Law and Politics

Start Free Trial

What are the main arguments for and against the Second Amendment?

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is perhaps one of the most controversial. There are numerous arguments surrounding this definition of the right to bear arms. Let's look at some of them.

Pros

Many argue that the right to keep and bear arms is an essential part of a...

See
This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this answer and thousands more. Enjoy eNotes ad-free and cancel anytime.

Get 48 Hours Free Access

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is perhaps one of the most controversial. There are numerous arguments surrounding this definition of the right to bear arms. Let's look at some of them.

Pros

Many argue that the right to keep and bear arms is an essential part of a free society. They claim that an armed populous is a safeguard against tyranny. Should the government become despotic and threaten the rights of the people, they should have the resources to forcefully protect those rights. Indeed, the American Revolution began when British forces attempted to seize weapons from the colonists to prevent them from being a threat to English control. Since then, the right to keep and bear arms has become a symbol of freedom.

Some also argue that the Second Amendment ensures their right to self-protection. They claim that it deters crime and allows them to protect themselves, their family, and their property. They argue that if it were illegal to have firearms, then only criminals would be armed.

There are also arguments that an armed citizenry is in keeping with the vision of the Founding Fathers. George Washington, Thomas, Jefferson, and Benjamin Frankin were all vocal in their belief that all citizens should be empowered to have their own weapons.

Cons

Proponents of stricter gun control often argue that more guns in society make that society less safe. While the Second Amendment allows gun ownership, it does not have any provisions related to a gun owner's responsibility. They cite statistics showing high instances of gun-related accidents and crime in places with high levels of gun ownership.

They also argue that the notion that an armed citizenry could be a bulwark against a tyrannical government is ludicrous. That idea implies using firearms against the US military, essentially to kill American soldiers. Furthermore, the military has weapons that far outclass anything a private citizen has, so they would not be effective anyway.

They also point out that firearm technology has changed significantly since the Second Amendment was written. Guns have become much more deadly since then, increasing their ability to do greater harm than an eighteenth-century musket. They point out that if the Founders could see what a single well-armed individual could do to murder masses of people, they would have made a different regulation. Many cite the prevalence of mass shootings in the United States to make this argument and point out that these tragic events are much rarer in countries with stricter gun control.

Some also point out that the Second Amendment is not properly interpreted at all. The part of this amendment that says that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is often overlooked, they claim. This would imply that the freedom to keep and bear arms has conditions that are ignored when any private citizen can own a weapon without regulation or membership in a militia.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team