Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Well- regualted militia


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.



How do you interpret the second amendment?

Why is there such a dispute over gun ownership?

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

The 2nd amendment basically means that to we have the right to have guns in our house, so that we can protect ourselves. This amendment should not at all be trespassed/violated by others. There is such a dispute over gun ownership because people think it's dangerous to have one in their houses. One can easily get killed, even if the gun is placed in a safe/secured place. You just never know.
-TLau

W Brown said...

Tiffany

Where does it say "protect ourselves"? What about militia's and well regulated?

I don't want what it basically means, I'd rather know what it specifically means.

Manpreet Kaur said...

The commas play a key role in what is meant by this statement. The key word is"have." The militia have the right to carry guns, but the right for people to have arms is infringed. I agree with Tiffany's interpetition of the second amendment.
Since 1939, the nation's judges had generally regarded the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' as belonging to state militias, such as National Guard units, not to individual gun owners. But on March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit interpreted the Second Amendment differently. The panel concluded that it protects an individual's right to firearms and struck down a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns. Now the justices are poised to announce as early as Tuesday whether they will take up the case." (USA TODAY)
There is a lot of dipute over this issue because, it concerns the safety of the people.

Anonymous said...

Mr.Brown, It doesn't state anywhere that we have to protect ourselves.It doesn't say that because, we have the militia to protect the civilians.

Manpreet Kaur

Bryan S. said...

I basically interpret this law as us having the right to own a gun if we choose to under the right conditions. I think their's so much of a dispute going on with this law because obviously guns are dangerous and I feel that people don't want children anywhere near them. It doesn't say it anywhere that we have to protect ourselves. Its the parents responsibility to the child if he or she is getting a gun. As Tiffany said " one can easily get killed". Now I know we have the militia to protect the civilians but don't we also have a right to defend ourselves.
-Bryan S.

Vickie said...

I agree with Bryan the second amendment doesn't really talk about protecting ourselves. As we discussed in class it is meant to protect our country from the government, if they gain too much control. It in no way talks about shooting the man that has come to steal your plasma screen T.V., but it does give us the right to fight back against the government that suddenly wants to camp soliders out in your house.
I think the true question is how do we define a well regulated militia, because those are the people who are allowed to bear arms, and have guns. Can anyone who wants to protect the country be part of the militia and who decides this criteria. I think the members of the militia should include any person who is willing to register their gun, obtain a gun license ,and go to the range each year to qualify their shooting. This would prove that they are capable of using their gun correctly, because a gun in the hands of an untrained person's hand can be extremely dangerous.
I do not believe we should be giving guns to just anyone on the street, but taking away our ability to own a gun is taking away our rights, and making us utterly defensless against the government's military. If guns are in the right hands they are not dangerous. I grew up in a house where both of my parents had guns for their jobs. They kept them locked up in a safe and for the most part I didn't even know they were their.
If the governmnet takes away our right to bear arms what other rights will they be able to take way from us?

Anonymous said...

Amendment II says, "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." This amendment means since it is a free state, you have the right to bear arms which also means have the right to carry guns. Originally, "the right to bear arms" was meant for the militias, they did not want individuals to own guns. I also believe that the militia have the right to carry guns but the right for people to have bear arms is infringed. On March 9th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit inferred it differently. The panel said that it protected an individual's human rights. As you can tell, this issue is causing many problems because the safety of people is what believe comes first.

-Anta R.

kristen fitz said...

i don't think that the government has the right to take guns away from everyone. sure there are some people who use guns to kill people but why does everyone have to suffer. my dad has guns in the house that he uses to go hunting. he keeps them locked up safely in my house and it is not fair that he would have to stop doing something he loved because the government took away one of his rights.

Anonymous said...

J Dilan

This amendment is a kind of hard to break down. This is what I think that this amendment means. It means that you are protected by your military but you are also allowed to own a gun. It doesn’t really tell you when and how you can use it. There are many risks that go with owning a gun and keeping it at home. Some of the risk that there are with having a gun is letting it fall into the wrong hands or have an accident with it when a kid finds it and decides to show his friends. Those are some of the major reasons why they don’t want people to carry guns with them. I think that if people want to have a gun in there home but they have to be responsible with it.

