"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."
2nd 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 2nd 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
50 comments:
The purpose of the second amendment seems to be to establish democratic power over the government. If the government were to prohibit all weapons, the people could very easily be controlled. The right to bear arms, and thus the second amendment, seems to maintain the freedom of the people.
On the other hand, there would be no guarantee that the people would ally together if the federal government, or any other oppressive power, were to turn the US government into a totalitarian one. In such a scenario, the security and stability of the country would descend into chaos and bloodshed.
The question of the second amendment is of whether we trust the government. In a democratic republic, we should control the government, not the other way around.
However, this case does not discuss a total ban on guns, but rather that the guns be disassembled or safely stored with a trigger lock. With the situation above, the person would be just as able to resist oppression if their gun were still in their possession. As for self-defense, the law is not in the hands of the individual, but the government - police officers, not random people should be doing the shooting.
~Elisabeth Meyer
When that amendment was added to the constitution it was during a time when state militias were everywhere, and when people still feared a takeover of their fledgling government. As it stands today, it would take a lot to take over our country, and people don't need their own weapons to protect it.
I think the amendment is punctuated very oddly, and I agree with Linda Singer (from the article) when she says that this means it was probably meant to mean one can bear arms while in the militia.
Regardless, I see nothing wrong with having strict gun control regulations. It's not a complete ban of arms, theoretically americans CAN still own guns, it's just very hard to do so.
I'm not saying that it's a good idea that the people should bear guns--in fact, if I had my way, I would definitely support the ban.
But the phrasing "a well-regulated militia" means that the militia should be able to keep guns--and militias are made up of the men and women citizens of the United States. There might not necessarily actually be militias today, but I think the "well-regulated militia" can extend to that one lone soldier who are called upon to defend.
"Gun-control advocates have long maintained that the amendment’s ambiguous opening reference to a “well regulated Militia” limited its scope to gun ownership in connection with service in a state militia. In the appeals court’s view, the clause simply highlighted one of the amendment’s “civic purposes.” Since the militias of the time included nearly all able-bodied white men, the court said, the amendment served the purpose of assuring that the citizenry would have guns at hand if called up, while also guaranteeing the right to keep arms even if the call never came."
Also, what's with the justices not taking up this case? (Well, I'm glad that they did in the end, but anyway...) The second amendment is such a muddle, and maybe stuff like VTech and Columbine wouldn't have happened if they had addressed this sooner and reviewed those gun laws.
I believe that the second amendment was proposed so that people
could have more security. The right to bear arms should not be taken
away from them. No matter if in times of war or peace. Although guns are helpful in certain cases, they are also very dangerous. Therefore not everyone should be able to buy or own guns. Back round checks should be administered. In addition, I do not believe there are guns that are reasonable/unreasonable to own. Only illegal guns should be
unreasonable to own.
The second amendment should not be changed, but states should be
able to make guns harder to obtain, in order to compromise.
Guns are not always used for violence. Some families have guns for hunting as well. In cases like those, hunters should be able to obtain the guns they need without too much trouble.
The second amendment was created for a perpose of not only protection and a method of hunting, but when created there where countless times when villages needed to be ready to battle with every male citizen ready to fight. Therefore, the second amendment should not qualify to our modern rules. Perhaps it could be remodeled to represent our more modern society; by becoming more strict and have more regulations about gun ownership.
Needless to say, i do in fact believe that we as American citizens have the right to bear arms because even now we still need a method of protection. Further more, in the end it is safer to be prepared with a weapon in case you might ever need it rather than risk an innocent person to loose their life.
The issue of the second amendment is difficult because it was created in a time when the colonies needed to be ready to fight against the Red Coats. Now, times have changed, and I believe the use of guns, outside of the army is unnecessary, especially automatic machine guns.
I think, if people did not have the right to bear arms, it would cut down on crime. Some people may say that they need guns for protection, but if no one else had guns, who would they need protection from?
I believe that guns, outside of the military, are unneeded in our society today.
I believe that the ban on guns is completely OK. In the 2nd Amendment, the refence to bearing arms follows the discussion of the well-regulated militia. This suggests that the right to bear arms is for the militia, which, at the time, was most of the citizens.
