I would like to dedicate this article to the ones lost in Orlando, their families, the LGBT community, and anyone else that has lost a loved one too soon due to gun violence.

If you are a citizen of the United States of America, you have the rights to bear arms. 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".

First off, the young United States did not have enough resources or people to fuel a permanent, standing army. The only feasible option was to have every-day Americans armed and ready to fight for a public militia. This idea was also appealing because of the mistrust the stemmed from the British troops who occupied, fought, and killed Americans. Lastly, because the wounds from Britain were still fresh, both physically and metaphorically, politics favored the states. An organized, federal army was far from the picture and local militias were seen as a better fit for the safety of state rights. (Spitzer, 2012).

Fast forward to 2016. Why don’t we ever hear of local militias today? The Dick Act of 1902, also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R, was passed and militias were separated into two categories, the organized militias which became the National Guard, and the unorganized militia which sounds just as unstable and pointless as it is. The whole point of the Second Amendment was to keep citizens armed in case they needed to form a local militia. However, in 1902, it seems that the Second Amendment lost all application to citizens since we were protected by locally trained and federally operated National Guards.

As we all know, it is extremely easy to own a gun today. The right to bear arms has never been infringed. When talking about gun regulations, the argument is that any form of regulation is an attack on our rights. However, when the original wording of the Second Amendment is examined, it seems that our “right” to bear arms only applies in a militia-based context. We are not part of a “well-regulated militia” and therefore we have no entitlement to own or operate a gun. Some will disagree with this argument, if they are educated, because of one important Supreme Court case, D.C. vs. Heller.

Now, if you like to read Supreme Court cases for fun, or have a know-it-all in your family, you might have heard of the Supreme Court case D.C. vs. Heller. This is where things go bad for gun regulation. In short, this case changed how the Second Amendment was interpreted. It ignored the militia aspect, and by a 5-4 vote, the Amendment became focuses on bearing arms for personal defense. What was once an Amendment meant to balance the power of the people and the power of federal government, has now become a completely new idea of personal protection from other individuals. This was the first time arming men for self-defense was officially draw from the Second Amendment instead of that the ideas of arming men for a militia. Many rightly disagree with this ruling and see this as a huge misinterpretation. Regardless, the Justices that made this ruling made it clear that this ruling does not imply unlimited, uninhibited gun distribution.

So, if you have to deal with people who argue that their Second Amendment Rights are being jeopardized, even by background checks and minor regulations, encourage them to really look into what their Second Amendment rights actually are. Make them do the research, because if they have time to argue, they should have time to known what they are arguing about.

If you need some inspiration, here is John Oliver slaying the argument about what our Second Amendment rights really include.