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
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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment