 2008.

Durkheim, Emile. The Rules of the Sociological Method Translation: Sollovay, S.& Mueller J.H., London: Collier-Macmillian. 1966.

Ferguson, Harvie. Phenomenological Sociology . London: Sage. 2006.

Gallup. 2007. “Shrunken Majority Now Favours Stricter Gun Laws”. http://www.gallup.com/poll/101731/Shrunken-Majority-Now-Favors-Stricter-Gun-Laws.aspx [accessed 20 Feb 2014]. 2007.

Gallup. 2016. “Guns”. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx . [accessed 3 March 2017].

Hammond, Philip. “Constitutional Faith, Legitimating Myth”. Civil Religion, Law and Social Enquiry . Vol. 14, No.2. (1989). Pg. 377-391.

Hutchinson, John & Smith, Anthony D. Nationalism . Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1994.

Lipset, Seymour Martin. American Exceptionalism. New York: Norton. 1997.

Locke, John. Of Civil Government . London: Dent. 1924.

Milbank, Dana. ‘Verily these Justices have Gun Laws in their Sights’. The Irish Times. 20 March 2008, available; http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0320/1205706721320.html[accessed 25 March 2008]. 2008.

Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy . Translation: Harvey, J.W. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1958.

Ozkirimli, Umut. Theories of Nationalism . Basingstoke: Macmillan Press. 2000.

Pew Research. 2016. Gun Rights vs. Gun Control. http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/26/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/#total [accessed 3 March 2017].

Ricouer, Paul. Fallible Man . Translation: Kelbley, Charles. New York: Fordham University Press. 1986.

Ricoeur, Paul. From Text to Action . Translation: Blamey K. & Thompson, J.B., London: Athlone. 1991.

Scribner, R.W. The German Reformation . Basingstoke: Macmillan Press. 1986.

Smith, Anthony D. Chosen Peoples; Sacred Sources of National Identity . New York: Oxford University Press. 2003.

Smith, Anthony D. National Identity . London: Penguin. 1991.

Toqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America . Translation: Grant, S., Indianapolis: Hackett. 2000.

United States Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. Death by Firearms Statistics. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html [accessed 20 Feb 2014] 2008.

v District of Columbia v Heller. 554 U.S. (2008). 3.

viii Ibid., 554 U.S. (2008). 11.

ix Ibid., 12

xiv Ibid., 18.

xv Smith. Chosen. 175.

xviii Ibid. 75.

xxii Ferguson. Phenomenological. 79.

Electronic reference

John McNamara , “The Fight to Bear Arms: Challenging the Second Amendment and the U.S. Constitution as a Sacred Text” , European journal of American studies [Online], 12-2 | 2017, document 15, Online since 01 August 2017 , connection on 16 April 2024 . URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ejas/12179; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/ejas.12179

About the author

John mcnamara.

Cited Names

Full text issues

19-1 | 2024 Special Issue: Figurations of Interspecies Harmony in North American Literature and Culture
18-4 | 2023 Special Issue: Memory, Identity, Belonging: Narratives of Eastern and Central European Presence in North America
18-3 | 2023 Special Issue: Obsessions in Melville and Hawthorne
18-2 | 2023 Summer 2023
18-1 | 2023 Special Issue: Hamilton and the Poetics of America
17-4 | 2022 The Boredoms of Late Modernity
17-3 | 2022 Special Issue: Louisa May Alcott and Love: A European Seminar in Rome
17-2 | 2022 Summer 2022
17-1 | 2022 The Greek War of Independence and the United States: Narratives of Myth and Reality
16-4 | 2021 The American Neuronovel (2009-2021)
16-3 | 2021 Special Issue: Video Games and/in American Studies: Politics, Popular Culture, and Populism
16-2 | 2021 Summer 2021
16-1 | 2021 Spring 2021
15-4 | 2020 Special Issue: Contagion and Conviction: Rumor and Gossip in American Culture
15-3 | 2020 Special Issue: Media Agoras: Islamophobia and Inter/Multimedial Dissensus
15-2 | 2020 Summer 2020
15-1 | 2020 Special Issue: Truth or Post-Truth? Philosophy, American Studies, and Current Perspectives in Pragmatism and Hermeneutics
14-4 | 2019 Special Issue: Spectacle and Spectatorship in American Culture
14-3 | 2019 Special Issue: Harriet Prescott Spofford: The Home, the Nation, and the Wilderness
14-2 | 2019 Summer 2019
14-1 | 2019 Special Issue: Race Matters: 1968 as Living History in the Black Freedom Struggle
13-4 | 2018 Special Issue: Envisioning Justice: Mediating the Question of Rights in American Visual Culture
13-3 | 2018 Special Issue: America to Poland: Cultural Transfers and Adaptations
13-2 | 2018 Summer 2018
13-1 | 2018 Special Issue: Animals on American Television
12-4 | 2017 Special Issue: Sound and Vision: Intermediality and American Music
12-3 | 2017 Special Issue of the European Journal of American Studies: Cormac McCarthy Between Worlds
12-2 | 2017 Summer 2017, including Special Issue: Popularizing Politics: The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
12-1 | 2017 Spring 2017: Special Issue - Eleanor Roosevelt and Diplomacy in the Public Interest
11-3 | 2017 Special Issue: Re-Queering The Nation: America’s Queer Crisis
11-2 | 2016 Summer 2016
11-1 | 2016 Special Issue: Intimate Frictions: History and Literature in the United States from the 19th to the 21st Century
10-3 | 2015 Special Double Issue: The City
10-2 | 2015 Summer 2015, including Special Issue: (Re)visioning America in the Graphic Novel
10-1 | 2015 Special Issue: Women in the USA
9-3 | 2014 Special Issue: Transnational Approaches to North American Regionalism
9-2 | 2014 Summer 2014
9-1 | 2014 Spring 2014
8-1 | 2013 Spring 2013
7-2 | 2012 Special Issue: Wars and New Beginnings in American History
7-1 | 2012 Spring 2012
6-3 | 2011 Special Issue: Postfrontier Writing
6-2 | 2011 Special Issue: Oslo Conference
6-1 | 2011 Spring 2011
5-4 | 2010 Special Issue: Film
5-3 | 2010 Summer 2010
5-2 | 2010 Special Issue: The North-West Pacific in the 18th and 19th Centuries
5-1 | 2010 Spring 2010
4-3 | 2009 Special Issue: Immigration
4-2 | 2009 Autumn 2009
4-1 | 2009 Spring 2009
3-3 | 2008 Autumn 2008
3-2 | 2008 Special Issue: May 68
3-1 | 2008 Spring 2008
2-2 | 2007 Autumn 2007
2-1 | 2007 Spring 2007
1-1 | 2006 Spring 2006

