Reflecting upon the Second Amendment
...in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence”, while Thomas Jefferson had a somewhat different opinion; "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." This has resulted in two different interpretations of the second amendment. The standard model interprets the second amendment as a protector of the individual right to bear arms, and that the mention of “militia” is in now way a necessity for owning a firearm. The States’ rights model interprets the amendment as the right for States to keep armed militias, and since we now have the National Guard for that purpose, the amendment can not defend the individual right to bear arms. Apparently, even the Founding Fathers disagreed about how to interpret the second amendment, and therefore it is not a surprise that this issue has been highly debated since the “Bill of Rights” were ratified. The Supreme court, which is looked upon as the supreme interpreter of the constitution and the amendments, are yet to provide a clear statement about the wording, even though they have had several opportunities to make such an statement. The few cases directly related to the second amendment have either been sent back to the district courts, and some cases has been settled without giving clear statements. Therefore, both interpretations of the second amendment have read and interpreted the actions of the court just as different as they interpret the amendment itself. This issue has also been debated recently. The Academy-award winning documentary “Bowling for Columbine” from the well-known Bush hater Michael Moore shed new light on this issue, and provoked many pro-gun activist, especially people from the NRA (National Rifle Association). The documentary, which is considered to be one of the best documentaries ever, put the gun industry and the pro-gun activi...