Resolved: The United States Supreme Court should not apply the Second Amendment to American citizens

Everyone is born with a set of rights in America. These rights include freedom of religion, right to due process, and even a right to bear arms. In a recent Supreme Court case, Heller V. District of Columbia, the second amendment, the right to bear arms, has become a complicated issue. No one knows the actual definition of the second amendment, so human rights activists and the government have interpreted the right to their own liking. With this at hand, the Supreme Court needs to decide that the second amendment is meant for individuals who are part of a "well-regulated militia." One area of analysis as to why the Supreme Court should define the law as so is simply because the amendment is confusing to American citizens and lawmakers. In the Heller V. District of Columbia case, the law is being interpreted as to the liking of individuals. Civil right activists say that the law states that citizens have a right to conceal guns even if they are not part of a "well-regulated militia." The law clearly says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed." This is basically saying that the people of a well-regulated militia shall not have this right infringed upon. It does not say that those individual citizens have the right to carry and own arms. Another area of analysis would be the time frame that this amendment was first applied to the Constitution. The second amendment was adapted in 1791 amongst the Revolutionary Period. When looking at this time frame, one can see that America's founding fathers were looking out for American citizens. However, the citizens they were trying to protect were those in a standing army. These were not just regular citizens. The amendment being adapted in 1791 shows that the time frame was completely different from that of today, in which we have peace officers protecting Americans. Citizens today have several ways of keeping themselves safe from others. They don't need to have any form of arms on them. A final way to analyze this topic would be the defining of words in the amendment. The amendment does not define what "to bear arms" means, so individuals have come to the conclusion it means to be allowed to carry guns. According to dictionary.com, "arms" means to equip or prepare for any specific purpose or effective use. This definition does not say that weapons are a specific word for arms. This is where activists have run into a standstill. They cannot say that arms means guns or even weapons for that matter. "To bear," means to have and be entitled to. When combining these two together, it's basically saying one can be allowed to equip and/or prepare for any specific purpose or effective use. Nowhere in those two definitions does it define guns and/or weapons. The second amendment is a controversial subject that has been in effect for over a hundred years that should be decided to only benefit those in a military. The areas of examination have proven that the amendment was meant for individuals in a militia. It would be beneficial for the Supreme Court to define the second amendment to address only individuals in a "well-regulated militia" solely for the purposes of clearing up any confusion, considering the time frame it was written, as well as the defining of the amendment.