An analysis of the debate surrounding the right to bear arms in united states

The fact is, every time a court makes a ruling that offers a interpretation of the constitution, they're espousing the concept of "living constitution".

The law that gives us the right to bear arms was written years ago, so the intent of of that law is what is important, as that shows us what the law means.

It also refused to remove all gun restrictions, recognizing that some, such as restrictions against felons and the mentally ill and geographical restrictions, were constitutional.

Because of a mix-up, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was still trying to obtain his arrest record after the three days passed. Convincing concealed gun permit should be obtained by the owner. The founder's intent tells us what the law means, so if the founders wrote an amendment to give the individual the right to bear arms, we have to uphold that right, no matter what the times are, it's the law.

Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states. Teach your kids right from wrong, stop letting the TV be a babysitter, stop letting your kids watch movies and play games rated for adults when they are only 10, If you own firearms teach your kids to respect them and understand the dangers that can come with them, when you kids get out of line punish them and give the teachers the power to punish them, teach your kids the value of life, teach them good morals, above all spend time with them and be involved in their lives and know what they are doing.

Concerned with rising violence in society and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. How many of these nut cases grew up in a house where the parents showed their love for their kids. Historical situation i Well, a law is a law, no matter the historical situation.

The only way to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys is to figure out who they are before they get armed. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government.

The size and scope of the conspiracy needed, the cooperation of patriots who would see right through such a plan — it is unfathomable, the stuff of fiction. Remember that self protection is the basic unit of national protection, but though you are enjoying this right, abuse is possible to break other laws.

A proposed amendment Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment — an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

First, we're going to have to extend this contention, because you didn't actually address my point that the word "people" is used, rather than militia in the second clause. Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in favor of reliance on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.

In its full context it reads: As you can see, even with responsible law abiding citizens owning guns, there can be a lot of tragic accidents if guns are not restricted. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution. Now a person committed to a mental hospital can, after getting out, petition a court for his guns.

The founding fathers were avid followers of Blackstone, and agreed that it was an individual right. Inthe supreme court decided the District of Columbia v Heller,overturning a handgun ban in the city. As defiance and opposition to British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists, known as Patriotswho favored independence from British rule.

On May 10,Congress passed a resolution recommending that any colony with a government that was not inclined toward independence should form one that was.

When introduced, the legislation called on states to submit mental-health records to national databases maintained by the FBI. People care more about values than they care about policy.

One fact few gun opponents seem to know: Furthermore, my opponent has focused his arguments on the necessity of militias BACK in the s, not today. For PRO, I have to defend that it is an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. Updated | Let’s start with an undeniable truth: In the United States, the people have the right to keep and bear douglasishere.com let’s then acknowledge that the childish interpretation of that.

st. john's law review volume 77 winter number 1 articles the second amendment "right to bear arms" and united states v.

emerson robert j. spitzert introduction. arms); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S., () (holding that private harm to the rights to assemble and bear arms was not a federal offense). The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope.

The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean? Its words have fueled centuries of debate – and not until did the supreme court clearly back an individual’s right to.

The right to keep and bear arms is a lot like the right to freedom of speech. In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to .

An analysis of the debate surrounding the right to bear arms in united states