Show Less
Restricted access

The United States as a Divided Nation

Past and Present

Series:

Edited By Marcin Grabowski, Krystof Kozák and György Tóth

Is the U.S. as a country still capable of finding common ground and effective policy responses in the 21 st century, or are the dividing lines within U.S. society actually becoming too deep and too wide to bridge, with potentially grave consequences for American social, political as well as economic development? This book discusses important contemporary U.S. wedge issues such as gun rights, racial and economic inequality, the role of the state, the politics of culture, interpretations of history and collective memory, polarization in national politics, and factionalism in domestic and foreign policy. It provides readers with conceptual tools to grasp the complexity of the current processes, policy formation, and political and social change under way in the United States.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

The Second Amendment Dilemma – Social and Political Divisions over Gun Control in the United States

Extract



A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. – Second Amendment to the US Constitution

Many interpretations have been made by historians in efforts to explain the actual meaning of this sentence. The text of the Second Amendment has been earnestly analyzed because, since the moment it was announced, it has excited controversy and created divisions. Two opposite interpretations of the idea have been developed over time: proponents of gun control promote a ‘collective’ meaning of the constitutional guarantee, while opponents insist that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, just like the other guarantees of the Bill of Rights1.

Supporters of each of these possibilities put emphasis on different parts of the text, drawing upon the same historical data but interpreting them differently in light of their present beliefs. For supporters of strict control of arms representing the so-called ‘collective’ interpretation, the phrase “well-regulated militia” should be stressed, while the opponents of government interference draw the essence of the amendment from the words “the right to bear arms” and also “shall not be infringed”. The latter stress the fact that the individual freedom of speech, the press, and assembly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights was central to the concept of the state and society projected by the Founding Fathers, and those rights could only remain secure if citizens could keep and bear arms.2 Such...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.