The Second Amendments Theoretical Application
Start writing a post

The Second Amendments Theoretical Application

One authors quest to think far to deeply about the right to bear arms.

The Second Amendments Theoretical Application
The Imaginative Conservative

One of the most heatedly contested debates over the past few years has been over the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights which declares the following right:

" 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."

This seems like a simple statement, one that could not possibly be misconstrued. It obviously means that Americans should be armed, and that the government has no authority to take away such armaments without breaking the promise of the Bill of Rights and our forefathers. However, in the modern day, where mass shootings are happening at a fairly steady clip, thing have begun to change. As a nation we are at conflict as to the meaning behind the second amendment, what it actually promises, and the intended goal of its inclusion into the founding fathers idea for a new country defined by the freedom of its people.

There are those that believe that the second amendment does not apply to all weapons because at the time of its ratification the only type of firearm available was a musket that had to be slowly loaded. These same people believe that as we now have weapons capable of firing rapidly without the need to reload in between shots, that the Second Amendment no longer applies because the Founding Fathers would never have known such a weapon would exist. How can something so old and outdated like the Bill of Rights fit the modern day, where a single armed man can take out 50 people before being brought down?

Meanwhile, the other side of the debate claims that because we are allowed the right to bear arms, we should all have access to firearms, regardless of the capabilities of modern day weapons. They believe that if most people were armed, it would be safer. If a shooter went on a rampage he could be brought down quickly and efficiently by a "good guy with a gun." It hearkens back to the wild west scenes of older movies, in which the bad guys would have a shootout with those on the side of justice, and the locals were saved by a gun-toting posse of townsfolk.

To be clear, both sides have some merit, and at extremes, both may work in some fashion. The argument itself, however, is not something I wish to discuss. What I mean to talk about is the idea behind the second amendment, and its implications theoretically and practically.

Thomas Jefferson states that he believed in the Second Amendment because it would allow the people of the United States to fight against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. He wanted to give the people a means to overthrow their government by giving them the exact armament used to defend the leadership of the nation, which at the time happened to be muskets and cannons. Now, if we stick to this principal that was behind the second amendment, and theoretically shifted it to the modern era, things get a bit insane.

The United States military is equipped not only with guns, but with ships, missiles, nuclear warheads, stealth planes, and all manner of advanced weaponry that the public is not entirely aware of. In order for us to be able to overthrow this government, we as citizens would need to be able to acquire equal armaments in order to stand a chance at throwing a full scale revolution. Now if we were all within our rights to purchase weaponry for ourselves equal to the governments, things would get out of hand fairly quickly. Therefore we observe the second amendment at a realistic level, in which we simply wish to have some protection in the form of basic handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

The right to bear arms has always been central to American history, and will continue to be so for as long as the Bill of Rights stands. Whether you are for limited armament, or you defend your right to own guns and despise a government that would take away that right, we should all do a little thinking on the article behind the debate. If nothing else, it may prove entertaining to take any of our rights to the theoretical extreme.

If you were looking for a grand ending point or moral of the story, I am afraid this article will not fill in that blank. The author requests you find your own.

Report this Content
This article has not been reviewed by Odyssey HQ and solely reflects the ideas and opinions of the creator.
Ask Your BFF These 20 Questions To See If They Know You As Well As You THINK That They Do

My best friend has been in my life since we were 3 years old, now that we are adults now, I'd like to ask her these questions to see how well she knows me.

Keep Reading... Show less

Alone At The Met

I survive a day alone in NYC.

Wikimedia Commons

It was six in the evening. I was sitting in the courtyard of a Renaissance-era Italian villa, glancing around at the statues, most notably one of a boy removing a thorn from his foot. Despite the supposedly relaxing setting, I was incredibly anxious. My phone was at less than 5 percent battery, and once it died I would be completely disconnected from my family and peers, alone in one of the largest art museums in the country.

Keep Reading... Show less
Student Life

College 101: How To Ease The Back To School Blues

Getting back into the school groove when you just can't seem to let go of summer.

Beyond The States

With fall classes just beginning, many of us find ourselves struck with summer withdrawals. Especially for those who refrained from taking courses over the summer, it can be quite difficult to get back in the swing of things. Fortunately, there are various ways to help make the transition back to college as smooth as possible.

Keep Reading... Show less
Dating Apps

We Met At A Bar

Salvage what you can; if you can't, it's alright to walk away.

We Met At A Bar
Anne Waldon

We met at a bar.

Keep Reading... Show less

The Mets And Me

They may be the worst sometimes, but this baseball team has given me more than I could ask for.

Rich Schultz/Getty Images

On September 3rd, 2001, a sea of children littered my home's navy-carpeted den to watch baseball during my dad's 40th birthday extravaganza. A baseball game flickered on the TV, and a red and blue bubble of a scoreboard sat in the bottom right corner of the screen. The New York Mets and the Philadelphia Phillies were in a wild game at Veterans' Stadium. As I, a five-year-old boy with a jumble of curly blonde hair, sat in the back of the kid clump, I wondered which team I should root for. After a long debate with myself, I decided that I should root for the team that's winning (duh). But, as the ninth inning rolled around with the Phils maintaining a 7-5 lead, some magic occurred. The Mets put up five runs in one frame, stunning the Phillie fans in the room and winning the game 10-7.

Keep Reading... Show less

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Facebook Comments