Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The Second Amenment


The Second Amendment is topic that is surrounded by much controversy. The syntax of the sentence is something that lawyers and politicians and the Supreme Court argue about. Different people have different interpretations to this supposed ambiguous sentence “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.” According the Interactive Constitution, the “right to bear arms” belongs to an individual person… “the people” also appears in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. These rights apply to individuals not states, they argue, and so does the Second Amendment.” Yet, there is still much argument.
One of the key elements to this argument is that the second Amendment does not allow an “absolute” right to bear arms because “no right is absolute.” “Just as free speech does not protect obscenity, they say, the Second Amendment does not include an unlimited right to own guns.” Just because we have free speech, doesn’t mean that we can shout “Fire!” in a crowd. This same condition could be applied to the Second Amendment. I am a member of the NRA and do believe that individuals should be able to have guns. I happen to agree with this statement by Wendy Kaminer: “The irony of the Second Amendment debate is that acknowledging an individual right to bear arms might facilitate gun control more than denying it ever could.”

No comments: