On the other side are those who argue that the Second Amendment gives all citizens, not just militias, the right to own guns in order to protect themselves. They argue that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized groups, like the National Guard, a reserve military force that replaced the state militias after the Civil War. Those who argue it is a collective right point to the “well-regulated Militia” clause in the Second Amendment. The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units. Practically since its ratification, Americans have debated the meaning of the Second Amendment, with vehement arguments being made on both sides. While the Second Amendment did not answer the broader Anti-Federalist concern that the federal government had too much power, it did establish the principle (held by both Federalists and their opponents) that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens. Constitution was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower these state militias. They feared that Congress might abuse its constitutional power of “organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia” by failing to keep militiamen equipped with adequate arms.
However, opponents of a strong central government (known as Anti-Federalists) argued that this federal army deprived states of their ability to defend themselves against oppression. But as militias had proved insufficient against the British, the Constitutional Convention gave the new federal government the power to establish a standing army, even in peacetime.
0 kommentar(er)
