Stubblefield 1Marlene StubblefieldDr. Judith PalierAmerican National GovernmentNovember 17, 2013The Second Amendment: What Does It Mean? As the rate of violence and murder rises in America, so does the issue of gun control. The aftermath of this tragedy gives rise to an unstable political discourse on gun control and the Second Amendment. The fact 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, shall not be infringed.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment, the make and model of firearms have changed dramatically, as have people's philosophies. A rifle is no longer defined as a single-shot muzzle-loading musket used primarily to protect families or exclusively for food. Should the guns we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the Second Amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark widespread debates in Washington DC about what the Founding Fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that although hundreds of articles have been written about gun control, the issue of gun control still remains unresolved. History tells us that gun control debates will remain at a standstill 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 authors, gun control legislation, and examine the factors that influence Americans on this specific issue… half of the document… or militias, and has rejected his case. Heller carefully examined his case; the matter was appealed and sent to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision on the grounds that the Second Amendment clearly mentions that an individual may bear arms while serving in the militia, and that same individual has the sacrosanct right to protect himself and his his family. The court concludes that the city's ban on firearms and the requirement that firearms in the home be kept non-functional violate that right. In other words, an individual does not need to be part of a militia to own a firearm, it is an individual's right to own one for self-defense. Heller concluded his defense by saying, "self-defense is a fundamental right recognized by today's ancient legal system, and is the central component of the Second Amendment" (DC v Heller).