"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?
What do you think of the court's ruling?
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
Click Here for the Court's Decision
23 comments:
my interpretation of the second amendment is that it was made to protect the rights of us people , and i think this one really does help protect our rights. i think it is ok for someone to have a gun for protection. there is such a dispute on gun ownership because people might be using there guns in ways tht is not only for safety, they could be using the guns for a reason that puts other people in danger. i think the court ruled this because they beleived only people with lisence should be allowed to own a gun, and have it in there home.
-isabela janashvili
period 4
1. I interpret the second amendment as the right to carry a gun or to hold a gun in your home. The gun is not for violence but for self-protection.
2. There is such a dispute over gun ownership because some people thing that the people with the guns might become to powerful and try to do something bad.
3. I think that the court’s ruling was good. They let the people keep their guns…but just unloaded. That is fine. So people still have the security they didn’t want to lose.
Anastasia Ioannou Pd.2 : )
I think that the courts ruling on banning the right to own a hand gun is wrong because in the second amendment it states that you have the right to bear arms, and have the right to own a gun , but it doesnt state what kind of guns you can and cant own. Theres such a disbute over gun owner ship because so many people feel that its not necessary to won a hand gun when i think its necessary to own a hand gun because the police arent always able to protect every one at any time. i think that if u own a hand gun and its on you u should keep it unloaded at all times. I interpret the second amendment by understanding that we have the right to bear arms . i think that we have the right to carry a gun nd have a gun inour homes but i didnt know that we were able to carry a handgun nand keep it in our homes. anthony period 2
I think the second amendment gives citizens the right to own a gun but they have a license saying that they bought the gun legally.I think there is a big dispute over this because you never know what that person might do with a gun they might use it as protection or they might use it to murder somebody.I think that the court made the right decision because they didnt ban gun ownership, but they limited the second amendment so that not anybody can own a gun.
Phillip Lluberes
Period2 -_-
The secoend ammendment is trying to protect everyone so no one has a gun when there not supposed to.There is such a dispute over gun ownership because sometimes if people have a problem they would settle it out with a gun thats why we have the secoend ammendment is so we could protect everyone safety. I think the courts ruling is only far because they need to protect everyone in America so thats why they dont want everyone to own a gun.
Alexandria barry
period 2 903
1. People are aloud to have guns in a certain size. But they can't harm, hurt, or kill other people. Only if it comes to self-defense, then maybe.
2. Some people think you can legislate and some don't.
3. I don't know.
Domenico Rizzo
Period 2
How do you interpret the second amendment? I interpreted the second amendment as one of our major amendments that has and is still change today’s gov’t.
Why is there such a dispute over gun ownership? There is a lot of dispute over gun ownership because some people might say that they will be using it for protection but they might be planning terrorist attacks or maybe be including in a mass massacre killing hundreds of people. People might be also using this gun to murder someone they dislike.
What do you think of the court's ruling? I think that court’s ruling it is fair because first it protects the people b/c if the people feel like they are not being protected then they will be able to create a new government. However, it also not fair b/c it takes away the people 2nd amendment rights and violate the US constitution.
Ariadne R. Pd 2
How do you interpret the second amendment? i interpret the second admendment as people can have the right to have a gun without any violation.
Why is there such a dispute over gun ownership? there is a dispute because guns are involved in most of the violent crimes and if it is not in the hands of a police officer, then it should be locked or disassembled for safety issues
What do you think of the court's ruling? i did not really understand the courts ruling, it had me very confused by the way it was worded
Alyse Green
1.How do you interpret the second amendment?
-i interpret the second amendment as an amendment interpreted wrong by the people, the 2nd amendment refers to the militia not to people.
2.Why is there such a dispute over gun ownership?
-because the 2nd amendment says "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 means that only militia people should be given a handgun not normal people, there has been a dispute over this matter because people want the right to have a handgun "for safety" in case of anything.
3.What do you think of the court's ruling?
- i think that the courts ruling is fine. people shouldn't be able to keep handguns in their homes because then the murdering rate will be higher.right now theirs a lot of chaos with murders imagine how it would be if people can have a gun in their possession.
Angela Rivera
2nd period
1. I think that you should only be able to bear arms when it is needed. So I don't think have a hand gun for private use is really necessary.
2. There is a dispute over gun ownership because some people feel that they can use a gun whenever because that's what the second amendment says, but people feel it will be putting others in danger. So they're testing to see if there should a be a limit to the second amendment.
3. I think that the Court's decision is wrong.
Megan E.
PEriod 2
1) to me, the second amendement means thatpeople can have guns but only for self defense.
2)this is complicated to debate b/c you dont know whether or not the owner of the gun is going to shoot somebody with it.
3)i think that the courts ruling has good paople on both sides and that they made the right decisions.
1. The second amendment is that you are allowed to own a gun and you have the right to bear arms.
2. There such a dispute over gun ownership because people want to have there freedom and protection.
3. What I think about the courts ruling is that everyone should have the right to own a gun for self defence and protection against an harm.
Maria Stefanidis
period 2
The way that I interpret the second amendment is that in order to be safe, people are allowed to have guns in their possession. There is such a dispute over gun ownership because people are concerned about the safety of others if just anybody can have guns on them or in their house. I think that the court's ruling is fair because it abides by the second amendment, it allows people the right to bear arms for their safety.
Daniel P.
Period 2
I think the second amendment means that not only does the law enforcement and army have the right to own guns, but as well individual citizens can too. Most people own guns or a certain type of arm for protection and security. In some situations that happen rarely, but can be very dangerous a person would need to use a gun to protect their life, or the lives of others.
