"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."
Click on the links below, carefully read the information, and then answer these questions.
How do you interpret the second amendment?
Why is there such a dispute over gun ownership?
How do you think the court should rule?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/21scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-scotus21nov21,1,4804010.story
http://constitution.teachingmatters.org/student/brief_intros.html
Here's what other kids thought about this issue.
33 comments:
When the second amendment was created it seemed that the creator didn't forsee the problems it would bring.I interpret the amendment as a signal for violence.4/5 murders commited, were by gunmen.The dispute however is a very interesting one. The purpose of the amendment was to protect yourself from life-threatning situations.However, guns have been commonly abused by murderers.I think the court shouln't ban firearms.I suggest they should do a background check on the person who is attempting to purchase the weapon.If this dosen;t work out and the rate of murder increases then I think the right thing to do in this situation would be to ban firearms.Eventually this will be just as succsesful as the prohibition of alcohol.Meaning people will start smuggling weapons leading to another dispute.
Billy Poulos
7th period history
The second amendment basically says we have the right to keep a gun in our house.I think there is a dispute because even if you are hiding it you can still easily be killed with it.I think the court should rule that you cant have a gun because one day if you get really mad you might just use the gun and i don't think it is safe to keep it.
Cisco Cespon
History Per.6
The second amendment gives us the right to let us have guns in our house for safty without being judged. The way that i interpret it is its a good way to feel safe because obviously if we have any strong weapon we can use it makes us feel safe but it could also be extremely dangerous at times. The dispute between the gun issue is that people might abuse the power and kill many people even accidentally.I the court should rule that only people with higher power such as police men or gaurds should hold a gun but then it would be like saying that peoples comforts would be taken away so i dont exactly know how it should be ruled.
kristina papa
6th period history
The second amendment to me, makes no sense. Who is allowed to keep a gun in their house at all times? What if all people had guns in their house? There would be caous everywhere, and NO ONE would be safe. Even though guns are supposed to "protect" you, with so many people with guns, nobody will be safe.
The dispute over gun ownership is a important one. The government do not want all people to handle guns. As I said before, with so many people owning guns, people will take advantage and go wild beyond eachother.
I believe that the court should keep this amendment, but make it stronger and more detailed. People with a reason to keep a gun in their house should be aloud to, and only with certain papers and permits. Cops will of course be allowed, as they practically 'run' the precinct. What I'm trying to say is, that they should make the amendment more tighter.
The second amendment basically says we have the right to keep a gun in our house.I think there is a dispute because even if you are hiding it you can still easily be killed with it.The purpose of the amendment was to protect yourself from life-threatning situations.However, guns have been commonly abused by murderers.I think the court shouln't ban firearms.I suggest they should do a background check on the person who is attempting to purchase the weapon.
I interpret the second amendment as something that promotes violence, which causes fatalities. There is a dispute over gun ownership because people have different opinions about the right to own guns. Some think it's necessary and good because that way people can use it for protection. However, others think that people use this right to cause harm, rather than to protect themselves. I think the court should declare that law unconstitutional because people should have the right to protect themselves.
By:Mariela Ortiz(per.7)
The second amendment basically says any citizen has the right to own a gun in their house.There is a dispute over this because it can harm the people and cause violence.I think they should make sure the person who owns the gun isnt a criminal or has done anything wrong.
-Chrissy Thomatos PD.6
To me the second amendment means that everyone in this country has a right to keep themselves protected from any harm. Yet the amendment doesn't clarify how far can we protect ourselves, such as keeping a gun in our homes. There is a huge controversy over gun ownership because if everyone has the right to have a gun in their house it means that they're would be mass murder.
The governments' job is to protect us and with the wrong intentions to having a gun, there would bad results. Government doesn't want that to occur so they have limits. Some people believe that they should be able to have guns because its part of our constitution. I think that the court should rule by the type of gun that the individual wants. Also depends on the age of the person who wants, its not the gun its the personal who wants the gun.
Livi Cabrera
Period 6
I think that the second amendment was made to allow people to use guns as a way of protecting themselves. There is such a big dispute over this because more than half the people who own a gun or abusing this right. In almost all cases of murders or crime a gun is involved. I think that the court should not ban guns. I think that if they check out the people buying a gun before allowing them to purchase it, it would decrease part of the problem. I agree with Billy when he suggested banning the use of guns if the number of murders increase.
