The Right to Bear Arms and the U.S. Constitution

Paper Summary:

This paper takes an historical look at what the framers of the U.S. Constitution meant regarding the right to keep and bear arms and looks at some of the controversial issues associated with this right. The paper then uses this information to present arguments favoring the right to bear arms. The paper also contrasts American policy on the right to bear arms with that of other countries and uses this contrast to further support the argument that American citizens should and do have the right to keep and bear arms.

From the Paper:

"When the Constitution went up for ratification, there was much debate in state conventions and two opposing forces emerged. One of the sides was the Antifederalists, who were against the government having the power to dispossess individuals of their rights such as the right to keep and bear arms. The other side was the Federalists, who were desperately trying to have the Constitution ratified and maintain a centralized standing army. The Federalists guaranteed that people would be armed so that they could stop a tyrannical standing army. The Anti-federalists were concerned that people could be overwhelmed by the established standing army without one explicitly written right preserving the individual to keep and bear arms."

More papers on The Right to Bear Arms and the U.S. Constitution:

• Persuasive Essay # 55846 : "The Right to Bear Arms"
• Essay # 90870 : "The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court"
• Persuasive Essay # 67964 : "Gun Control"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: