Second Amendment- The Right to Bear Arms

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 my opinion, the reason why the founding fathers decided to create well regulated militias was because they had been oppressed by a professional army and saw no need to create one in America. They decided to allow for the citizens to be armed instead. This gave them the protection they needed without the intrusiveness of a standing army. To me this means that the citizens have the right to arm themselves. The founding fathers probably never thought this would include the weapons we have today. When arming yourself I believe that it needs to be reasonable. There is no need for a citizen to have weapons such as AK47s or machetes. These freedoms need to be regulated and not abused.





My opinion: I chose this video due to Ted Nugent's controversial stance on the issue. The Second Amendment is one that people who support it are very passionate about. I think this is due to the fact that it involves protecting all of the freedoms that we have. You may think that Ted is over dramatic but I feel he is a good representation of people who are passionate about gun rights.


"Supreme Court Revisits Second Amendment"

(CBS/AP) The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years. A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."
Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home. "What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked at one point. But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation. "Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?" Breyer said. Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws. He did not take a position on the District law. Washington residents are not allowed to own handguns, period, CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports. And shotguns, which are allowed, are required to be kept unloaded and trigger-locked. The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.The amendment 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."
While the arguments raged inside, advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside court Tuesday. Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorist buy guns." Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime." A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday. The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District's ban. Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's prohibition on handguns. "We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said. But, Andrews reports that Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said: "This is a public saftey case. Handguns represent a disproportionate number of crimes in the District of Columbia." Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokeswoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington "is denying individuals the right to defend themselves." Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official position at the court. The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces. The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia." Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right. The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights. Given the Court’s strong conservative makeup, it is likely that both a right to own, possess and use a firearm and the government’s right to restrict that ownership, possession will survive the Heller case, says CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. The only thing that remains reasonably unpredictable and mysterious is the language the Court’s majority will use in conjuring up the legal standard that will govern review of gun control legislation. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."


My Opinion: I chose this article based on its relevance today. The controversy they are describing is still going on in DC as we speak. As a supporter of the right to bear arms I took personal offense to the statement "The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."". Do collections of china dolls serve a legitimate use in a purely urban environment? No, but people would look at you crazy if you tried to ban them. I think that statement was very ignorant and someone should have put a lot more thought into it. But this is my blog so think what you will!

Banning of public baptisms a First Amendment violation

How do you know when you have done something outrageously wrong? When you have the Christian Defense Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union working against you over the same issue. This is precisely the predicament that park officials at Falmouth Waterfront Park in Virginia have found themselves in. On May 23, The Associated Press reported that the Rev. Todd Pyle, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Stafford, Va., decided that he would take a few members of his congregation to the waterfront to baptize 12 people because his church has no indoor baptismal font. Park officials, however, did not like the idea and tried to break up the event on the grounds that a public baptism might be "offensive" to those nearby. This is unacceptable and a clear violation of First Amendment rights. Has society today become so sensitive that witnessing a peaceful religious ceremony in a park is offensive? There once was the expression, "Your rights end where mine begin." Apparently, the right to not be subjugated to being in the proximity of a religious service is greater than the right to hold the religious service itself. Or perhaps sensitivity is not the issue. Park officials later said that religious groups need a permit to perform any kind of service in the park, but also admitted that it has no official written policy of this. The whole ordeal seems to have been a random case of religious discrimination. However, it is understandable that it might be necessary to obtain permits for large, organized gatherings such as church and community-wide picnics, concerts and "big tent revivals." However, there is no reason why small spontaneous gatherings, such as this baptism, should have to obtain permits. Consider a different scenario. Suppose that a small group of high school or college students at a local church decided to meet in the park after the morning church service to have a picnic. One student brings his or her guitar and begins to play and sing contemporary hymns; the others sing along. Could this spontaneous event be banned from the park under the notion of it being a "religious service?" Few would disagree that it is religious in nature, but should these students be required to get a permit? And if so, if the songs were secular, would a permit still be needed? Is it simply the religious nature of the songs which would require a permit? Very few people would have the courage to say that these kids must go through the time and hassle of getting a permit to sing their songs. What is the difference between one small group singing "praise and worship" songs versus another having baptisms? Besides the sacramental nature of baptism, not much. There is no reason why one activity should be allowed freely and another restricted. The park is a public park, and the gathering was small and peaceful. If the event was a large, loud gathering of church-goers, or if it was in the public right-of-way or blocking streets, it would be understandable to require a permit. As it was, the actions of the park officials were completely unacceptable. The ACLU of Virginia made the following comment in its press release: "The rules for religious expression in a public park are actually pretty simple because they must be the same as for all other activities. If the park rules allow people to wade and swim in the river, then they must allow baptisms in the river. If the rules allow groups to gather for cultural, social or political purposes, then they must allow religious gatherings as well. If the park allows the use of amplified sound, then religious voices have the same right to be amplified as other voices." The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, head of the CDC, threatened to sue if the park refuses to allow future gatherings by religious groups. "These people are being discriminated against because of the content of their speech," Mahoney said. "It's one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment I have ever seen." Many times in cases such as this, the best solution is civil disobedience. The Rev. Pyle said he will perform his baptism elsewhere, but other churches should not be frightened into having similar activities; then and only then will religious freedoms prevail. Students at A&M should not dismiss this case as something isolated occurring thousands of miles away. It is not an unfamiliar sight to be walking around campus and see a group of people praying or singing hymns. There are even stories of some ministers performing baptisms in the various fountains around campus. If the actions of the officials at Falmouth Waterfront Park go unchallenged or are even deemed appropriate, it is entirely possible that religious freedoms might be violated close to home.


My Opinion: I believe that public baptisms are completely protected under the first amendment. Some argue the claim that it could be offensive to others. This has about the same merit as someone saying that Catholics should not be able to carry a rosary in public. They are not hurting anyone or promoting violence. The right to practice ones religion in clearly protected under the first amendment and anything less it a violation.

First Amendment- Freedom of Religion, Speech , the Press, to Assemble, and Petition

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.


In my opinion, the first amendment outlines the freedoms that separate America from the rest of the world. Freedom of religion, the right to exercise it, the right to speak your mind, verbally and in the media, and the right the protest peaceably about issues you do not agree with are rights that only exist in America. In every other country it seems as though people may legally have rights such as freedom of speech but if they actually try to speak their minds there is a good chance that they could criminally punished. I realize that in America there are times when someone speaks their mind and others may think of them differently but only here is there no threat of legal action. It also allows us the right to protest and petition when we feel our rights have been violated. As Americans we are not at the will of our government. We have the power to stand up for what we believe and do so legally. I value the rights discussed in the First Amendment more than all the others. If these rights were not in place then the others would be obsolete.




My Opinion: I chose this video in part because of its irony. This lady is rambling on about how there is no freedom of speech in the United States yet she is doing in a video that is publish on a public site for all to see. It would be one thing if she put it up there and it got taken down but no, it is still there. In this instance she is enforcing her first amendment right of freedom of speech. There is one thing she got right however. If our freedom of speech is being decreased it is not because of laws against it but because of people who do not stand up for their rights.

Articles of Confederation vs. Constitution

The following link is a chart that compares the Articles of the Confederation to the Constitution. By seeing some of the fundamental differences you might be able to better understand the Framers' need for change.

http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.art.html

The Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In my opinion the Preamble was a show of frustration. The Articles of Confederation were not working and they knew something had to be done. The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States as it stood and were striving for something better. This was their chance to put into writing the ideals of the newly formed United States. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.










My Opinion: I chose this video because it demonstrates that any one under the clause "we the people" has the ability to understand what it entails. This child's parent probably has more faith in the Constitution that most and felt the need to impart that belief on their child.