Amanda P. 901 Period 6
For me the second amendment means you have the right to own a gun. There are desputes over this issue becuase many citizens are afraid of the rate of crime rising. As Billy Poulos said 4/5 of murders thate are commited were from gunman. This does not help the situation at all becuase it represents part of the crime rate. Im actually confuse as to what I think the court should do. But i think it is best to ban this right for the purpose of crime.
Christina Wylie
4th period
In the second amendment it basically states that we have the right to have weapons such as guns in are home. I think that this is a big dispute because its harmful to people and the people around they should do a background check on the person before they purchase the gunn because you never no what the person really wants to do with the gun. i think that no one should have the right to have a gun in there house because you dont really no what they are capable of doing with it. =)
Tori Kramer
903
6th period history
The second amendment is probably one the most complex and confusing of all the amendments combined. The exact meaning and intent of this amendment is still being debated. I interpret the second amendment in a different way than most people probably do. The constitution was written in 1787 and that was over 200 years ago. Back in those days gangs and drivebys most likely did not exist and guns were not as advanced as they are today. The second amendment probably applies to the farmers and country people to be allow to arm themselves. America was a young country back then and many threats such as Native American attacks and possible invasion from other countries were on the radar. The founding fathers considered these problems of the time and wrote the second amendment. They probably wanted the citizens back then to be well equipped because attacks from foreigners were more possible than they are today. Homicide rates were probably extremely low back in those days. The times are much different now. Plus, the secondment says specifically "a well regulated Militia" There is such a dispute over gun ownership because many people have different takes and views of this situation. Some people fell that it is a necessary defense possibly because they themselves might have been victims of a home invasion or getting shot. They are the ones that are pushing for the guns. There people that are the opposition are the conservatives and people that been in abusive relationships and have been around unpredictable people. People that have those characteristics and have firearms in their possession, they could really cause some serious damage. This where the sides clash on this issue. The court in my opinion should rule that citizens should not be allowed to keep firearms at home. its so funny that the lawyer in video clip on the La times link thinks that America will be a much safer place if citizens can own guns. He obviously has not watched the news lately. If America allows the legalization for private citizens to own handguns, we are going to be serious trouble. Jason K 902
1. I think that the second amendment tells us that we can keep guns in your homes.
2. There is a dispute over gun ownership because the state government or the police don’t trust the people to own handguns in their homes because they think that they are going to do something bad with it.
3. I think the court should rule the right for people to bear arms but you have to be certified and the government has to keep track of what you do and what you buy.
Monica T.
period: 7
Although the second amendment states that people are allowed to have guns at their house, I think people misinterpret the meaning of the amendment. I think the amendment only goes out to people like in the war and law enforcers. If regular people had guns it would be very dangerous because they can kill whoever they want whenever they want.
-Rabaya Rahman
period 7
The second amendment clearly states, that anyone has the right to legally buy and own a gun, in their home premises. Honestly, I interpret it as an act of disrubtion and violence, because it is pushing and stating that people are allowed to have guns, and that they can use them, which can result in many deaths and injuries. I think that there is a big dispute over gun ownership, because many people beleive that it is ok to have a gun in your home, mainly for protection, while others think it should be controlled, by how they use the guns. However, I think that no matter what the rule states, some people will go out and kill people. I think that they shouldn't allow anyone to have a gun. Sure, it can be used for protection against yourself, but you can also kill and murder people. Why hasn't the Supreme Court taken that into consideration. The court, isn't going to be there, when someone decides to not follow the rules and kill someone with the gun. The Supreme Court should not allow anyone to have a gun in their homes.
Anastasia Papis 903 Period 4
I see the second amendment to be a bad thing. The only thing a gun would be used for is to take the life of someone or something. Guns only make things worse for people. The dispute over this would be that more people are killed by guns in the United States every day. I think that the court should ban all firearms to the United States and the only people should have them are police officers and the people who serve in the military.
I interpret the second amendment as giving people the right to bear arms as long as they are responsible with it to defend theirselves. There is such a dispute over gun ownership because many people believe that an iniccent could be killed accidentally. I think that the court should not band guns for protection but i think they should look into the person that wants a gun for protection and see if that person is safe enough to hold a gun in their possesstion. I also think that the court should only let a person have a gun for protection if the feel like thier lives are in danger. For example if they live in a non safe community and they feel threatened by where they live and who they are around.
