What is the Second Amendment and why is it important to us today? The Second Amendment, as written in the Constitution, states: “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.” (Amendment II of the United States Constitution). The Second Amendment was created to prevent the government of the newly founded United States of America from abusing and endangering its people. The Second Amendment to the Constitution has been misrepresented and misinterpreted countless times since its conception. This has led to countless debates and issues centered around it. The evolution of the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the evolution of firearms haven't helped either, creating multiple conflicting laws and stipulations. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Likewise, judges have the ability to interpret amendments differently, further altering the interpretation of the Second Amendment in modern times. This can be seen in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia. The Second Amendment serves an important purpose today and always will, but it cannot be moderated and must be adapted. To understand the meaning of the Second Amendment today, it is important to understand how it was interpreted during its original inception. When it was created on December 15, 1791, the Second Amendment had two very different interpretations, many people believing that the clause mentioning "[...] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (Amendment II of the United States Constitution) applies to any citizen of the United States of America and that, in any case, removing a citizen's firearm is considered unconstitutional. On the other hand, people also believed that the preliminary clause "A well-regulated militia" (Amendment II of the United States Constitution) meant that this amendment applied only to the state militia, thus the removal of a citizen's firearm who does not belong to a militia would not be unconstitutional. As UCLA law professor Adam Winkler notes, “While the Founders sought to protect citizens from total disarmament, they did not want to prevent the government from making reasonable regulations on guns and gun owners.” (Winkler and Lund) and as Nelson Lund, professor at George Mason and Antonin Scalia School of Law, states: “Likewise, no reasonable person could believe that violent criminals should have unlimited access to guns, or that any individual should possess a nuclear weapon” (Winkler and Lund). Both assert that the Second Amendment cannot remain unregulated and that the lack of clarity of the Second Amendment has posed a serious problem for judges and citizens of the United States. In the case of Heller v. District of Columbia we can see that the interpretation of the provisions of the Second Amendment played an important role in the outcome of this case. Defendant Heller, a policeman, asked for a gun so he could have it at home. The District denied him his right to own the gun, so he filed a lawsuit against them citing that the District violated his right to own a firearm. The District Court denied Heller's case, but the D.C. Circuit reversed, stating that the Second Amendment clearly protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the violation of that right was unconstitutional. Adding that the city's ban on all firearms and the fact that the guns remained in the home ofa person must remain non-functional even when necessary for self-defense, violate that right. Scalia said: “The ban on firearms amounts to the prohibition of an entire class of 'weapons' that are overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that legitimate purpose. The prohibition also extends to the home, where the need for personal, family and patrimonial defense is more acute” (Heller v. District of Columbia). This suit was Taken all the way to the Supreme Court, the justices said that the clause of the Second Amendment states that the right to bear arms is an individual right and that it can be exercised even at home. The Second Amendment was created so that Anti-Federalists would not fear that a government-controlled standing army would oppress a nation's citizens. In Justice Breyer's dissent he recognized this fact: “Assuring eighteenth-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have permitted them to keep weapons that they could also use for self-defense” (Heller v. District of Columbia) . It was also noted before and after the ratification of the Second Amendment, many laws in states regulating guns included an individual's right to bear arms, this affirmed the judges' interpretation of the Second Amendment. The justices then went on to state that the Second Amendment, although it protected an individual's right to bear arms, was not unlimited, Justice Scalia stated: “Like most rights, the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone to 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and bear any weapon, in any manner, for any purpose” (Heller v. District of Columbia). It may be restricted in cases where the exercise of this right may not be legal, such as in a school or government office. The court reached its conclusion following Heller's oral statement, stating that "the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not applied arbitrarily and capriciously" (Heller v. District of Columbia). They decided that as long as the Second Amendment must be exercised and respected, the District must give Heller a license and permission to carry a gun into his home. This case solidifies the 21st century interpretation of the Second Amendment. The modern interpretation of the Second Amendment is seen in Heller v. District of Columbia. It is most widely regarded as an amendment that protects an individual's rights to keep and bear arms, but may be limited by other outside laws as long as they do not violate a citizen's fundamental right to defend himself. Therefore, unnecessarily powerful and absurd weapons like the AR-15 or M-16, military-grade assault weapons, may not be protected by the Second Amendment. But a more conventional, less lethal firearm such as a handgun will be protected by that amendment. Limiting the type of weapons we can own is still very important today. This right is an integral part of our protection as citizens, it is just another of the many tools that protect citizens from a corrupt government. Many people believe that this amendment has led to the deaths of countless people and should be eliminated. But the idea that a tyrannical government cannot abuse a defenseless people is absurd. It happens all over the world, in dictatorships where citizens have few or no political tools to fight an evil and infernal regime. In conclusion, the Second Amendment is a very controversial and flexible amendment, but it is still an absolutely necessary right, without the Second Amendment many people today would not be able to.