Position Paper 5

When looking at the second amendment there are a few different views of how its read and interpreted. The standard model being one, is that the right to bear arms belongs to the individual citizen. Another being the collective rights model, it’s one that the right to bear arms belongs entirely to the people, collective rights understanding of the amendment contained no individual aspect, and viewed the right “to keep and bear arms” as only an issue for the state. There was no argument over the same understanding that the militia was the people entirely. That the people appreciated a right to keep and bear arms in the collective rights view, and that no important motives were needed for the keeping of personal weapons.

There was however, a serious problem with the collective rights view. The second amendment was a right “of the people”. It is only for this reason that the standard model made ways in legal sectors. In presenting this argument, standard model writers didn’t dive into the historical pasts. Instead they put forth a “thought experiment” in late twentieth century diction. The standard model is grounded in two primary sources: the text of the second amendment and its historical foundation. Both are understood to support the right to keep and bear arms for individuals. The text is direct, the language used is "the right of the people," terminology that shows in other sections of the Bill of Rights that are widely known for protecting our self-rights.

I definitely share more of the standard model view with the right to bear arms belonging to the individual citizen. I think that this is the correct way people should read and interpret the second amendment in our country. The view is more based on