Maria A
History period 7
The second amendtment maens is that you can keep a gun for safety. Now I interpret the second amendment is that if you let people to have guns in there home they are more likely to use them for violence and beacuse they have kept these guns in there house or any where there muder rate went up about every 4/5 of the muders were involed with guns. The purpose of the amnedment is to protect tyourslef from any life threating situations but guns have been a big problem because they have been used for the wrong reasons and in the end to that they all lead to people being muderers.I think that the court should ban everyhting because they are bening used for all the wrong reasons and the people who are using these guns and wepons they are killing innocent people for all the wrong reasons.I think that if this problem doesn't get better they have to wacth who puechase the guns and then she what happens then they should take it from there.
Erin O'D 903 pd.7
The second amendment gives the right of all people to own and keep guns. However the circumstances have changed since this amendment was created. The crime rates have risen and people abuse this amendment. They use the guns not to protect themselves but to hurt others. People need to realize that when the second amendment was created it was for the purpose of protection. Now that guns are not being used for protection i don't think the amendment applies. Its like it cancels itself out. Plus from doing some research on suicide for my literature piece i learned that 57% of people in 1999 committed suicide with a firearm. So if they take the ban away then the rates will grow. If they make more laws banning guns it could lower the rate of suicide. School shootings and terrorist attack rates also could go down.
Some people think they need guns to protect themselves. They are just insecure. You can take self defense classes or something else. There are other ways to defend yourself. A lot of people think guns are dangerous and unnecessary. A lot of people think that banning guns violates the second amendment.
I think the court should keep the ban in Washington D.C. and promote to other states (that don't already have a banning law) to ban the right given to citizens to own "usable" guns
The second amendment indicates that people could have bear arms for self defence but they need a permant. I think there is a dispute because some people want bear arms for self protection but other people say that they shouldent keep guns because they might shoot somebody by accident and kill them. I think the court should rule that people should have guns but only for self protection and if they have a permant.
The second amendment means that the people have the right to buy guns and that the right shall not be taken away. There is a dispute of this because of the murders commited by guns. People who buy guns think they have the right tto use it and they are abusing the right by using it for evil. The gun should only be used to keep one safe from harm. The court shouldn't do anything but make the people who buy guns sign a contract of some sort. The people shouldn't think that just becasue they have a gun they can use it and those people should be reinformed about what they can do with the guns. The government should use the elastic clause in this situation. The government should maybe be more stricter with this right because when the amendments were made there wasn't violence like how it is now.
Kristofer Diaz
902
Period 6
The way I see the second amendment is having the right to own guns. I think there is such a guarrel over the right to own a gun because you protect yourself with one. However another person can use it as a threat. I think the court should make the permit a little more strict with who ever should have it.
S.Rahaman
Period 4 XD
sarah bianchi
i think that the second amendment was originally made so people could be given the right to protect themselves. Now that right is being abused and instead to prtection they are what is inflicting the harm.
I think that there is such a dispute over gun ownership because of the ways people use them. Some people use and own gus to hunt animals. Other people use and own guns to hunt other people. They have to know how the owner of the gun is going to be using it. Are they going to be using to keep with them at times for protection in case they are in danger or are they going to use it to cause the danger.
I dont think that anyone should be allowed to own a gun. Ithink that court should know what the person is going tobe doing with the gun and why they need it before making a decision.
In my opinion i think at the time when the second amendment was made the congress didnt quite realize the problems it would create. Interpret the amendment as if the goverment is allowing murder. Why would they make it legal for these hand gun weapons to be sold if that is the key weapon to most murders? I am strongely against the second amendment. There is a big dispute over gun ownership because some people feel that guns will protect us if we are in a tough situtation but other people disagree and feel that these dangerous weapons should be banned because some people can use them innaproiatly and abuse the privilage. I think the court should ban handgun weapons for the saftey of all americans. Times have changed since the consitutation was written it is a rough and crazy world now and there are a lot of sick people.
