I know I blogged on this topic just a couple of weeks ago, but there was an excellent front page story on the debate over guns and the second amendment in the USA Today. It is only one sentence, but we have had a really hard time agreeing on what it really means:
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.Read the story and tell me if it changes your interpretation of what the Second Amendment means.
4 comments:
Well, I don't really think that it altered my interpretation of the Second Amendment. I mean, for the most part, I had no idea what it was talking about, except that some people want guns, others don't, and whatever decision the Supreme Court makes will make one or the other very upset. But from what I did understand in other parts, nothing was convincing against the right of individuals to bear arms. I believe that having guns for personal and family protection may even be necessary, especially with an increasingly violent society. However, I do not think guns should be available for all. I think that very thorough background checks should be issued, checking for past criminal records, anything related to alcohol and drug use, and mental instability. I also believed that no one under the age of at least somewhere from mid-20's to early 30's should be able to be issued a gun, because for some reason I feel that they would use them more responsibly. So, all in all, I feel that gun restrictions SHOULD be issued, but they should not be issued only to the military; some individual ownership is necessary.
i find it funny that the article says they are trying to say the 2nd amendment doesnt apply to individuals, when infact the amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and that is pretty straight forward, unless i am misinterpretting the amendment, which is ridiculous that it could even happen. there shouldnt be open ends in the CONSTITUTION. honestly, it just seems like people will choose to be critics over whatever they feel like they can including congress, politics, etc. i dont feel like the article has changed my view of the 2nd amendment, rather opened my eyes to some issues that i havent really thought about before. its hard to say whether or not i can agree.
The way I interpreted the Second Amendment was that there should always be a well regulated military and that people can have guns. It said nothing on whether or not the rights can be restricted. There are limits on free speech, so I don't see why there can't be limits on the right to bear arms. Also, there I believe there should be limits on who can get a gun. What if terrorist got a gun that can bypass x-ray machines, the result can be devastating. I really don't think the supreme court's decision will affect anything though. But's it could be a step in the right direction.
Kingsley C, TGS
p4 WTP
As generatons pass by it is no surpirse that they have different ideas on how the ammendments should be interpretated. I personaly am a believer of evolving and adpting the ammendments to fit our needs. The Constitution was written nearly 250 years ago, so what may have seemed necessary then might not be relevent anymore. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has caused a lot of contoversy. My opinion has stayed the same even after reading the article. I think that individuals should have a right to bear arms, but we need to be more srtict with regulations. Like i believe extensive background checks should be done before issueing a licsence or gun. I also think that their should be a law that requires proper gun saftey in the house. Overall i think that it is about time that we make a few adjustments to update the ammendment and make sure we close all the open ends where people are prone to misinterpret.
Post a Comment