Also, I think that the times have changed greatly since the Amendment was written. When it was passed, the people of the U.S. were worried about unstoppable attacks and protecting themselves. Nowadays, there are other ways to protect yourself that do not include a gun; for example, a security system. These other ways can be much more effective, and less dangerous for both the person defending themselves, and the person violating their rights.
On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment does include all citizens in the text, so I can see why their would be arguements. There are many jobs that require guns, and they should not be infringed. Also, hunting with a gun is all right, because it is not as dangerous, and it does not threaten any human being. I still don't believe that gun use for protection is acceptable. However, I have never been in a position where I felt like I needed protection. If I ever am, I may change the way I feel about gun control.
Before I say anything, I just want to say that I think the 2nd Amendment is probably one of the more clunky amendments in our day and time. Back when the Constitution was framed, the right to bear arms was important. It meant that citizens had ways to protect themselves, both from their enemies as well as the government itself.
Now, more often than not people abuse the right to bear arms. I don't think anyone from back then, when the Constitution was written, thought that their nation would reduce themselves to shooting one another. However; the right to bear arms is -still- in the Constitution, so -constitutionally- it wouldn't be right to change that. Whether it's right or wrong is simply a point of view.
The second amendment was created to give the people more power. We don't have an all-controlling government in America and, because of this, the people have freedoms. We have the freedom to speech, press, religion and all the freedom given to us by those snazzy amendments. We also have the right to bear arms.
Banning this right seems like it would create a bigger black-market for guns. Abridging it so that people need to lock their guns in certain areas however, might be a good idea. People will still be 'bearing arms' so this will not violate the second amendment, however, it could limit the killing and murdering in certain areas of our country.
-Tanya Petach
I think that the ban on guns is unconstitutional, but I definately think that it is a good thing. In our society there are many stressed-out, crazy people who do not think clearly, and they should not have access to a gun in their house.
The ban on guns was made in order to protect the public, and I think that it was a good safety measure. Extensive background check and personality tests must be critical before attaining a weapon if the ban is to be lifted. I don't want Boulder to become an unsafe place where everyone owns guns regardless of their intentions. It would be so unsafe and scary to have guns all over town, so this is why I support the ban in D.C.
I think that our government should have the power to control our rights to own weapons. Times have changed. People no longer need an arm in order to protect themselves from the government and criminals.
If our founding fathers knew what weapons were available for purchase now, I think that they would have stated the Second Amendment differently.
Over all I think that the ban on weapons in D.C. was a very intelligent safety measure. Also the government should have control of gun-owners and who can or cannot obtain them. Our society needs to become safer, and by banning guns, except for security gaurds and police force-guns, it will be safer.
I have no interest in removing any gun restriction or ban. I agree that the second amendment was very applicable and important in the time of its creation, but today there is no overbearing reason to keep the right to bear arms.
There are too many stories in the news involving guns that are ridiculous and sometimes tragic. Take the shootings in the past half-year; Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, Colorado Springs, and Omaha were all directly related to the second amendment. I believe guns are too accessible to the public, and only increase the danger of losing our security.
The government should have ever right to strongly limit gun ownership, and in fact, not doing so is irresponsible and stupid. As everyone else has said, and as is evident in the wording of the Constitution itself, the 2nd Amendment was created when guns were a necesitie of life and a person needed one to function in the malitia, which is the real purpose of the Amendment, since it was written in a time when the Country did not have an official, efficient, well-functioning army to defend itself. instead, it relied on local malitias. This is why the Amendment was added, in addition to the fact that many people had to hunt for their food, and realistically, couldn't do this without guns. The Amendment wasn't created so people could have guns for the fun (not sure how it's fun, but some people are wierd...) of it; it wasn't created so people could play soldier before bedtime.
Also, the notion that it was created to protect hunting rifles and allow people to hunt, while true to a certain degree, is over exagerated. The reason for this is twofold. First, back then, people hunted for survival, not for sport, as is the case almost exclusively today. And second, if the founding fathers were trying to protect citizens' recreational opprotunites, then why didn't they ever try to protect anything else of the sort?
Thirdly, the notion that people need guns in case the government trys to take over the country is rediculus for two reasons. First, for the government to take over the country, they would need the backing of all the armed services. What in the world makes people think that all those soliders, pilots, and sailors (among many others) would agree to a national takeover? They probably would say something like "Hell no! What the @#$%@ is the matter with you guys?!?!" Also, if they government did have the military's support, then people with hunting rifles and handguns wouldn't be able to do a thing about it; the army would slaughter them.
