Question

questions 4 through 6 refer to the following. \the second amendment... like other cherished texts, is not as clear as many make it out to be. the amendment reads: 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.... americans have been thinking about the second amendment as an individual right for generations, said adam winkler, a law professor at ucla.... you can find state supreme courts in the mid - 1800s where judges say the second amendment protects an individual right. but for the 70 years or so before a supreme court decision in 2008, he said, the supreme court and federal courts held that it only applied in the context of militias, the right of states to protect themselves from federal interference. \in 2008, the supreme court decided the district of columbia v. heller.... the conservative justice antonin scalia wrote the opinion in narrow but unprecedented terms: for the first time in the countrys history, the supreme court explicitly affirmed an individuals right to keep a weapon at home for self - defense.... \people look at the same record and come to wildly different conclusions about what the view was in the eighteenth century, in the nineteenth century,\ said nicholas johnson, a fordham university law professor who argues against winklers view of twentieth - century case law.... carl bogus, a law professor at roger williams university, has argued that james madison wrote the second amendment in part to reassure his home state of virginia.... the federalist madisons compromise... was to promise a bill of rights. after weeks of tense debate, his federalists narrowly won the vote to ratify the constitution. he writes an amendment that gives the states the right to have an armed militia, by the people arming themselves. \a year later, the federal government passed a law requiring every man eligible for his local militia to acquire a gun and register with authorities.\ alan yuhas, \the right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean?\ the guardian, october 5, 2017 which of the following is used as evidence to support the authors argument? a people in the united states agree that the second amendment protects the rights of the individual. b the supreme court has the power of judicial review to determine whether state gun control laws are consistent with the united states constitution. c historical records show varying interpretations as to whether the second amendment was supposed to protect the right of individuals to own a gun, or just for the purpose of supporting militias. d the second amendment does not protect an individual right, but was written by the founders to ensure that militias would have access to needed armaments.

Explanation:

The author's argument is that the Second Amendment's meaning is not clear - different people have different interpretations. Option C provides historical records (from different professors and different time - period analyses) that show varying interpretations (whether it's about individual gun - owning rights or just for militias). This directly supports the author's claim about the ambiguity of the Second Amendment's meaning.
Option A is incorrect as the text does not state that all Americans agree on the Second Amendment protecting individual rights. Option B is about the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, which is not relevant to the argument about the Second Amendment's meaning. Option D presents a one - sided view (that it's only about militias) which goes against the author's argument of ambiguity.

Answer:

C. Historical records show varying interpretations as to whether the Second Amendment was supposed to protect the right of individuals to own a gun, or just for the purpose of supporting militias.