In recent years gun rights have become an increasingly hot topic in political discourse. Republican politicians generally accuse Democrats of wanting to take away the second amendment rights of the populace and Democrats accuse Republicans of making unsafe environments. However, the debate on what the second amendment meant and what it intended to protect is an old one.
According to Saul Cornell in his book “Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect?” there are two sides to the debate. One side argues that the second amendment protected individual rights to bear arms and the other collective rights. In this case, individual rights would be that any one person has the right to own a gun, whereas the collective equivalent is the right to come together and create armed militias. In his book, Cornell explains that this division in thinking is unwarranted as the founders cobbled together the second amendment from a number of state constitutions, so it is more likely that it was intended to have a small degree of both individual and collective protections.
More important to this discussion is why the second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights in the first place. It was well understood at the time of our nation’s creation that citizens needed enough strength and power to hold their government accountable. Many new Americans feared that a weak citizenry could not defend itself from infractions from a strong central government. To keep their independence from the government it was decided that the best way forward was to weaken military power in peacetime and operate citizen defense through militias. These militias would be self-armed and self-regulated citizen groups.
Realistically, militias were not well maintained and when wars and unrest occurred in the fledgling nation they were not able to respond. Over time more power was given to the military in order to better defend the nation. However, the idea that citizens should be able to defend themselves still exists. The second amendment does protect individual rights to bear arms, but this individual right should be understood in the context of those who drafted it.
James Madison is the primary drafter of the amendment and it is well understood that he and others who worked on it believed in a Republican view of rights. This means that rights were only good if they were good for the nation as a whole. In this light taking away the gun rights of certain individuals or groups of people is well within the government’s power and not an infraction against an individual. Currently, the Democratic party is holding a more republican view of the second amendment whereas the Republican party is holding a more liberal view.
The real argument being had is whether or not the right to bear arms is a good in and of itself or if it can cause harm in certain instances. I personally believe in the Republican view. Just as you have the right to pursue happiness you do not have the right to pursue it at the expense of others. What is good for the individual is not always good for the nation as a whole.