Finally, although the wording of the 2nd Amendment is very wierd, I believe, nay I know that the meaning of the right to bear arms is in relation to keeping a malitia, not just the right to have guns for no reason. Gun possession increases murder rates and violence. If someone doesn't have a weapon, they can't hurt someone with it. But back to the point. The 2nd Amendment gives people the right to bear arms as part of a malitia, which don't exsist today. Ultimately, the only instance that I believe someone should be able to own a gun is for hunting, and then not just for sport, but to be used to hunt for food. So I believe that the 2nd Amendment as it is written is outdated, and I believe it should be voided and rewritten.
When attempting to interpret the second amendment, one must consider the conditions under which the amendment was first created as well as the specific wording and grammar of the sentence.
When the second amendment was first thought of, the U.S. had no formal militia to "secure the state." Thus it was important that individual citizens were granted the right to gun ownership in order to protect themselves, particularly from the British. They had just found England, so most individuals own weapons from the war and for future protection: they lived in dangerous times. Today however, the U.S. has a military to "secure the state" and individual people no longer need to fight against foreign invasion. Thus a likely original purpose of the second amendment no longer applies today.
In addiction, the specific wording and usage of commas in the second amendment must be closely observed. Some may argue that it is obvious that individuals are guaranteed the right to own guns: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." However, in the preceding clause, it is specified that a well-regulated (regulated referring to control by some authority figure) is necessary to secure the state. Does this clause limit the following one - can one only own a gun in service of the militia? Furthermore, does the comma between the phrases "security of state" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean that a "well-regulated militia . . . shall not be infringed?" This is questionable use of the word "infringed," because one cannot "infringe a militia," but language changes over time and perhaps this was acceptable at the time when second amendment was written. English was greatly influence be German at the time; because German is a language that frequently links the beginnings of sentences with the end - all objects, prepositional phrases and relative clauses in the middle - it is likely that "a militia . . . shall not be infringed," and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a relative clause to the well-regulated militia. Thus the original meaning of the second amendment may be different than expected.
Looking specifically at this case, District of Columbia v Heller, one must carefully consider the laws concerning background checks that must be made before someone can hold a gun outside of militia services. Heller applied for this right, but was denied it. This limiting law supports the idea of a well-regulated militia, so the handgun ban could be a result of this law.
Ultimately, "the right . . . to keep and bear arms" should be restricted to the "well-regulated militia" based on the historical context of the second amendment, the wording and grammar of the second amendment.
The second amendment was created during a time of an opressive government when the only possible way for a revolution was by militias. The framers of the constitution added the second amendment to ensure that if another opressive government was to arise then the people would be able to fight back. Now that we are in the 21st century this amendment is completly outdated. The guns that are owned by civilians are not kept incase of revolution. This moral dilemma should be changed from a federal level to a state level. Much like the death penalty, gun control will slowly diminish until people begin to think its inhumane. In conclusion I believe that that the 2nd amendment was not meant to be abused like it is today and that if states wish to make gun banning laws they not only should be allowed but encouraged to do so.
Tommy Gebhardt
I believe that the gun control law is not unconstitutional. The law is in place to protect everybody in Washington DC. Some of the people that live or reside in Washington D.C. are some of the most endangered people in the United Sates. This is the president and all of the high members of the U.S. Government.
The second reason that I believe that the gun control law is constitutional is that Washington D.C. is not banning all firearms from the area. People are still allowed to bear their arms. Those arms just have to be disassembled or have a trigger lock on them. This law is a loop-hole in the Second Amendment.
Lastly, I believe that keeping the law helps show that even though Washington D.C. is one of the most dangerous and poor city in the U.S., the government is trying to keep the strictest laws on it. This shows other countries that we are trying to get to peace in the city. It just is taking a while.
The gun ban in Washington D.C. is completely constitutional and I believe it should stay.
Nicole Buggy
The right to bear arms, I believe, doesn't mean the right to bear a automatic machine gun. We should be able to protect ourselves from danger, a corrupt gevernment, and terrorists. But we shouldn't be able to shoot off an automatic gun that put many people in harms way. I don't think that guns should be illegal but we should be stricter and more careful with guns. For instance, if an illegal immigrant comes here to harm us or someone is putting your family in danger with a gun they got off the black market, do people expect us to protect ourselves with kitchen knives?