Anonymous said...

this amendment is quite difficult to understand as well as interpret and not to mention abide by. From my understanding and my point of view the amendment states that our military has the right to bear arms while our right as people to hold guns is infringed. But I feel as if we the people should be able to hold a gun/weapon in a concealed responsible manner with the right credentials. its a cold world and everybody should be able to carry a little something extra to protect themselves

Jblount

Courtney Wilson said...

I agree with Bryan & Justin. This amendment is written in some kind of governmental code that is hard for some "civilians" to decipher. Some would see this amendment as a right to own a gun as long as it is licensed and secured away from children. Others would see this as a right to have a gun as long as there is a rift between two well-regulated groups and it is necessary to use firearms. I think its really not up to us to decide what this amendment means.

W Brown said...

Then who is it "up to"?

Do we just let someone else make these decisions for us?

Anonymous said...

I believe this law is stict for a reason. The specifics make it hard to find a loop hole, therefore ensuring the safety of civilians. To me, the law isn't vauge at all. Its up to the government to say what this right actually entitles. The only reason I'd say they have the overall power when it comes to firearms is because its what's best for society. Authority, and power help to keep order, and when it comes to something that is potentially deadly, those factors become a must. The right to own a gun doesn't automatically mean, the right to use a gun, or the right to keep it in your home where children can access it.
I guess that's where most of the debate surfaces. People will say, if you own something then you should have the right to keep it in your home. But in this case, taking into consideration what the object of possesion is, I believe we should rethink the specifics of the law to better benifit the well being of our country and our country's people.

- Alyssa Cumberbatch

Octavia Ramos said...

I agree with what bryan said that the right to bear arms means to us having the righ to own a gun under the right circumstances. Yes we do have the militia to protect us butwe need to defend ourselves to, for example the militia are not always going to be there on the dot when somebodies in danger they will be ther but not fast enough. I think its okay for people to have licensed gund under the circumstances of them protecting themselves and yes thers a chance that a child might get hurt but i would advise a parent to put it in a place were its out of reach for children were they cannot find it. Because we have a right to protect ourselves dont we?

Anonymous said...

I agree with Tiffany. The 2nd amendement means that we can keep guns and in the house so we can protect ourselves. A lot of people think that having a gun in the house is dangerous. I also believe thats true because what if a kid finds the gun and uses it and accidentaly, someone dies. You might never know what can happen if there is a gun in the house.
-Simran Kaur

tobin v. said...

I agree with what Octavia and Bryan said. The Second Amendment means that we have the right to bear arms under the certain circumstances. I also agreed with what Justin said about how we are protected by your military but you are also allowed to own a gun. The military we be able to help us at all times and the wont definitely won’t be fast enough so we need to protect ourselves. I think we can own a weapon as long as it’s licensed. And we should advise the gun at all times and not let it get into the wrong hands. Should anyone be able to carry around a weapon if its licensed?

kemi ajirotutu said...

I agree with every one it’s a bad idea for individuals to have guns in there house because it’s very dangerous. People have illegal guns all ready and look at what’s happening a lot of people are getting killed every day by a gun and not just by the cops it’s by people with illegal weapons. Now it’s 3 and a half year in prison if you get caught with an illegal gun.

Alyssa Faller said...

I would have to agree with Byran and Vicki on this idea of a "Well-regulated militia". I think the second amendment is a way that the government can make it sound as if we have the right to bare arms and protect ourselves, but i think that they are just allowing us to be able to mess up as citizens. I think that with this two sentence amendment a lot of controversy has taken place, and will continue to take place as long as guns can be legally bought through out our beloved nation. As long as people can go to a store, and purchase a gun, the issue on this second amendment will never be settled. I think that the government tries to portray the laws and regulations as if it is up to the people of the United States, but i truly don't think that they really believe that. I think that we have been letting the government, media, entertainment, fiction, anything like that, to make the decisions for us. I think that since the day we were born, our minds have been sounded by things that we think we are able to choose to do, but in the end, we really don't have much say at all. I mean don't get me wrong, we do have the last say when it comes to theft, murder, adultery, or anything for that matter. But would we be doing all of those things if we weren't influenced by our surroundings? Would we even be having this discussion if people who had purchased the guns took it upon themselves not to kill or hurt anyone? I do think that when it comes to how we act or behave America has been so warped, that it is truly hard to say if we are the ones who are really making our own decisions.

