Why is this Amendment So Controversial? There has not been many situation where 27 words, three comas and one period has elicited so much emotion and conversation than the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. On the one side of the argument you have people who strongly believe it is their absolute right to own any type of weapon with zero restrictions. This group of people strongly believe that the Second Amendment clearly states that the citizens have their right “to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Why is this Amendment So Controversial? They are supported in their beliefs by a very strong, well funded lobbyist group call the National Rifle Association (NRA) The NRA is also financially support by many of the rifle and ammunition manufacturers. In a 2008 Supreme Court opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the government from barring citizens the right to own weapons. In addition, this group which is often referred to as the ‘Second Amendment Group” also have the support of the current judicial system.

Why is this Amendment So Controversial? There is another group of people who are in disagreement with the Second Amendment group. This would be people in favor of some type of gun control. These people believe that the Second Amendment does not allow each person the right to own any gun they want. They believe that limits should be placed on who can own a gun and the ability to purchase guns.

Why is this Amendment So Controversial? They argue for controls on assault weapons and the freedom to purchase all types of weapons at gun show, This is called the Gun Show Loop Hole. They would also like to see limits on the type of people who can own guns, such as people on the travel watch list, mental patients and criminals. This group uses the ongoing gun violence in society as support for gun control as a measure to protect children and society in general.

So How are we to decide who is right? In this type of interpretation, you would attempt to read the text as it was originally intended by the authors and try to understand their original meaning. One means of interpreting the Second Amendment is called an “Originalist Viewpoint”. This means you would read (and interpret) the Second Amendment word for word and try to put into its historical context. The Second Amendment text states, “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.”

So How are we to decide who is right? At the time this was written, there was grave concerns on behalf of some of the Founding Fathers that a strong central government might try to take over control of the newly created states by force with a standing army. The Second Amendment was intended to allow states to maintain their own local army (militia) and that the participants in these militias were required to be prepared with their own weapons and ammunition. The original intent was never about private gun ownership as sport. In the past, gun ownership was a part of everyday life and it was assumed that the weapons would be used in a regulated manner.

So How are we to decide who is right? Fast forward some 200 years +. As words, ideas and culture changes, the Constitution is purposed to adapt and change with society. And it is the Supreme Court Justices who monitors this change and keeps the Constitution relevant. It can be argued that our Constitution and the Bill of Rights are living documents and as such are progressive and change with the times.

So How are we to decide who is right? An example of this would be words and their meaning. We all are aware of word that held a meaning 50 years ago that have changed for today. The word and meaning for “all men” has drastically changed over the last 200 years. And look at the civils rights that have improved years. Perhaps not perfect yet, but change is fluid.

So, How should we interpret the second amendment? In all this confusion and controversy how is the best way to interpret the intent of the context? In the scope of history and the dramatic evolution the Constitution has taken to stay relevant, we need to reevaluate the current intent and purpose that stood behind the writing of the Second Amendment.

So How should we interpret the second amendment? Perhaps gun ownership and the restrictions therein should be viewed through the lenses of the 14th Amendment, that in fact the government cannot deny citizens the privileges or immunities and guarantees to every such person due process and equal protection of the laws. Whereas gun ownership is a privilege and a right that comes with being a United State citizen. However, with privilege comes responsibility and with responsibility comes accountability. Accountability to the very Constitution that protects everyone's rights.