The founding fathers didn't know that a couple hundred years later there would be automatic and semi-automatic guns that can hurt tons of people in a matter of seconds. But they did know that there are cruel and dangerous people in the world that we need to be protected against. So if we want to allow guns, let's just put stricter laws on them. For a few examples, it could be mandatory to not have a loaded gun, we could have better background checks, and possibly raise the prices of guns. There are many ways to make it harder to get a gun without banning them, so we can protect ourselves from plenty of harmful things.
Historically, the reason the second amendment was to give some power to the citizens. At the time the Constitution was written, firearms were a symbol of authority and power, so the Founding Fathers used the second amendment to establish equality between the citizens and the government. However, arms at that time weren't nearly as powerful as weapons today. Now that there are other means for citizens to overthrow an unfair government, this amendment is archaic.
In today's society, the second amendment does nothing but encourage violence. In my opinion, people should only be allowed to have small handguns for protection, and hunting guns if they choose to use them for sport. There is no reason why a citizen of the United States should have some kind of huge machine gun in their home. This kind of regulated system would most likely decrease gun violence.
I don't think the Second Amendment should be abridged and that as it stands that all citizens have the right to bear arms. While I do believe that it could be very dangerous, I think that background checks should be issued. The problem with today's background checks is that guns and other weapons are still sold on the black market. But just because the system doesn't work perfectly, does not mean that you throw it all away.
I don't think that local and state goverments should have the power to limit American Citizens' right to own a weapon because if they can limit the rights that are given in the Bill of Rights, in respect to the 2nd Amendment, then the federal government and the Bill of Rights have lost all power to those local and state governments. History has told us that while seperation of power between the local, state, and federal government is very important and therefore limiting the federal government in this respect and giving more power to the local and state governments through this seperation of power out of balance.
So therefore I believe that the 2nd Amendment gives American Citizens the right to bear arms such as guns and that the local and state governments should not have the power to limit American Citizens' right to own a weapon.
no, i do not think that the constitiution should be abriged in any way. our founding fathers put that line into the constitiutiuon becasue they had just come from a represive government and they only way that they escaped was through the use of fire arms. Now as it was back then you could not overthrough a government with out the use of a fire arm and it is our duty and responcibility to over through represive governments.
Most definitely! I don't understand why anyone would oppose otherwise. I think that it should be closely regulated, like make sure the regulations aren't taken overboard but enough to protect others. People say that we should be able to protect ourselves, but what would we be protecting ourselves from if we're in a place where everyone isn't even allowed to carry a gun; or at least have restrictions that go along with it?
I believe that its the state's and government's duty to make sure that guns are only given to the trustworthy. What does a background check hurt? i think it's brilliant. By doing that, we ensure a greater percentage of our protection. Plus, i think that only certain guns should be allowed to have. For example, handguns and shotguns but nothing like machine guns or anything like that.
By having restrictions on such a weapon thats all too common, is just making our world better, safer, and more protected for all. I think that restrictions and regulations should always be applied to gun control. It shouldn't be banned but it should have rules and restrictions for whom they're given to.
"Do you think we made it clear that the citizens can have bear arms in their houses?" -The Daily Show
This one is tricky. It's definitely bad that there are people out there who would use guns threateningly or carelessly, but the people who are really serious about armed robbery and such will find a way to get guns illegally, and then the law-abiders will be helpless. I lean a little toward the argument of being able to own guns for this reason, but i can also see why you want to change the second amendment: it's pretty out-of-date. It was originally created to create a secondary line of defense against invasion, but nowadays that's very unlikely; if another country wanted us gone, they'd just bomb us. And trying to shoot bombs doesn't really help anyone.
Rick S.
The second amendment was added to the constitution over a hundred years ago and I would like to hope that the US has been able to develop technology and government drastically since then. Back then guns were not uncommon and they were not as extreme as todays automatic guns. When this rule of created it was to prevent the government having to much control but now clearly our nation has established a balanced government. The way that the second amendment is stated leaves room for question which i believe means that the writers of the constitution left room for debate about gun control.
I think that background checks are completely necessary and are not a violation of the 4th amendment of privacy because it is crucial to the safety of innocent bystanders. I think that people should be able to have one gun maximum per house but just a hand gun for protection. I think that allows a person to have enough comfort in the home without giving the person a large opportunity to kill many people.