Electronic supplements

Book reviews

The Journal

What is EJAS ?
Editorial Committee
Instructions for Contributors
Book Reviews Information
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Information

Website credits
Publishing policies

Newsletters

OpenEdition Newsletter

In collaboration with

Electronic ISSN 1991-9336

Read detailed presentation

Site map – Contact us – Website credits – Syndication

OpenEdition Journals member – Published with Lodel – Administration only

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search

Environment
Information Science
Social Issues
Argumentative
Cause and Effect
Classification
Compare and Contrast
Descriptive
Exemplification
Informative
Controversial
Exploratory
What Is an Essay
Length of an Essay
Generate Ideas
Types of Essays
Structuring an Essay
Outline For Essay
Essay Introduction
Thesis Statement
Body of an Essay
Writing a Conclusion
Essay Writing Tips
Drafting an Essay
Revision Process
Fix a Broken Essay
Format of an Essay
Essay Examples
Essay Checklist
Essay Writing Service
Pay for Research Paper
Write My Research Paper
Write My Essay
Custom Essay Writing Service
Admission Essay Writing Service
Pay for Essay
Academic Ghostwriting
Write My Book Report
Case Study Writing Service
Dissertation Writing Service
Coursework Writing Service
Lab Report Writing Service
Do My Assignment
Buy College Papers
Capstone Project Writing Service
Buy Research Paper
Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

Free Essay Samples
Second Amendment

Essays on Second Amendment

In essence, second Amendment states 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." Our nation’s fathers trusted that owning firearm was fundamental to the dignity and the character of a free...

Words: 1314

The Constitution of the United States of America came into force in 1789. At 229 years old, it is arguably the oldest Constitution still in use in the world today. Despite being the supreme law of the land, the sovereign power remains vested in the people of the United States...

Words: 1745

Guns in America There about 393, 347,000 guns in supply in the United States. It means that every 3 out of ten people own firearms. About 22% of the citizens have at least one or more guns. Americans have complex relationships and deep history with guns. It is a point of...

Words: 1682

In the recent past, the second amendment sparked an intense debate in the United States of America. The debate was about whether individuals or the local, state or federal legislative bodies have the rights to own firearms. This forced the Supreme Court to make a ruling and determine the right...

Found a perfect essay sample but want a unique one?

Request writing help from expert writer in you feed!

The District of Columbia v Heller ruling on 26 June 2008 marked a landmark decision on the gun debate (Burkett, 2008). The Supreme Court said that a District of Columbia law that banned the ownership of usable firearms in a household was illegal because it violated the Second Amendment (Burkett,...

Words: 2594

Historically, how one interprets the legislation itself determines the second amendment's meaning. The amendment has generated debates because different people and cases have given it various interpretations. The second amendment is inscribed on the National Rifle Association's building, but the amendment's militia provision is not present. Therefore, they assert that...

Words: 1209

The Second Amendment and Its Importance The second amendment focused on the protection of all Americans’ rights, particularly the right to self-defense. This is where the laws governing the possession and use of firearms come into play. The amendment also addresses the right to own and use arms, and it went...

Words: 1517

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, ratified in 1789, protects an individual right to own a firearm for self-defense. It is one of the ten constitutional amendments that collectively form the Bill of Rights, which were passed to protect the citizens...

Gun Control Controversies: 2nd Amendment

Category: Social Issues , Government
Topic: 2Nd Amendment , Gun Control

Pages: 5 (2457 words)

Downloads: -->

Gun Control Controversies:

Why we argue, second amendment – the right to bear arms, the controversy, in an article written by jashinsky, magnusson, hanson, and barnes about media, they stated:.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Compensation Essays

Voting Essays

Taxation Essays

Affordable Care Act Essays

War on Drugs Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->