Although this may be true, the Second Amendment has become the object of some study itself. Correlating with the predicament of whether it recognizes the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms. Opposing to, whether the right belongs solely to state governments and empowers each state to maintain a military force (Vandercoy, 2016). At the same time, it leaves the question unresolved of what the founders really had in mind when they conscripted this cutting edge declaration. With attention to that, the phenomenon has soared into heights beyond a meer debatable matter. Correspondingly, that leaves one to ponder what the Second Amendment really advocate for, the government 's rights, or the citizen 's …show more content…
Generally, he tried to involve recommendations of state ratifying conventions. For instance, provisions about specific rights such as a right to arms and free speech. At any rate, Madison offered up his support behind the deal to heighten its acceptance. Thus, giving it the propel it needed even with the loud voices of controversy. Sensing unease in the divided mindset, Madison reassured folks consistently that even with the addition of the Bill of Rights, the overall meaning of the Constitution did not stray from its initial intent. .To emphasize, that this new concept did not grant the federal government to infringe on the rights of the people, including the right of individuals to have guns (Second Amendment, 2009). Soon enough, the phrase, 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, was tumbling across the United States