The Second Amendment of the US Constitution 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."

The controversy surrounding this amendment remains a hot-button issue in today’s society, especially considering the amount of gun-related crimes that have occurred in the twenty-first century alone. There are many arguments that can be made regarding either side of the Second Amendment, and it is unclear as to which side is correct. This is all due to interpretation, as are most issues revolving around the Constitution. Because there are many different ways to read the document, there are also consequentially many beliefs or ideals that are changed or morphed as a result.

According to scholar David Epstein, “those who favor government restrictions on private gun ownership [emphasize] the first half of the amendment...[where it] guarantees only a collective right of the states to arm their militias. No individual right to own firearms exists unless it is in conjunction with a state militia."

On the contrary, “[citizens who defend] pro-gun ownership interests [emphasize] the second half; [that] the preamble’s reference to well-regulated state militias does not in any way limit the amendment’s operative clause that explicitly guarantees ‘the right of the people’ to own and carry weapons. These individuals also support the inalienable right to engage in self-defensive behavior when necessary” (Epstein).

The reasoning behind this division of ideals is because the amendment itself is ambiguous in meaning. Perhaps the intentions of the framers were clearer during their time in 1791, but as of today, the meaning has often been considered lost, misinterpreted, or grown out of altogether.

It is plausible why the issue of the Second Amendment arose during the time of the early twentieth century; organized crime induced by the prohibition and the influx of rivaling immigrants increased gun-related violence.

This horror proved immensely true during the 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of Chicago, which caused congress responded by first imposing a ban on the use of the postal service to transport certain weapons and then by passing the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Twenty-first century Supreme Court cases regarding the Second Amendment are more about possession and usage. In District of Columbia v. Heller, Heller argues against the 1978 DC law that restricts concealed or private possession of handguns, for he believed the ban was infringing on his rights because he needed the weapon while he was at work for self-defense. The Court relented and granted Heller a newly issued gun registration. Another case similar to Heller’s was McDonald v. City of Chicago, Illinois (2010), where possession of a handgun by almost all citizens was banned. In this case, the Court’s vote of 5-4 defended the City of Chicago, and the late Justice Scalia believed that certain limitations needed to be enacted to ensure the safety of the people. Perhaps if guns were as heavily regulated and thoroughly registered as vehicles are, gun-related problems would decrease... but that is just my two-cents.

Not only does the ambiguous interpretation of the Second Amendment cause debate and frenzy, the circumstance has great impact, too. The argument of “standing your ground” or Castle Law is highly controversial, as different states view the matter of self-defense differently. In Delaware, for example, it is illegal to use deadly force to protect yourself if you are outside your home or workplace; instead, there is a responsibility to retreat or flee in order to protect yourself from threatening people/situations.

Personally, I find this to be unfair. If someone possesses the free will—without impending consequences and prior to conviction—to approach me with deadly intent, then I should be able to defend myself by any means necessary, especially if this “responsibility to retreat or flee” is not an option.

Many of you are probably thinking I am advocating for the banning of guns, but that is not the case. I am, however, suggesting that regulation reform needs to happen in order to better track crime and possible decrease it.