The argument over the right to own a gun and be armed within the home is centralized against a statistically failed premise that to be armed is to be protected.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is written to say “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” (Harpre 80). The language of this Amendment is convoluted and is not clear on the actual intent of this addition to the Constitution. The problem with the way it is stated is that it can be interpreted to read that the people are entitled to a free militia that may arm themselves, or that the people are entitled to be armed. Regardless to the way the amendment is read, the historical relevancy of the Amendment must be taken into account before deciding if it is contemporarily necessary to allow anyone who can pass through a
Historically, the Amendment arose from an issue that the colonies were having with the English monarchy attempting to disarm the citizens. In the period of time surrounding 1768 - 1775, the British government had occupied the colonies with troops loyal to the monarchy. One of the many attempts to assert control over the colonists was to declare in certain areas that personal firearms would not be allowed (Halbrook 21). The collection of personal firearms by the military was undertaken on occasion, denying the colonists the freedom of owning their own guns. In the world of 1768, the necessity of a gun was quite different than it might be in the current culture. As well, the colonists were arming themselves in anticipation of a revolution and the occupying government was aware of this threat. The tension between the monarchy’s needs and the needs of the colonists incited the framers of the Constitution to give this right back to the people.