The second amendment was added to the Constitution at a time when people needed a way to protect themselves and defend their country. Now, with the army that we have, this is not necessary. People own guns for entirely different reasons and say that it is protected under the second amendment. Technically you can own guns under the second amendment, but it was designed for different purposes that are not relevant now.
I think that people should be allowed to own guns for some purposes, for example a job that requires it or for hunting. However, there are only certain types of arms that are used in any of these situations. We need to have more strict gun control laws to prevent people from having extremely dangerous weapons for no reason. We should require an extensive background check and a gun liscence of some kind. This would help protect people from violence, but not totally take away people's second amendment rights.
The second amendment can be interpreted in many different ways which means that with a change in times the definition will no doubt change. The important thing now is to determine what is most appropriate for today's culture. I believe that handguns are still very appropriate for protection although there may not be as many instances where self-defense scenarios as there were when this amendment was written.
However there are many more powerful firearms than there were when the second amendment was written. And I think that the reason for this amendment was to provide protection but machine guns are completely unnecessary for protection or even hunting. I don't believe citizens should have the right to carry a machine gun because it is a lot more dangerous and a simple handgun would do for protection. However I believe that a background check should be absolutely necessary if anyone wants to buy a gun because it can only provide more safety. Background checks do not violate privacy and are simple and easy for people who don't have anything to hide. I also believe that if a complete firearms ban was imposed than the people who have hostile intentions would find a way to get them regardless so i don't think that a gun ban would stop murders.
I think that banning gun ownershipe completely from anywhere in the US is uncalled for. It is in our constitution that we have "the right to bare arms". Baring arms, however, depends on the kind of "arm" you have. for instance a sniper would be suspicious to own, but a handgun on the other hand, would just be there for your feeling of security.
I understand that some people would feel that if noone had guns there would be no need to have one for protection. Although that makes a good point...the militia are allowed to have guns for any reason they may need them, so why couldn't "regular joe's" have them too?
I also think it would be good to make it harder for people to get guns, like being really hard on background checks.
All in all, i think banning the use of guns is not a good choice because our founding fathers put it in our constitution hundreds of years ago, why not keep it. they obviously had a good reason to put it in there, we may not know why, but i think people back then had a better sense of what was important and what wasn't.
I think that the second amendment which says that americans have the right to bear arms, should be abolished. I think that because it has no application in todays society we have the army, coast guard, police offecers and in many cases armes security guards in public places like malls, with this most americans are protected and the need for personal armnament is uneccesary
I feel like when the constitution was written, the second ammendment, the right to bear arms, was there for protection and hunting purposes of the people more than 200 years ago.
Today however, I feel that the ban on guns is a good thing. People don't really need to hunt anymore to provide food and additionally there are other types of protection than guns. Giving guns out to everyone who wants one would only cause more violence and distruction in the society that exists presently.
Hallie Wakely
i think the second amendment is a good and necessary to the constitution and the united states of america. without this amendment the government would have a lot of power and that is not what was wanted by our fore fathers. also guns help you feel safe in your home. even if someone else has a gun your would feel safe because you have a gun too and that would make you equal. when someone has a mashinegun that is not ok with me. they are super deadly and are unreasonable to have in a household. guns do kill many people but it is good if a really strong person is taking advantage of a weak person and a gun would give the weak person a chance.
guns are also very bad and everything or every example that i could come up with that would be proguns, you could easily come up with something against it.
so to sum it up i think guns are super de duper bad.
I believe that the purpose of the second amendment was to protect the people. But with our advanced armed forces, along with police, etc., the protection of the people is not in the hands of the people themselves, but instead government and state sponsored organizations. With our current society, guns are not something with which we protect ourselves, but the thing used to assault the people. However, as much as I disagree with this right in the current circumstances, the amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. With that in mind, a law mandating that the gun be kept at home, and disassembled does not violate that right. The amendment does not propose that all American citizens have the right to always carry a loaded weapon on their person at all times. This law is to protect the people, and thus overrides the right of, for example, an ex-convict to carry a gun. Guns should be used for defense, and not assassinations. If the law is carried out as it should be, there is no reason for one to desire a weapon with them constantly, as we have organizations to protect us. And we maintain control of the government as it is a democracy. So there is really no problem with gun control laws, as they do not infringe upon the right to bear arms in general.
