The second amendment

                The meaning of the first amendment is widely accepted by liberals and conservatives alike. The same could not be said of the second amendment. The division between a liberal interpretation and a conservative interpretation of the second amendment matters deeply due to the prevalence of gun ownership within the states, and the emotional attachment to which the American people have towards the right to bear arms. For many people, it is truly a symbol of what is means to be an American.

To those on the right, the second amendment allows an individual to own a gun. As the Roberts Court made clear in DC v. Heller (2008), the second amendment protects an individual’s right to bear firearms. This is consistent with the broader ethos of the Bill of Rights (with the obvious exception of the tenth amendment) which protects the rights of the individual against the government. To liberals however, the second amendment refers to a collective right to keep and bear arms. The wording places an emphasis upon a “militia” rather than the individual. It is only the militia that should legally bear arms, perhaps commanded by the governor of that state. The liberal interpretation is also consistent with the preamble to the Constitution (“provide for the common defense”).

                Given the highly charged nature of the debate concerning gun control, and the ideological polarization that characterizes politics in the states; it is difficult to identify a genuinely objective standpoint. The wording certainly emphasizes militia, and one that should be “well regulated” and “necessary for the security of a free state.” However, the last fourteen words seem to support the interpretation associated with those on the right. This being politics, the debate goes well beyond one of semantics. It really matters to everyone in this great nation! It is undoubtedly the case that many people within the states perceive the ownership of a gun as an expression of individual liberty. It may be couched in high-minded rhetoric or populist angst; but the perception is exactly the same. Many Americans accept that they – and they alone – must protect themselves and their families against those who threaten their property (ranging from criminals to government-imposed tyranny). Regardless of the erudite arguments put forward by the liberal side, millions of people view ownership of a firearm as an individual right derived from the founding fathers.

As one might expect from a Democrat administration, Obama has tried to strengthen gun control in the states. In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, Obama set up a taskforce led by Joe Biden to consider ways in which access to guns could be controlled. Obama also gave his personal support to gun control initiatives in Colorado and New York City. However, proposals to expand background checks for gun purchasers failed to gain sufficient support in the Senate. Moreover, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives did not even bother to consider such legislation. In 2015, Obama candidly admitted that the failure to implement effective gun control measures was the biggest frustration of his presidency.

In terms of public opinion, the contrast between the first and the second amendment could hardly be greater. The American public has largely acquiesced to some curtailment of free speech and freedom of association in order to combat the threat of terrorism. However, the Obama administration has found it very difficult indeed to persuade people of the need to accept gun control measures. Revealingly, sales of firearms rose sharply after Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 children at the Sandy Hook elementary school. Sales were fuelled by a belief that Obama might actually succeed in imposing stricter gun control measures. In relative terms, few countries celebrate gun ownership with quite the same vigor and paranoia as the United States of America.