Reference no: EM133669189

Question: Over the years, the two opposing interpretations of the Second Amendment have often clashed regarding its meaning and how the Amendment should be understood. Advocates of individual rights assert the Second Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee the right of all citizens to bear arms, whether they are part of a militia or not. Supporters of state rights assert that the Second Amendment was adopted to preserve the state militia; thus, where there is no militia, there is no right to bear arms. Generally, current Supreme Court rulings seem to have turned the tide away from state rights toward individual rights. However, states still retain the ability to regulate access to handguns and where those weapons can be displayed.

Instructions:

Much of the controversy surrounding the Second Amendment is based on how the Amendment is written. Your task:

1. Rewrite the Second Amendment to clarify better how it should be interpreted.

2. Explain how your revision of the amendment accomplishes that goal.

3. Fully outline your position as to how the Second Amendment should be understood.

Support your position by including valid information and facts. Although you may include opinions in the responses, you should support those opinions with data from the reading or reputable sources. Remember to provide proper citations for all of your sources and use appropriate punctuation.