I believe that we should all be allowed to own guns. But i do believe that there should be limits on guns that are sold to regular people. The second amendment does allow people to own guns, this was when we had no permanet millatary so that people could grab guns and go fight a war.
We don't need people owning guns for fun anymore. The people should be allowed but many guns should not be allowed to own atomtic wepons. That is my theory on the 2nd amendment and gun control
I think that a gun ban or at least having to have the gun disassembled would be a big step in the right direction. I agree that the right to bear arms is outdated and unnecessary today. It was put there so that people would be able to defend themselves against the government which is a different situation now. Having guns around puts people in danger and if it can be avoided it should be.
As for the second amendment there is no way of knowing for sure. Anyone who could have told us is dead so the best thing to do is decide what is relevant. At the moment there is no need for militia's or anyone else to have guns.
I think bringing a case to the Supreme Court about interpreting the 2nd amendment at this point in time is a good idea. Times have changed drastically sense this amendment was written and with that the types and power of guns has also changed. I think that the amendment meant that citizens have the right to bear arms, anyone, not just the militia.
However, I think that in today's society there is a point where owning any gun would be ridiculous sense we now have things like machine guns and snipers and such. In the case of anyone buying a gun I think that background checks are probably a good idea so a dangerous person doesn't have access to a dangerous weapon. However, some people hunt or want a handgun for protection and I think that if they pass the background check there is no reason and no opposition in the amendment that would prohibit them from getting one. The case is interesting in Washington D.C. though. I'm not sure what their original reason for banning guns there was, so I’m not sure what would happen if it went back to the Supreme Court.
Personally, I think stand somewhere in the middle. Of course if everyone can get as many guns as they want whenever and whereever they want, crime levels would be extremely high. On the other hand, if gun regulations are too restricting, people will be without self defense.
The truth of the matter is that even though gun regulations make it harder to get a gun, it doesn't make it impossible. In a similar way to restrictions on drugs and other controlled substances that create a larger black market to purchase those things, more restrictions on guns would create a black market without any of those restrictions. The wors possible scenario would be if there were too many gun control regulations making it so that criminals would go to the black market and innocent citizens would not be able to purchase any guns thus being defenseless.
I think that the government should be able to limit whether we can get weapons, or at least how hard it is to get them.
The 2nd amendment was written when it was important for everyone to be able to have weapons in case they needed to use them, that certainly doesn't apply today.I don't think we should all have the right to bear arms, because that can lea to violence, and we don't need them, but if the government can't say that people can't have guns, they should at least be able to make them very hard to get. The second amendment doesn't say under what conditions people have the right to bear arms, so if guns have to be allowed under the second amendment, they should be very hard to get.
Because the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bears arms, I think that all citizens should have that right. Even though times were different when this amendment was first made, I don't think that it is unnecessary. I think that in places such as Washington D.C. where there is a lot of crime, it is important for citizens to be able to own a gun if they wish. In Boulder we don't really have a great need to own a gun since there is not as much crime here.
I think that by having a gun ban in places like D.C. we are just putting citizens at risk. I know that if there is a criminal that needs a gun, they'll be able to get one, and a gun ban won't make a difference. It's not as though they're going to care about breaking the law by owning a gun if they're going to use it to kill someone. I do however believe that the process of buying a gun shouldn't be easy. I think that a background check is very necessary and I think that having people wait about 3 weeks or so is also a good idea.
I beleive that there is no reason to lift bans on weapons in certain districts or states in the US by declaring the ban unconstitutional. this is because, as stated before by others, the second amendment was added when America was not in a position to defend themselves from other nations without the help of militias, nor are guns a neccesity of life now, as they were when the amendment was written. I believe that there have been too many terrible mistakes made in not restricting access to firearms to rollover and act like their on purpose in todays culture is for protection and hunting. This is why i believe that no bans restricting firearms should be lifted, and i encourage further bans on what has become a darke side of American culture.
A ban on hand guns in Washington D.C. is unconstitutional, but the laws that require guns to be disassembled or have a trigger lock are not unconstitutional.
