"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."
2
nd Amendment
The interpretation of the second Amendment is once again causing debate throughout the nation. The phrase, "the right to bear arms" has always been a point of debate due to the ambiguity of what an "arm" has come to mean in our society. Why did the founding fathers include this amendment in the Bill of Rights? Did the framers of the constitution want an armed citizenry in order to protect against foreign invaders? Should everyone be allowed to own a firearm? What is a reasonable firearm to own and what should be considered an unreasonable firearm to own?
These questions are ones that the Supreme Court is dealing with now. The District of Columbia has had a firearms ban within the city limits since 1973. Recently, this decision has been brought back to the Supreme Court due to questions of its constitutionality. Read the article (website below) and tell me YOUR opinion.
-Should the 2
nd Amendment be abridged in any form? In other words, should local or state governments have the power to limit American Citizens right to own a weapon?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/washington/13scotus.html?_r=2&sq=2nd%20Amendment&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=1&adxnnlx=1207065853-2NwW3WLyqR0dQDV4YhK4Sg&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin