Problems with Gun Control
Problems with Gun Control
"If the second amendment does not mean what it says, what about the first?", this was the question asked by author, and National Rifle Association member, Bill Clede. In his article "Gun Control, Press Control", he warns journalists about the hidden dangers associated with gun control. When dealing with the interpretation of the Constitution, there is two views one can take. The Constitution can be viewed as a "living document" or in its "original " understanding. The original understanding, people are guided by what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they drafted it. The
Constitution can also be viewed as a living document, in which the interpretation should be surveyed in light of today's social and politics environments. Bill Clede ideas in his article seem to be guild by the idea of the Constitution being a living document. At the time the Second Amendment was written, it had a major impact on this country because State and National governments were unable, or lacked the power to protect the people. This Amendment gave the power to the people to bear arms for protection. As Clede points out in his article, it was not the intent or purpose of this Amendment to bestow unlimited rights upon the people.
The question to ask today is, are the people responsible enough to have the unlimited rights that they seem to have under this Amendment. Clede states,
"that does not mean that the government can constitutionally prohibit all weapons, but it probably means that the government can reasonably regulate and limit their use." I agree with Clede's point. The language of the
Constitution is very vague. The second amendment states, " 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." Never did the
Constitution define or give examples of what a well regulated militia is or types of weapons deemed reasonable for protection.
"If the second amendment does not mean what it says, what about the first?", this was the question asked by author, and National Rifle Association member, Bill Clede. In his article "Gun Control, Press Control", he warns journalists about the hidden dangers associated with gun control. When dealing with the interpretation of the Constitution, there is two views one can take. The Constitution can be viewed as a "living document" or in its "original " understanding. The original understanding, people are guided by what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they drafted it. The
Constitution can also be viewed as a living document, in which the interpretation should be surveyed in light of today's social and politics environments. Bill Clede ideas in his article seem to be guild by the idea of the Constitution being a living document. At the time the Second Amendment was written, it had a major impact on this country because State and National governments were unable, or lacked the power to protect the people. This Amendment gave the power to the people to bear arms for protection. As Clede points out in his article, it was not the intent or purpose of this Amendment to bestow unlimited rights upon the people.
The question to ask today is, are the people responsible enough to have the unlimited rights that they seem to have under this Amendment. Clede states,
"that does not mean that the government can constitutionally prohibit all weapons, but it probably means that the government can reasonably regulate and limit their use." I agree with Clede's point. The language of the
Constitution is very vague. The second amendment states, " 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." Never did the
Constitution define or give examples of what a well regulated militia is or types of weapons deemed reasonable for protection.