Their is a dispute over gun ownership, because even though the right reason to own a gun is for protection, some people use it on other idividuals for harm or danger. So one side thinks that citizens should have to right to bear arms for the secuirty, but on the other hand others believe some people don't take owning a gun with much responsibilty and put others in harms way.
I think the court's ruling was fair and justified. The second amendment states that citizens have the right to bear arms, so it just shouldn't be limited to the law enforcement or army/government. The court's ruling was legitimate, and followed the Constitution.
Gabrielle Rosado
Class Period 4
I interpret the second amendment as the right to posses or carry a weapon or owning a weapon for self defense.
There is such a dispute over gun ownership because they say that crime can go up and people who shouldnt own a gun will now own one. They are scared that the crime rate will increases.
What i think of the court's ruling is that heller will win because his lawyer is saying that you can own a gun but you should get a background check first and make sure your clean and obey all the rules. I think that the court is going to go with heller and guns will be alound to be possessed by a owner that is loyal to the U.S.
-Christian Segura
period 4
How do you interpret the second amendment?
~I interpret the second amendment by allowing police officers to bare arms, and people with permits
Why is there such a dispute over gun ownership?
~ there is such a dispute over gun ownership because if a gun gets into the wrong hands there can be serious problems.
What do you think of the court's ruling?
~ the court ruling is good because it protects the peoples environments.
Alyssa L.
period 2
1. The second amendment is inturpeted by limiting the types of weapons people are able to carry (Ex: people can have handguns in their homes, but can't own an atomic bomb). Another way is that certain people can't own guns (Ex: prisoners).
2. There is so much argument about owning guns now and days because some people think that guns will be able to protect themselves from any threat that walks into their homes, but others think that guns only cause destrution and will be used to kill people for their own personal needs.
3. I think that the court's ruling was reasonable. This is so because this was included in our US Constitution, and guns may be danderous, but there aren't many crazy people that will walk into a bank and shoot everyone. Even if there are a lot of people, they still will eventually be stopped by our true armed forces.
Andrew Villa Period 2 931
I interpret the second amendment as the right to own a gun for hunting and protection purposes only. There is such a dispute over gun ownership because guns are a serious matter, they can kill someone. If they're placed in the hands of the wrong person, no good will come of it. Also, safety reasons like leaving a gun on a table and a kid of any age grabs it and shoots themselves. I agree with the court's decision to allow handguns and regarding the ban unconstitutional but i do not agree with the trigger lock being uneccessary because once again, what if a child gets hold of it. The weapon should not be in reach or in the knowledge of the child but if they would come across it you would hope nothing goes wrong even with the lock. I would completely agree if they made it mandatory for the trigger lock to be active when the gun is not in use.
Crystal S
1. The words of the second amendment are, “the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.” I think at the time the Constitution was created the reasoning was that there was a need to have a well armed Militia to protect the security of a free state. Everyone had the right to own guns to protect their country. I think that the second amendment was more for the military not so much for individuals.
2. There is a huge dispute over the ownership of guns because the wording in the second amendment is vague. People are fighting for stricter gun control because too many times when a crime has been committed guns were involved. Guns are falling into the wrong hands. Guns are no longer used strictly to protect our country or to protect oneself but are used commonly to commit crimes. Guns are too readily available to anyone who is willing to pay for one. Too often we hear about little children finding their parent’s gun and playing with them as if they were toys and usually these results in someone getting shot accidentally. On the other hand gun advocates know there is big money in selling and manufacturing guns. They feel they have every right to protect themselves. Too often the criminals have the advantage over us because they are the ones with the guns. They argue that the Bill of Rights was written to protect individuals so the second amendment was not written just for the Militia but for everybody. Both sides have valid points in their arguments.
3. I think that the court’s ruling was wrong because it now allows anyone and everyone the right to own a gun. Although we all have the right to bare arms not everyone should have a gun. Too often guns wind up getting into the wrong hands and are used for the wrong reasons. Even if we have background checks and restrictions placed on individuals who want to purchase firearms, I feel it would eventually lead to problems (selling illegal handguns).
- victoria eng
meagan betances 903 period 4
how do you interpret the second amendment?
...well it is for the house of representatives to be composed of people chosen every 2 years by the citizens of the states
why is there such a dispute over gun ownership?
guns are dangerous
what do you think of the court's ruling?
...i really dont have opinions on politics
theres a dispute with gun owner ship because its dangeous these days and people are crazy and trying to kill people.
-stefani greenstein
I interpret the second amendment as one of the amendements where there is a good side and a bad side to it. The good side of the second amendemnt is that it gives a person a right to bear arms to protect themselfs. The bad side
however is that some might abuse this power of the ability to bear arms.
There is a huge dispute ober gun ownership because some dont want people to have guns in their omr when others do. Also because since the constitution states that the people have a right to bear arms, so if the suprme were to look at the case they would have to declare it unconstitutional because it violated the constitutonal.
I think that the supreme courts ruling was fair because the ruling staed that citizens are allowed to have weapons but only certain weapons,so people are still able to protect themselves.
Allison O
Period 2
1.how I interpret the second amendement is means that people should be able to own any type of hand guns guns with a permit to protect themselves and familes.
2.There is such dispute over gun ownership because people may use the guns for other purposes than what it is supposed to be use for.
3. I think its the court system.
joseph the E. pwriod 4
Post a Comment