JACLYN LEONE
PERIOD 7
I interpret the second amendment as the right for U.S citizens to own guns. The writers of the constitution decided that citizens should be allowed to own guns for protection. Unfortunatly citizens can own guns and kill others. The dispute basically is that maybe guns should be illegal and then the murder rate will decrease. I agree with what Billy Poulos said because i also believe that people would try to smuggle guns and weapons into the country. I think that when you buy a gun, you should have to bring a signed contract stating that this gun is only for certain reasons. If anyone is caught not using the gun for the reasons they listed, they should be sent to jail.
Sharon Kahn
- When the 2nd amendment was documented we have to remember how long ago this occured. There would often be confrontations involving guns and it was normal for a houselhold to have a gun in its possesion. I think it was directed more towards the army because it states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". However, times have changed and many of us are no longer safe. The 2nd amendment is difficult to interpret because it is so vague...
- Because of the increased murder and voilence caused by guns in the U.S.
-The court is under a difficult spot because of the fact that they have to take everyone and every situation into consideration. Im not sure how the court should rule.
-Demetra
I think that the Second Amendment guarantees both a militia and private citizens the right to own a gun. Even so, I do not feel that it should. There is a significant debate going on about who can posess arms and the amendment that is currently protecting the rights of the people to defend themselves. Some believe that with a ban on all private citizen ownership of arms, the streets will be safer and the need for guns eliminated.Others disagree, and still argue that protection is extremely vital and guns are a benefit in that aspect. I personally feel that the judges should amend the constitution and make it so that private citizens are prohibited from bearing arms. In modern society, allowing for enforcement of the second amendment poses too much of a risk to the general public.
Bridgette C. Period 3
The Second Amendment was made so that they would decrease the violence and the killings. I think There is a Dispute becasue if you do leave your guns in your house someone like a child could get killed or harmed. But I think that everyone should have a gun for the self defense and the safety of others. But at the same time I think it is bad casue,it could get in the wrong hands of someone and they could do something stupid!!
Desirae La Furno
I interpret this amendment as an either or situtation. Because you may need the gun for protection. But then it is unsafe to have around children.
The dispute entailed people being allowed to have guns and not being allowed guns. It is a tough decision to make based on peoples lives. The other thing is being allowed the the other guns such as ak's and etc. these are sometimes used for hunting. People want to buy assault weapons now because the ban expired on them in 2004. But it is dangerous to have. People still want it for their own reasons.
The way I think the court should rule this issue is ban guns all together. Because even if you have it hidden away somewhere your or somebody else's child may find the gun like you may see on some commercials. The child may end up killing themselves or someone else. Also if an adult may get drunk they may lose track of what they are doing and then shoot someone. But, I do follow what Billy is saying by the court not banning the guns because of protection. It is good to have it for protection. Don't get me wrong I do say it would be good to have it for that reason. But, now look, what if somebody gets in your house and they just so happen to find the gun,they could use it against you.
I interpret the second amendment as some sort of violnce because its says the right to bear arm.. There is a dispute over gun ownership because some people use the guns the wrong way. Many people use the guns to kill.I think that the court should say that only hunters can own a gun and when they need to purchase the gun they should bring their liscense with them so that the person selling the gun knows if they're hunters.
Eirene Skocos
class 903 period 6
I interpret the second amendment as a way for people to protect themselves. There's a dispute over gun ownership because people use the guns to kill, they can take advantage of having a gun. They should only allow people with a license to own a gun.
Bridgette v
period 6
Well when the second amendment had been created it had seemed that the creator of the Amendment had not forced the problems it would bring. Well the dispute is however a very interesting. The reason why is because of a signal of violence is 4/5 murders have been committed, and where committed buy gunmens. Well purpose of this amendment is to protect yourself from the times of life-threatning matters. Guns are known to be very commonly abuse of murderers. I think that the court shouln't ban firearms. I just think that they should just be like more secure with them like when purchases of firearms. I suggest that like the store should run like a check on the person anything everything to see if they had like a Rep or something. If this osen't rk out and the rate of creases then I think the right thing to do in this situation would be to be more secure with like pruchases of firearms.
-PERIOD 7
kala mancini pd 7
when they made the second amendment they didnt know that this amendment would bring so many probems to the u.s now.the second amendment says that you have a right to bare arms which means we can haev a gun in ut house to protect outselfs right well the court should rule that to make sure the person doesnt have a record and also that they need to get a lience in order to have it
Post a Comment