Second Amendment

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.

The Second Amendment approves the use and/or possession of an arm by any individual if this is used for the protection of their houses or land, and it also states that the military should only be allow to use arms when protecting the Country.

 Gun Control

Jay Paul

Updated June 28, 2010
Recent battles have taken place in the courts, revolving around fundamentally differing interpretations of the oddly punctuated, often-debated Second Amendment, which 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."
On June 28, 2010, the court ruled in another 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the riht to keep and bear arms." The case involved a challenge to Chicago's gun control law, regarded as among the strictest in the nation.
Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The McDonald v. Chicago ruling is an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, but its short-term practical impact is unclear. As in the Heller decision, the justices left for another day the question of just what kinds of gun control laws can be reconciled with Second Amendment protection.
A 1939 decision by the Supreme Court suggested, without explicitly deciding, that the Second Amendment right should be understood in connection with service in a militia. The "collective rights'' interpretation of the amendment became the dominant one, and formed the basis for the many laws restricting firearm ownership passed in the decades since. But many conservatives, and in recent years even some liberal legal scholars, have argued in favor of an "individual rights'' interpretation that would severely limit government's ability to regulate gun ownership.
In May 2009, President Obama signed into law a provision allowing visitors to national parks and refuges to carry loaded and concealed weapons. The amendment was added to a consumer-friendly credit card measure that the president has said is important.
The provision represents a Congressional victory that eluded gun rights advocates under a Republican president.
But in July 2009, the Senate turned aside the latest attempt by gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners, narrowly voting down a provision that would have allowed gun owners with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons in other states.
When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition.
But Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.
And, gun control advocates say, Mr. Obama has failed to deliver on campaign promises to close a loophole that allows unlicensed dealers at gun shows to sell firearms without background checks; to revive the assault weapons ban; and to push states to release data about guns used in crimes.

Source: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/gun_control/index.html

Personally I do not like arms, one reason why I don't like them is because it kills me to hear on the news that a child was playing with a gun that was in the house and either kill  him/her self or shoot a friend. And this is all because of irresponsible people, who think they can have a gun but really they can't. I agree that we should be able to defend ourselves from all those weird people out there, but it makes me wonder, is caring a gun the best way? I see the point of the people in the office some of them saying that is ok to carry gun and some other that is not, but I guess it is all up to the people carrying the guns.

Ted Nugent on the second Amendment




I agree he is weird, but yes he also has a good point, for more than I do not like arms, we have to be able to protect ourselves, I think we just need to ask the government to be more concern on who is able to purchase guns and maybe the crime level will be less.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

For me the first amendment is the most important of the constitution, because it talks about the freedom of speech, that all of us are free to express our self's, our believes and also our religion. That we are not forced to follow a certain religion. This amendment also says that church and the state should be separated.


Mr. Jones, the Koran and the First Amendment

Plans by a Florida fruitcake named Terry Jones to burn the holy book of Islam, the Koran, and the media coverage of the non-event, triggered widespread and sometimes violent demonstrations in Afghanistan. At least one person was killed, shot to death by perhaps Afghan security forces. Jones had earlier canceled his book-burning event, but only after a statement by the President of the United States and a direct plea by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who should not have had to waste his time pleading with a little loony-tune who calls himself a Christian preacher. The cancellation - or maybe it was just a postponement - failed to halt the demonstrations in Afghanistan, where Jones's incendiary plans had placed U.S. and other coalition forces at grave risk.

What Jones has been threatening to do - burn a copy of the Koran - was willfully stupid but would not be illegal in the U.S., where the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects such acts as free speech. Remember when Vietnam War protesters burned American flags? That was protected speech as well. So was the Dutch cartoon that depicted the Prophet Muhammed as a bombhead, although its publication, along with eleven other similar depictions of Muhammed, ignited rioting worldwide that led to an estimated 100 deaths. German Chancellor Angela Merkel this week was somehow able to condemn one form of free speech -Koran-burning - while applauding the Dutch cartoonist.
All this has raised questions about the First Amendment and about the responsibility of the mass media, as well as about the blind intolerance of some Muslims.
Polls in the past have found that many Americans would repeal the First Amendment if given the chance, which shows that they do not understand it. In addition to making the press the only constitutionally protected form of free enterprise (thus creating the so-called Fourth Estate), the First Amendment also protects our right to assemble peaceably, our right to petition the government, and our freedom to practice whatever religion we choose. In addition to allowing Terry Jones to burn a book, the First Amendment protects the rantings of the Limbaughs and Becks and the biases of Faux News.
Let's be clear: you cannot have a democracy without free speech and a free press. If there were no First Amendment, only the speech of the political party in power would be protected. But let's be equally clear about the responsibility of citizens vis-à-vis the First Amendment: the right of free speech is a very great power, and if used irresponsibly, as Jones proposed to do, it can undermine democracy. But what about the mass media, who made little tiny Terry Jones and his little tiny band of likeminded (meaning "mindless") followers into front page news around the globe? True, they have the freedom to print, broadcast, Tweet, email, blog whatever they choose, but where's the sense of proportion? Terry Jones doesn't represent America - or at least he didn't until his stupidity was magnified by media coverage. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, in their excellent little book The Elements of Journalism (Crown Publishers) address just this type of issue in a chapter titled, "Make the News Comprehensive and Proportional." It's proportionality that got way out of whack in the Terry Jones story. Kovach and Rosenstiel compare sensationalism in the news to the early mapmakers who exaggerated the importance of their own countries:
Journalists who devote far more time and space to a sensational trial or celebrity scandal than they know it deserves - because they think it will sell - are like the cartographers who drew England or Spain the size of Greenland because it was popular. It may make short-term economic sense but it misleads the traveler and eventually destroys the credibility of the mapmaker.
Terry Jones should have had more sense. The news media should have treated him as the mosquito he is. The Muslims who riot in response to free speech should say hello to the 21st century and recognize the rights and freedoms of democratic countries. And we should all defend our own democracy by exercising our First Amendment rights - and responsibilities

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-mills/mr-jones-the-koran-and-th_b_712646.html

When I read this article it made me so mad to think that there is people out there who wants to do this kind of things as a symbol of protest. I am a very catholic person and if someone comes and tells me that they want to burn the bible because for something that other catholics did I would be ofended. Yes the people who attacked New York were Muslims, but this does not mean that all Muslims are bad. This man Terry Jones should be ashamed of him self, who does he think he is to have the right to burn the Koran? However I understand that under the first amendment he can do this, but I don't think he would like if someone comes and burn the bible. We have to respect other if we want to be respected.

Trace Adkins and the First Amendment





We can say what we want but we will have to face the consequences. We are responsible of our acts, and we can not scape from them.