The right to bear arms remains a contentious subject in the United States, with the public holding divided opinions on the issue. The Second Amendment outlines the citizens’ liberty to keep and bear arms (Winkler, 2018). In framing the provisions of the Second Amendment, the founding fathers sought to empower the people to have a mechanism through which they could defend their inalienable rights (Winkler, 2018). The right to bear arms is traceable to the history and traditions of American society, considering the Monarchy’s efforts to confiscate guns before the revolution (Winkler, 2018). I do not support the motion, although I am aware of the need to review the regulations on who has access to firearms. The guns can be used to ensure that individuals safeguard their interests within the society and do not feel disenfranchised.
The motion seeks to examine whether the circumstances leading to the framing of the Second Amendment have changed. During the debate, Sanford argues the considerations that drove the Founding Fathers to frame the Second Amendment are no longer relevant since it is anti-federalist (Winkler, 2018). Alan supports Sanford’s statement on the need to reframe the provision to ensure it accounts for limited access to guns. Eugene posits that the Constitutional right to bear arms is relevant today because it helps ensure everyone has the means to safeguard their interests, such as property. David posits that the Constitutional right to keep firearms is relevant since it ensures people can engage in self-defense, prevent crime escalation, and protect individuals from a bigoted government.
My stance towards the Second Amendment provisions remains unchanged since I believe that people need the means to stand up for their beliefs in society. The arguments made in support of the motion helped me understand American society’s need to do more to educate the public on gun safety and regulate access. The debate’s outcome is not surprising, considering the shared widespread belief that guns should not be accessible to all (Winkler, 2018). For instance, the debaters point out the need to ensure background checks are done on all firearm owners to reduce related violence.
Winkler, A. (2018). Is the Second Amendment becoming irrelevant? Indiana Law Journal, 93(1), 253-265.