Mr Tesler said...

Hey, WB:

Here's what our kids thought about the same issue.

http://mrteslersblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/2nd-amendment-hw-112807.html

Durkhanai A said...

Why is there such a dispute over gun ownership? Why because there can be so much done with a gun at home or anywhere else. A gun can fall in to anyones hands especially children. They dont know what they are doing or whst it maybe they can hurt themselves or anyone else around them. I still agree with Kemi there are people out there with illegal guns hurting people. If you think about it I think its best that only cops have guns with them because they are the people who are protecting us.

Anonymous said...

I feel having guns in our home is dangerous but at the same time it is a good things because it could protect you from hard. we need to protect oursevles because no 1 else will we have to defend ourselves now and days because you cant trust no one.

thy say all this reading there talking bout is protecting our country not ourselves because they cant depend on others in we are not in a secured place never know what could happen.

kristal atchison

Anonymous said...

I don't think it should be right for any old person to be roaming the streets with an armed weapon but i do believe that with correct licensing, citizens should be able to carry guns in their houses. Even though we wouldn't know whether or not the respective person concealed the weapon in a safe/hidden spot, that person assumes that responsibility once they own the gun in the first place and know the consequences of ownership.

-Alex P.

Casey Blakeney said...

Having guns in our homes is very dangerous but its good to help protect ourselfs, like Kristal said but if everyone was responsible and not always out to get revange from one another it would not matter if everyone had a gun or if no one had guns in their homes. I think that it is up to us to decide because of the way people may act. There should be a process that they should go through to see if a person is good enough to have a gun or not. This may not be the best idea but it is somthing we can start with to help make our homes safer.

John said...

The second amendment reads, if you have ever learned to read using comas, "A well regulated militia, shall not be infringed." It says nothing about giving us the right to own guns, excpet to help with the militia. The middle part, inbetween the comas explains how we are to regulate said militia and that it is only "being necessary to the securtity of a free state," that is when we can bear arms. The dispute most likely comes from people not being able to read. Over the years, somehow we have given everyone the right to bear arms, not just members of the militia.

M. Harmon said...

Well if I read this amendment on my own, I would think it means that people have to right to own a gun, which would also mean they have to right to use it. But after Mr. Brown discussed it, I now know it means people have the right to a gun if we had to protect our country if something were to happen, like the government trying to overrule everything. There is such a dispute over gun ownership because guns come with good and bad. Yes, they can be used as protection when desperately needed, but they can also cause a lot of harm, like if a child gets a hold of it, like Alyssa Cumberbatch mentioned. While they do have a negative side, I dont feel guns should just be taken away from us, because like Vickie said, they can leave us defenseless.

Samantha Ross said...

I agree with Megan, if we didn’t discuss this in class I would have interpreted the amendment differently. Guns are an “iffy” subject in this country; they are used in good ways but can also be very harmful. The comas in the statement change the amendment around and if the places of the comas change the whole amendment would too. I agree with Kristen the government shouldn’t have the right to take guns away from any citizen. It’s like Vickie said if they take away our rights to bear arms they might take away some more rights?

Wesley M. said...

I agree with Courtney Wilson in the statement “This amendment is written in some kind of governmental code that is hard for some "civilians" to decipher.” I also think that this amendment is portrayed in a way that most “civilians” would not understand. Most people believe that this amendment gives the individual the right to carry a gun but it does not it clearly states that a “well regulated militia” has the right to carry guns. We consider the right for civilians to carry guns a penumbra right (shadow right). What defines a well regulated militia? Is it just people that work for the government (like the National Guard) or is it anyone that stands to fight against an invasion?

Anonymous said...

"GUNZ DONT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE" so why should all have to suffer for the rotton bunch who try to spoil it for all. Not everyone goes around trying to murder sumone with guns some use it for the protection of there lives and valuables,Basically the quote from the second amendment is saying that we have the right to have guns in our house holds to fight against the government if they try'd to take over in some way like how colonies uprose against the british before we became the United States. If they take away our guns now how we have a "well- regualted militia" when it comes time for it??

JAMAAL ADAMS