Stubblefield 1Marlene StubblefieldDr. Judith PalierUS National GovernmentNovember 17, 2013The Second Amendment: What does it mean? As the rates of violence and murder increase in America, so does the issue of gun control. The aftermath of this tragedy is giving rise to a volatile political discourse on gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the matter is what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms does not must not be violated. » Since the Second Amendment was written, the make and model of guns have changed dramatically, and so has the philosophy of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single-shot, muzzle-loading musket used primarily to protect families or only for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written almost 222 years ago? Should we rewrite the Second Amendment? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions are sparking widespread debate in Washington, DC, about what the Founding Fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of articles being written on gun control, the issue of gun control still remains unresolved. History tells us that debates over gun control will remain at an impasse until our justice system defines or rewrites the Second Amendment. This article will examine the history of the Second Amendment and attempt to define the intent of the framers, gun control legislation, and examine the factors that affect Americans on this specific issue... middle of article.. ....o militias, and dismissed his lawsuit. Heller went through his trial; the case was appealed and remanded to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's decision for the reasons that the Second Amendment clearly states that an individual may bear arms while serving in the militia, and that the same individual has the right to protect himself and to protect one's family as sacrosanct. The court concludes that the city's ban on handguns and its requirement that firearms in the home remain nonfunctional violated this right. In other words, an individual does not have to be a member of a militia to own a firearm; it is an individual right to own a firearm for self-defense. Heller concluded his defense by saying, "self-defense is a fundamental right to self-present recognized by the ancient legal system, and it is the central element of the Second Amendment" (DC v. Heller).