Second Amendment:
Still Valid after 200 years
Jeremiah A. Dozier
ITT Technical Institute

The subject of this research paper is on a particular subject that has spurred an ongoing debate for many years, the Second Amendment. To this day many Americans have raised the question is the Second Amendment still valid after 200 years? The answer to that question is YES! When the founding fathers signed the Constitution in this document there are many Articles and the First ten are known as the bill rights and the first one is the right to free speech, most everyone is in agreement that is one of the most important rights as citizens. Now the Second Amendment which 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”. In this paper it is the authors’ intension to show why this Amendment is important today and in the future. The Second Amendment has been a part of this country since the very beginning of our great nation. Fast forward to the present, they are now people saying the Second Amendment is no longer valid or needed. How can that be we not need this right or it no longer applies to the present day?
One of the main reasons most people say we don’t need this fundamental right is because of the recent waves of shootings around this country. The only response is to put a ban on firearms or limit how many rounds a weapons magazine can hold. The Second Amendment is in place as part of the Bill of Rights, when you remove this right, where does it stop? What is to say one right is more valid than the any other? Many in the government are trying to re-write this right to suit their own agendas. This has happened before time and time again, not in this country but in others. If the ones who want to remove this right get their way it shall start a slippery down-ward spiral for which can’t be undone. Allowing this right to be vanquished gives the government the leverage to take away other rights as well.

The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Sir William Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in defense of the state. The purpose, scope, and effect of the amendment have been controversial and have been subject to numerous interpretations. Sir William Blackstone was cited in the earlier in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written as above and not in its full context. In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed. In its full context it reads:
“ Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councilors Judges and Ministers implored by him did endeavor to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) ... by causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Employed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) ... thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation taking into their most serious Consideration the best means for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Ancestors’ in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient

Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) ... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law”. This was one of the earliest cited cases of gun-owner rights that predate our Constitution. Amazing how our country was using the English Bill of Rights to set fundamentals of our Constitution. The first ten amendments of our Constitution are known as the “Bill of Rights” and has been a staple of our guaranteed basic fundamental rights. The basic Second Amendment states as follows, “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”. To most people this means only the military should the only ones in control of fire-arms. These people couldn’t be more wrong, this amendment was put in place to ensure that the government was really by the people and for the people. Now here’s a Question, “What does it mean being necessary to the security of a Free State?” "Free State" was understood to mean "free country, free of despotism," that would tend to support the individual rights view of the Amendment. "The people" would then more easily be read as referring to a right of the people as individuals, even if a right justified by public interests, much as the term "people" is understood in the First and Fourth Amendments. The right would cover people regardless of whether they were enrolled in a state-chosen defensive force, since the right would be unrelated to preserving the independence of the states. And it would apply to all Americans, whether in states or in D.C. Now you have Americans saying that this right is no longer needed and is invalid. Why? There has been a rash of shootings, gun crimes, and other acts violence involving fire-arms. Naturally the first thing that comes to mind is to take away the guns and there will be no more crime involving guns. When you remove this right, you have started a slippery down-ward spiral to a totalarian state.

Granted bad things have happened in the past involving fire arms that is true, but what happens when those bad things are happening to you and your family or friends, how would you help them guns are now banned and there are not enough police to reach you and those you care about. In 2009 the average response time for an officer was 4.8 minutes and in 2010 that time was increased to 5.4 minutes. It has been proven that a law abiding citizen with proper training and proper skill set can detour such awful things from happening. While a majority of criminals have no such training your chances of survival are greatly increased and most criminals are just looking for weak and scared individuals to do harm to. Imagine over 5 minutes for a response time for our local law enforcement to respond. A lot can happen in 5 minutes. If you were armed you can respond to a threat immediately. But if the Second Amendment is removed you can’t protect yourself or your loved ones. In the early days of this great nation of ours we used firearms to start this country and throughout history we used firearms to defend this country of ours. To this date America has never been successfully been occupied by any foreign country and it was said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. Isoroku Yamamoto studied in the U.S., attending Harvard for two or more years. He spoke fluent English and had a keen understanding of the industrial capabilities of the United States. He did not want war with the U.S. Pretty amazing that this Commander-in Chief actually understood the might of the U.S. Citizen. Now if you examine the Nazi up-rising one of the first things that went out the door was the citizens’ rights to firearms and that the military and police forces were the only ones allowed access to firearms. The Germans during WWII implemented such restrictions on every country.
They conquered and they conquered 90% of Europe. On August 7, 1920, the German government passed the Gesetz über die Entwaffnung der Bevölkerung (Law on the Disarmament of the People). This law created the office of Reichskommissar for Disarmament of the Civil Population. This official was tasked with making a list of “military weapons”. Who was to say what weapon is military and what is not. The next step in the complete disarmament of Germany prior to Hitler’s wresting of absolute power was the passage in 1928 of the Gesetz über Schußwaffen und Munition (Law on Firearms and Ammunition). This law required licensing of anyone who manufactured, assembled, or repaired firearms and ammunition. This included private citizens who reloaded their own rounds. Trade and sale of arms and ammo was also forbidden without a license, including at gun shows and competitive shooting events. The license to own a weapon provided for in the 1928 law was called a Waffenschein. This carry license was issued at the will of the government, and an applicant was required to show that his “reliability is not in doubt” and that he had a particular need for a firearm. Psychological testing for a gun license. These laws were passed in Germany prior to WWII. Now in the US similar laws are trying to make their way in our country. The disarmament of the population certainly did progress rapidly. As legal scholar Stephen Halbrook wrote in an extraordinarily thorough article published in 2000 in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law:
“Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law. Passed by a liberal republic, this law ensured that the police had records of all firearms acquisitions (or at least all lawful ones) and that the keeping and bearing of arms were subject to police approval”. The Second Amendment exists because the American founders, and the American people as a whole, recognized that the right to defend one's self, one's family, and one's property is a fundamental human right. A person does not need the government's permission to defend themselves, and it is immoral for the government to hinder them in that regard. The founders did not delegate between the need for self-defense against criminal elements or government, and used both as examples for why American citizens needed to retain personal firearms. There are those today, in and out of government, who desire to disarm law-abiding citizens demonstrates the wisdom of including the second amendment among the personal rights and privileges that are enumerated to citizens of the United States by the Constitution. More recently, of course, the congress has enacted an "assault weapons" ban prohibiting the manufacture of certain, scary-looking guns. A ban on the manufacture of machine guns (except for law enforcement) has also been enacted. The Second Amendment has not changed. These bans are just as unconstitutional now as they would have been in 1934.

The Constitution is a document which stands in tact as it was written or it stands for nothing. It is the foundation of this country and the basis of our government. Men and women have died and shed their blood for each and every letter of that document. Men and women swore an oath to "Support and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic". When you remove even the one right that is considered a God given right you have opened Pandora’s Box all it takes is just one act. I believe that if you remove one right what’s to say other rights can’t be removed in the process. If those men and women who have fought and died up-holding these rights, we as people should not allow this to happen…ever. In conclusion the Second Amendment has been a part of our country ever since the founding and to remove even one right would undo everything that has been paid for by those who swore to protect and uphold our rights.

Don’t Believe the Lie…..