Gov- 490
The Right to Bear Arms/Self-Preservation
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
Government 490-001: Political Theory
Introduction:
The right to bear arms, one of the most fundamental rights that American citizens have.
More fundamental is the right to self-preservation, which is in its most basic sense, “the
protection of oneself from harm or death.” In the United States, under the 2nd Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution, it says 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.” The founding
fathers knew the importance of the right to be able to defend oneself from harm or danger.
Some believe that the 2nd Amendment was not intended for today’s technology or weapons and
see it as an outdated amendment that no longer serves a purpose in the United States. Some
people within
the United States feel as though the ability to own a firearm should be banned or it should be
regulated in a much stricter way. There have been debates for decades and even centuries on the
capacity to which private individuals should be able to arm themselves. Several countries have
gone as far as banning the ownership of firearms among their citizens, other countries have
increased the difficulty in purchasing and maintaining a firearm. This paper serves the purpose
of analyzing whether citizens within the United States should have the right to bear arms.
Literature
Review:
Blocher in “True Threats, self-defense, and the Second Amendment” discusses whether
the Second Amendment was put in place to help Americans who are in danger from others who
wish to do them harm or are reckless with their weapons. He also goes over the line that is
drawn between what is constitutionally permissible regarding firearms and what is not
constitutional. Blocher also analyzes the first amendment's relation to the second amendment in
, how the second amendment can be used as a means of protection against those who directly
speak in a manner that is a threat to one person. He then claims that in the same way that the
First Amendment is
not used to defend those who look to harm others, the Second Amendment as well is not
intended to protect the people who wish to bring harm or danger to others. (Blocher. 2020) He
says that rather, the Second Amendment is in place to defend those who wish to protect
themselves and their loved ones. He also makes it clear that he is saying that the Second
Amendment is there for those who meet the required mental capacity and state.
Winkler, in “Scrutinizing the Second Amendment” discusses how there is a part of the
second amendment that is not commonly reviewed. He says that there is a question on how the
Second Amendment applies when it comes to gun control concerning protecting people's right
to bear arms. He goes over how there is a believed argument that gun control is a violation of
the Second Amendment since it is labeled as a fundamental right. He then analyzes this
argument and makes a challenge to it, in which he says that almost all gun control would not be
a violation of the Second Amendment. For this argument, he heavily relies on the example of a
state constitutional law. He argues that since over 42 state constitutions have a right to bear
arms within them and yet none of them give the same reasons for why and how they should be
protected, he believes that this opens a door for scrutiny of the Second Amendment. (Winkler.
2007) Winkler believes that if federal courts were to follow the precedent and example that
state courts have already set forth regarding regulation standards, then gun control measures
would not be deemed unconstitutional.
Shalhope, in “The Ideological Origin of the Second Amendment”, analyzes the reasons
for the Second Amendment being adopted into the United States Constitution. Moreover, he
goes into the ideology that led to the creation and implementation of the Second Amendment.
He discusses how many scholars think that the Second Amendment has become obsolete and no
longer has a meaning or purpose, and how many average Americans still see the Second
The Right to Bear Arms/Self-Preservation
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
Government 490-001: Political Theory
Introduction:
The right to bear arms, one of the most fundamental rights that American citizens have.
More fundamental is the right to self-preservation, which is in its most basic sense, “the
protection of oneself from harm or death.” In the United States, under the 2nd Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution, it says 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.” The founding
fathers knew the importance of the right to be able to defend oneself from harm or danger.
Some believe that the 2nd Amendment was not intended for today’s technology or weapons and
see it as an outdated amendment that no longer serves a purpose in the United States. Some
people within
the United States feel as though the ability to own a firearm should be banned or it should be
regulated in a much stricter way. There have been debates for decades and even centuries on the
capacity to which private individuals should be able to arm themselves. Several countries have
gone as far as banning the ownership of firearms among their citizens, other countries have
increased the difficulty in purchasing and maintaining a firearm. This paper serves the purpose
of analyzing whether citizens within the United States should have the right to bear arms.
Literature
Review:
Blocher in “True Threats, self-defense, and the Second Amendment” discusses whether
the Second Amendment was put in place to help Americans who are in danger from others who
wish to do them harm or are reckless with their weapons. He also goes over the line that is
drawn between what is constitutionally permissible regarding firearms and what is not
constitutional. Blocher also analyzes the first amendment's relation to the second amendment in
, how the second amendment can be used as a means of protection against those who directly
speak in a manner that is a threat to one person. He then claims that in the same way that the
First Amendment is
not used to defend those who look to harm others, the Second Amendment as well is not
intended to protect the people who wish to bring harm or danger to others. (Blocher. 2020) He
says that rather, the Second Amendment is in place to defend those who wish to protect
themselves and their loved ones. He also makes it clear that he is saying that the Second
Amendment is there for those who meet the required mental capacity and state.
Winkler, in “Scrutinizing the Second Amendment” discusses how there is a part of the
second amendment that is not commonly reviewed. He says that there is a question on how the
Second Amendment applies when it comes to gun control concerning protecting people's right
to bear arms. He goes over how there is a believed argument that gun control is a violation of
the Second Amendment since it is labeled as a fundamental right. He then analyzes this
argument and makes a challenge to it, in which he says that almost all gun control would not be
a violation of the Second Amendment. For this argument, he heavily relies on the example of a
state constitutional law. He argues that since over 42 state constitutions have a right to bear
arms within them and yet none of them give the same reasons for why and how they should be
protected, he believes that this opens a door for scrutiny of the Second Amendment. (Winkler.
2007) Winkler believes that if federal courts were to follow the precedent and example that
state courts have already set forth regarding regulation standards, then gun control measures
would not be deemed unconstitutional.
Shalhope, in “The Ideological Origin of the Second Amendment”, analyzes the reasons
for the Second Amendment being adopted into the United States Constitution. Moreover, he
goes into the ideology that led to the creation and implementation of the Second Amendment.
He discusses how many scholars think that the Second Amendment has become obsolete and no
longer has a meaning or purpose, and how many average Americans still see the Second
