The Founding Fathers And The Origins Of Gun Control In America (Essay Sample)

A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. Name Course Instructor Date Introduction The Second Amendment divides Americans concerning gun ownership and to protect the state. It is depicted that the amendment tends to protect the militias interests and individual rights to own guns at large. Saul Cornell’s book, A well-regulated Militia, collectively rejects both rights regarding it as a civic right. A civic right in this context is the requirement that citizens of the American state own arms to engage in militia activities. Cornell’s perception was right because the Founding Fathers understood that owning guns is neither a collective nor an individual right. The thesis of this context comes at a balance of revolutionary state building incorporating militia, natural rights, and armed people. The overall study shows that natural rights involve the right to own guns for self-protection as agreed over the decades by Americans. Militias come about in the essence of protecting the nation against attacks while armed people were also in play to counter a communist government. Therefore, A well Regulated Militia creates a uni-dimensional traditional structure that creates a map to the current problems over gun ownership. Armed people in the US are perceived to keep maximum security in government creating a well-regulated militia in a free state. Framers in this context wrote the above strategy of offering free safety to the state and spearheading the right to own guns in a free country. Many Framers view militias as a guaranteed freedom and arms ownership as a form of self-protection at large. A Well Regulated Militia (AWRM) perception on this issue is termed as militia centric, and their goal is to ensure a civic right to arms. Random ownership of guns in America would create numerous forms of malice concerning the guaranteed freedom of every citizen in America. Besides, self-defense would promote a lot of gun violence in the country. It was a bold move by Noah Webster when he wrote, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed …” The perception in Webster’s context created a clear picture to criticize arms ownership and participating in militia activities in most countries.[Cornell, Saul. 2007. "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origin of Gun Control in America". William & Mary Bill Of Rights Journal 15 (4): 1-48. p 7] Framers, on the other hand, relate an armed population as an alternative way of keeping the government in check, especially a communist government. Despite AWRM terming it as militia centric, Framers have overlooked the issue to a political value over the centuries and in the future. These two aspects are real ones in nature because in no uncertain terms that one will find the armed populace not involving in militia activities in the essence of keeping the government in check. Militia related issues in a country would doubt the government’s powers in controlling its nation and other countries terming it as a weak country. The above view from other countries would be of no good to a nation like the United States of America as a whole. Keeping the government in check concerning gun ownership and militia activities is not an appropriate way even according Cornell in his book. Cornell termed it as a targeted utility in the legal history of the country if both collective and individual arms ownership would not be guaranteed thus achieving an effective gun control in America. The right in light among the minorities in Pennsylvania demanded that everyone has the right to guns. The above say was said at a convention stating that “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their State, or of the United States, or for the purpose of killing game …” On the other hand, New Hampshire citizens portrayed that “Congress shall never disarm any Citizen except such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.” Both statements from the two states are proof that the convention was for militia purposes. The people in charge of the conference would have established the rights stated by Pennsylvania upon allowing the reasons stated by New Hampshire citizens. It would paint a picture in the increase of militia intent within the country, inclusive of hunting activities with the use of arms at large. In addition, it creates militia resistance about self-protection against soldiers like in the case of Samuel Adams arming themselves.[Ibid., 8] [Ibid., 8] On the contrary, AWRM blinds us on non-militia intent without appropriate evidence according to four great constitutional analysts. Two of the commentators are omitted, Cooley and Rawle. The third one, Tucker is acknowledged, but his sta...