The second amendment’s purpose seems to be ensuring that the people will be able to protect themselves from a threat posed by another country, so that the country remains a free nation. At the time the constitution was drafted, the amendment was very logical, since there had been a need for a group of citizens to fight the British. By adding the second Amendment the drafters of the Constitution ensured that if such an instance occurred again the people would be able to defend themselves and had the right to.
The likelihood of an event of another nation invading the country today is very low. People have the right to bear arms, but people no longer own guns in order to defend the nation. Guns are now more of treat to people's safety. In order to protect the people from danger, the city of Washington D.C. has ruled that all guns must be disassembled or have a trigger lock when in a house. Regulations such as these help protect people from danger without infringing upon the people’s rights.
-Hannah Russek
I believe that under the amendment it says that the militias have a right to bear arms. Now at the time remember it was the people that made up the militias so even though saying this goes against every moral I have, I believe it should be interpreted for people to own guns. On a moral level however I believe it is wrong in almost every way possible. We now have police to take care of us, although some would argue they aren’t doing a good job. Overall I believe they have the RIGHT to bear arms, but it shouldn’t be legal to because many terrible things could happen if a gun falls into the wrong hand (i.e. Columbine, Virginia Tech., and many others including homicides etc…) these are just a few reasons why I believe people have the right, but it should be illegal, to bear arms.
I believe citizens should be able to possess certain weapons. Handguns could be very useful to a person's self-defense, and could prevent a horrible tragedy from ocurring. Rifles can be used for hunting and general recreation, which I don't think should be prohibited due to the ban of weapons.
However, I don't feel that any American citizen has a good reason to own explosives of any kind, or a machine gun. Neither of these weapons are generally used for safe recreation, and could prove very harmful if placed in the wrong hands. In conclusion, I believe that Americans should be allowed to possess handguns and rifles, but not explosives and machine guns.
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution a long long time ago and times have changed. I think that guns should be banned in D.C. The city has a ton of murders every year even with the gun ban. This would only make the situation worse than it already is. Also the constitution is so unclear when it comes to gun control. Nobody knows what the word "arms" means. I doesn't classify what kind of guns are o.k. and which ones are banned. I think that they should revise the second amendment and make it more clear. Way back in history there was only one type a gun and that was o.k. Now we have so many different types like automatics. Guns are deadly and should be regulated a little more. Overall I think that in Washington D.C. they should keep to jun ban to regulate crime and murders.
The gun-ban in the District of Columbia should stay in place, in fact there should be more gun restrictions all over the US. It happens too often that people watch or listen to the news or open the newspaper and hear about another school shooting. These continued occurrences can be blamed on the accessibility of guns to the public. The repeat of these tragedies is dehumanizing America, something needs to be changed when some people don't even think twice at the brutal headlines. In 2004 there were 16,137 reported homicides in the US (fbi.org). While the total number of murders during the length of a year may seem surprising, most people are not shocked when reading or hearing about the manslaughter that happens much more than daily. By placing restrictions, such as requiring background checks for weapons, we can lower the number of victims killed every day.
I believe that the second amendment should not be changed. People can have guns as long as they are put through a background check. If we could be more careful about who we give guns to then I think that it would be fine.
Although I agree that the second amendment should not be changed, I think that people should no be allowed to have automatic guns that are just too big and powerful. For example like an m-16 or something like that, that wouldn't be used for anything other than shooting it at a range. So other than that the 2nd amendment it fine.
In my opinion, the issue of interpreting the Second Amendment is one of a most confusing kind. As the article said, the second amendment is a “single, densely written, and oddly punctuated sentence”. Was there meant to be a connection between the right to a militia and the right to bear arms? If that were the case, then, obviously as most people have said already, that right wouldn’t really make sense in present day. In other words, the right to bear arms for the reason of militia is, in fact, not a dignified reason in our current society.
Something I want to make clear is that I do not agree with guns. Just in general. In a perfect world, no weapons would exist – especially not guns of any kind. Unfortunately, we do not live a perfect world and have to make due. If there is no connection between the right to a militia and the right to bear arms (as stated in the earlier question), then we all have the right to keep guns individually for our own purposes. So to me it seems that we have no way of banning guns in a constitutional manner, except maybe D.C. because it has its own significant reasons. However, we can work around this with the loopholes that everyone keeps talking about. Disassembly, background checks, and other suggestions are an excellent way to keep America safe without actually being unconstitutional.
