The debate over gun control and legislation addressing gun violence in the U.S. remains of high importance. While some individuals believe that there is a need for stricter laws, others argue that bearing a legal firearm is a fundamental human right that must be protected. As Wilson states, “any consideration of guns and gun control in the United States must begin with the Second Amendment” (19). This paper aims to discuss the importance of the issue of firearms regulation and explore the main perspectives on the problem presented in Wilson’s book.
First, it is crucial to explore the importance of the issue addressed by Wilson. The chapter studies the far-reaching implications of guns in the U.S., emphasizing that the Second Amendment needs to be considered and presenting two theories of its interpretation (Wilson 19). The author states that the difference in understanding the amendment causes the debate between two opposite opinions. The first idea is supported by people who view it as a guarantee of an individual’s rights and the second perspective involves citizens who see the right as communal and applied to state militias. The issue is important since the Americans’ right to bear a firearm is rooted in the country’s history. At the same time, the mass shootings, gun incidents, and associated injuries and deaths indicate the need to take action in terms of firearms regulations. Furthermore, political parties, elected officials, and interest groups play a significant role in controlling the issue.
To better understand the problem, the perspectives and findings of other authors need to be discussed. In particular, Shalhope states that “the Second Amendment has become a virtual cottage industry among law professors” since various in nature law reviews have been published (599). In this regard, the regulation is considered an attempt to combine the two opposite but interrelated perspectives on gun control. At the same time, Shalhope suggests a historical perspective, according to which a collective right to possess guns does not preclude individual freedom (599). As Gallia argues, even though some people consider the Second Amendment politically incorrect, it should be considered by the Supreme Court when deciding how to interpret it (135). According to Wilson, the belief system rooted in the current American approaches to the issue is based on classical philosophy, which makes the discussion controversial (22). Hence, all the arguments of the researchers mentioned above emphasize that the debate is not easy to resolve, and the moral and political beliefs define an individual’s perspective on gun control and associated issues.
Another important finding to discuss is the analysis of the language in the Second Amendment. As Volokh claims, it contains an operative clause protecting the individual right and a justification clause explaining its importance, which is not common for any other amendment (795). Therefore, such an observation can explain the difference in views. Nevertheless, some state constitutions are characterized by similar language without implying that the right is only limited to one situation or instance.
An essential question to explore is how the Second Amendment impacts current policies in gun regulation. According to Wilson, the statement is not self-evident, and the philosophical foundations of the amendment are controversial (19). While being regarded as a strong argument for the citizens’ right to bear firearms, it is, in fact, a matter of symbolism for people defending gun ownership rather than a powerful legal principle. Wilson investigates the role of the Supreme Court in the adoption of firearms regulation measures (28). The lack of the Supreme Court’s definitive pronouncement and clarifying comment on the issue contributes to the ongoing debate.
The relationship between the two interpretations of the Second Amendment is crucial to explore. It is notable that the question regarding the understanding of the statement was raised long after the Bill of Rights adoption. One perspective is that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a gun for lawful purposes like self-defense. However, the other interpretation suggests that the right can only be executed by militia organizations. Hence, the language of the amendment identifies the controversial relationship between clauses and interpretations. As a result, the two opposing views emerged: an individual right theory and the collective right theory, both appealing to different parts of the text.
The main problem to explore is finding a way to deal with firearm accidents and regulate gun ownership without affecting individual rights. In this regard, politics plays an important role in the debate. Wilson highlights the importance of gun regulation in the elections, emphasizing the direct connection of the issue with the responses and perspectives of political parties and interest groups (19). Furthermore, the American context and history contribute to the debate. As Wilson states, the Supreme Court has preliminary rulings on the Second Amendment, and insufficient attention continues to affect the progress in resolving this issue. At the same time, long-term solutions need to be found to prevent gun injuries and deaths.
The source discussed in this paper is a chapter from Wilson’s book “Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms” that deals with the relationship between gun debate and the Constitution. In his book, Wilson offers an overview of the current gun control politics’ structure, addresses the discussion through a historical perspective, and explains the role of politics in the issue (19). Besides, the importance of firearms regulations in the presidential elections and state campaigns is studied. Overall, the book focuses on gun policy and its impact on the current world.
The book chapter by Wilson adds to the discussion on gun control in an accessible and informative way. It explains the two rival theories of interpreting the Second Amendment and proves that the historical context plays an essential role in the modern perception of the issue by the nation. The chapter argues that the debate on gun control is rooted in the controversial nature of the statement made in the amendment and complains that this implication is not studied enough. Furthermore, it discusses the early Supreme Court cases and points to possible ways of interpreting its decisions. Overall, the author sees a solution in searching for the actual meaning of the Second Amendment.
To summarize, the difference in the interpretation of the Second Amendment text can be found in the historical context of the nation, as well as the language used in the statement. Wilson examines the theoretical and philosophical history of the right to possess guns in the U.S. and points to the role of politics in the diversity of opinions. The obscurity of the Second Amendment is viewed as the main factor contributing to the ongoing debate.
Works Cited
Gallia, Anthony. “Your Weapons, You Will Not Need Them. Comment on the Supreme Court’s Sixty-Year Silence on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” Akron Law Review, vol. 33, 1999, 131-150.
Shalhope, Robert E. “The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment.” The Journal of American History, vol. 69, no. 3, 1982, pp. 599-614. JSTOR. Web.
Volokh, Eugene. “The Commonplace Second Amendment.” New York University Law Review, vol. 72, no. 3, 1998, 793-821. Web.
Wilson, Harry L. “Guns and the Constitution.” Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms, edited by Harry L. Wilson, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007, pp. 19–46.