The second amendment to the US constitution is misleading to many that read it. The original meaning and usage of this amendment have been lost over the period of over 200 years that have passed since the ratification of our nations" most supreme law. It 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 shall begin by showing that this amendment is a civil right. Secondly, I shall show that a contradiction exists between the original meaning and its current usage. Finally, I shall give evidence to prove that this one sentence has been taken out of proportion, and considering the nature of our society, blatantly exploited for the illegal ownership of weapons of such destructive power that our nation's founding fathers could never have envisioned.
The second amendment should be classified as a civil right. It provides for the private ownership of arms on condition that those arms and their owners be available for the ready use of "a militia" a citizen's army "well regulated" under the head of governmental leadership. This militia would defend us from foreign invaders and internal enemies, thus "suggesting immunity from fear." It should not be taken from the context to mean that ownership of arms is a civil liberty, as this right is stated as it relates to the "security of a free State.".
I feel that one of the great ironies of this day is seen between our present interpretation of the second amendment and its original meaning. There is a fundamental fallacy in the transmission of ideas across time. What was written in 1788 and what it is interpreted to mean are very different things. Our current understanding is a blatant misreading and unrealistic interpretation of the Constitution, given the differences between the state of the nation at that time and the state of the nation as it is today.