If we don’t want to be constitutional, we could probably take the whole Second Amendment out of the works. Then again, I can’t predict how this would affect the black-market and other such things. Once again: this is a tough subject.
I believe that the second amendment is worded so vaguely that we should choose to interpret it in the way that is most applicable and suiting to our current society, which I believe is to interpret it to not always give the power to own guns to us. Although it is true that, if guns are outlawed, only criminals will own guns, the criminalization of guns would make it much more difficult to acquire and possess them.
I believe that, in our society, we really do not need guns. The only real purpose of guns is to kill people, apart from hunting, and is anyone really going to go hunting with a high powered assault rifle? It is fairly safe to assume that if someone wants to buy a weapon like that, then they intend to use it to kill people, so why sell it to them in the first place?
One thing that is important to take into consideration is the time that the constitution was written. These people were at war, they needed self-protection. If a british soldier walked into their living room, they needed to be able to protect themselves.
But times have changed. Granted, you can still have someone you don't want to enter your living room, but as a country we are in a much better state than we were back then. Guns should not be able to be owned by anyone and everyone; however, for the precaution that some people might need one, it should be possible for some people to have guns.
Background checks should be required, as well as gun safety classes, etc. If someone has a big criminal record, chances are they shouldn't have a gun. But if someone has other things in mind, such as self-protection, they should definitely be allowed to have a gun.
However, there is the exception, and this is one of them. Washington DC is the political center of the nation. The president and many other important political figures live here. Allowing gun use by the general public is therefor probably not the smartest thing the country should allow. Yes, the people have the right to bear arms. But not everywhere, and not all people.
This case requires the disassembly of all guns, or to make sure the trigger lock is on. this is a perfect balance of allowing people the right to have a gun and protecting the government, and so the case should be left as such.
So, don't change anything. It's been like this forever, and it's always worked fine.
-Brian Hose
The second amendment allows people to own guns, but that was back when people needed to defend themselves. Now a days we have military personal to help defend us from invasion.
People during the time the 2nd amendment was written did not use guns to murder as often as they do now. Since people now a days murder people with guns all the time there should be some restriction by the local and state government in area that are deemed unsafe. Otherwise i believe that people should be allowed to protect themselves with guns in the home.
When the second amendment was created it had a very clear and realistic purpose. However today the reasons for owning guns have changed drastically. I also believe that the easy access to guns has caused too many crimes and killings. By putting a gun ban into effect, crime rates would hopefully lower drastically.On the other hand, I can clearly see how others may be against banning guns. It is a constitution right of the american citizens to own and use guns. For the purposes of hunting or other activities at a safe firing range, I believe guns should be allowed. It is when guns are owned for other reasons that make crime and homicides more frequent.
If guns were prohibited, it would decrease murder rates. Criminals might have their ways of getting a gun somehow, but it will be much harder for them to find one. Also, sometimes even the most extensive background checks can miss a possible criminal that might use weapons for killings. Background checks should be thorough and complete. Gun-buyers should be checked and questioned as thoroughly as the justices are checked before they are nominated. Big machine guns should never be given to citizens because we aren't in a war, why would we need them? Handguns are enough. Back when the constitution was written, there were rifles. We are taking advantage of our rights to bear arms by using and creating unnecessarily violent weapons that shoot faster and louder. I think that guns should be banned. Just because we don’t own a weapon doesn’t mean that we are going to get dictated by the government. Also, without guns, incidents such as the Virginia tech shootings would cease. There are no well regulated militias here. There are only random shootings that create grief across the country.
As for the District of Columbia v. Heller case, I believe they should have given him the licence to keep his gun at his home because the second ammendment does state that you are aloud to keep a gun if part of a state militia. However, I also believe that is not unconstitutional to have a ban on weapons, if not part of the militia, because the people are aloud to bare arms in the District of Columbia, they are just required to have it on trigger lock or disembled. I also belive the state should have to the choice to put a ban on it's people.
Another point I would like to bring up is when this document was written the types of guns and other weapons were limited. I believe change should be made, due to new technolog, stateing one can only be aloud to bare the types of arms they were aloud when the founding fathers created the constitution. Also, considering the struggle we were in, the right to bare arms was immportant because at the time men were need to fight and if they needed, due to an invasion, they would be able to protect themselves. The situation has changed from protection to violent acts over the years.
Post a Comment