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.
In your opinion, does the second amendment protect individuals or groups? Do you agree with the Heller decision?
posted by CitizenPatriot at 9:59:00 AM
4 Comments:
absolutely, the second ammendment guarantees individual rights, the reason the Bill of Rights wasitten
4:38 PM
no, because it says PEOPLE not person. I think the founding fathers meant it to be groups. But i think it should apply to individuals.
7:36 PM
I think that the Framers meant for it to apply to individuals, but I also think that different times call for a different interpretation. Nowadays, guns are used to kill over 12,000 people every year. Something like 150 of those killings are justifiable as acts of self-defense. That's practically nil. I think it's much more important to keep guns out of the hands of killers than it is to distribute them for self-defense purposes. As for guns being necessary to the security of a free people: We elect the government. We can lobby for change. If we live under a tyrant, we can change it without weaponry.
10:33 PM
I agree with the Heller decision because of the situation he was in and that I would probably want a gun to have in my house just in case also. I think the 2nd amendment is more for a group, but a group of individuals. The individuals in that group just so happen to be everyone in the U.S. that hasn't committed a crime. Otherwise, if it only applied to groups, then Heller would probably be dead because he couldn't defend himself. I think the backround check should also aybe be in more detail. It can't just be your criminal record. Because your first crime could be a capital one.
5:47 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home