06-22-2013 Lorelle Davies
The rights of all Americans, which are standards, set in place by the forefathers; written for all read and understand. Bearing arms promise’s death.
Make no mistake the Constitution of Independence declares the right to bears arms for citizens of the United States of America. Pulling a trigger, which meant to capture someone’s or something’s attention at that moment in time to persuade? Ownership is very important and who has the right to take life?
The Second Amendment states, “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 documentation has nothing to do with hunting game purposes only agendas, according to some.
Since its ratification in 1791, the Second Amendment has remained in relative obscurity. Virtually ignored by the Supreme Court, the amendment has been termed "obsolete," "defunct," and an "unused provision" with no meaning for the twentieth century by scholars dealing with the Bill of Rights. (Norman, Okla., 1957) And yet, many Americans consider this amendment as vital to their liberties today as did the founders nearly two hundred years ago. Their sense of urgency arises from the current debate over gun control. Disagreements over gun legislation reveal disparate perceptions of American society that rest upon, or inspire, dissimilar interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Opponents of restrictive measures emphasize the free individual's rights and privileges and adamantly contend that the "right to bear arms" phrase constitutes the essence of the amendment. Their bumper stickers--modern day cockades--declare: "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," or "Hitler got his start registering guns." These simplistic ideas, symbolic of much deeper and more complex ideological beliefs, gain sustenance from a wide variety of popular sources. It is the National Rifle Association (NRA), however, that transforms this popular impulse into one of the most powerful and active lobbies in Washington. Its magazine, The American Rifleman, clearly states the issue: "The NRA, the foremost guardian of the traditional American right to 'keep and bear arms,' believes that every law-abiding citizen is entitled to the ownership and legal use of firearms." (J. Am. Hist. 1982)
For their part, advocates of restrictive gun legislation emphasize collective rights and communal responsibilities. In order to protect society from the violence they associate with armed individuals, these people stress the "well regulated (p.600)Militia" phrase within the Second Amendment. Irving Brant's The Bill of Rights typifies their position. Claiming that the Second Amendment, "popularly misread, comes to life chiefly on the parade floats of rifle associations," Brant contends that the amendment's true purpose was "to forbid Congress to prohibit the maintenance of a state militia." Therefore, by its very nature, "that amendment cannot be transformed into a personal
4 right to bear arms, enforceable by federal compulsion upon the states." (Indianapolis,1965)
The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967) reiterated this belief even more forcefully: "The U.S. Supreme Court and lower Federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms." Therefore, the commission concluded: "The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits State or Federal regulation of citizen ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever."
This bifurcation of the Second Amendment into its two separate phrases invariably rests upon appeals