Purpose & Intent

My last blog post was just a notification to let you all know I’m back and would be posting another entry with my core topic and my opinion on the matter. It seems I have received a few replies already and the replies once again lead away from what I want to get across. Yes, I feel mental and social issues tie into gun violence, but I do not think it should hinder our citizens’ 2A rights or obscure the purpose or intent of the 2A.  I missed a big week last week in trying to narrow my topic even more and convey my opinion.  With our class coming to an end and my blogs assignment timeline dwindling, I am going to have to wrap this up very quickly and hope that I have expressed my thoughts clearly enough for everyone to understand.

The video clip above is footage from a public forum that was hosted by a group called “New Trier Democrats.”  This “Guns and Public Safety Forum” took place in Glenview, Illinois on January 20th, 2013.  Presenters of the presentation argued that the Second Amendment may no longer be needed today. Although the footage is from well over a year ago, I believe the topic at hand is still being argued to this very day. 

The attendees in the video are engaged in a fiery debate with the host of this forum and much of the video has people talking over one another but for the most part you can still make out the statements and questions and answers discussed.  A panelist by the name of Lee Goodman, of the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition, is seen in the video asking his core question and making a statement to his question immediately after. In the video Goodman states “What were the reasons for the second amendment at the time it was adopted, and I said it doesn’t matter what their reasons are, what matters is whether or not it is relevant today? That’s the answer to you people.” An attendee and military veteran by the name of Kevin Tully responds to Goodman’s remarks by stating “The threat of tyranny, today, is no less than at the turn of the century in 1900, in 1800, or in 1700.”

Is the 2A relevant today?

I'm Back...

Well did ya?!...

Hello again! I would like to apologize once again for my missing blog entry last week. I mentioned that I had written a post but chose not to publish it. I felt that I did not articulate my thoughts properly on my topic due to my sickness and the medication I was taking. This week, I hope I can wrap up my thoughts and opinions, and conclude what I wanted to express all along.

Just a few weeks ago we were struck with another tragic incident among our soldiers involving a shooting at Fort Hood, TX. The incident kind of took me away from the point I wanted to make and away from my central argument. The shooter in this recent shooting, along with the shooters from other recent mass shootings, shared a problem that seems to be rampant among our generation. That problem is mental illness. The causes for these illnesses vary and depend on the individual’s background but that is a whole new topic and can lead me away again.

As I mentioned before, I believe the real problem with all these mass shootings is a mental health problem and not a gun problem. That is a debate that I consider worthy of extensive research and I would consider blogging about that topic in the future. For now, let me stick to my topic at hand…

Wah, Wah, Wah, Wah (Fail)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I apologize for the absence of my post this week. This bunny was (...is) sick!... I had written a post, but due to some technical difficulties and the inability to function correctly (probably because I was doped up on meds), I decided not to post it. After some (clear headed) review, I felt it was wishy-washy and not the best blog post to support my opinion on the matter. I will come back stronger this week and hope not to disappoint you all again. Thank you for your time and interest thus far. Oh, by the way, I hope you all had a HAPPY EASTER!

Sincerely,

"Duke"

AAUGH!

FYI, The picture above illustrates how this topic has me feeling right now... Not because I don't like my topic (2A) or because I don't find it interesting. No, it's the complete opposite... I find the subject of the 2A very intriguing and I am overwhelmed with the things I am learning and discovering about it. The frustration comes from having to narrow down my topic and picking just one. It also comes from the ridiculous amount of arguments it has gathered over the years, in both supporting and especially against. Although I find myself pulling my own hair out (figuratively) from the research I'm doing on the 2A, I've come  to learn that I truly do care about this subject and wish to express my understanding of what I think it is supposed to mean. We live in strange times, and I personally feel the purpose of our laws and the liberties that our founding fathers intended us to have, have gone awry.

Firstly, I apologize for the quality of the video I uploaded above.This is a video clip I found on a social media site, shortly after the recent shooting at Ft. Hood. I absolutely could not find a better quality version of the same clip, nor do I have the software to create a new clip of this testimony. I did, however, manage to locate the original source of the video in its entirety. 

The clip above is the testimony of Officer Colin Owen, Chief of Police of the City of Milano, Texas. His testimony was part of a hearing on rural affairs and homeland security, and one of the topics at hand was guns and the rules, regulations, and opinions of citizens surrounding the open and conceal carrying of guns. To summarize, Officer Owen's testimony was in support of the ability and right of citizens to openly carry handguns. His opinion is that the carrying of handguns openly is a deterrent to criminals. Officer Owen states he fully agrees with open carry advocates and describes their ability to open carry as "being able to present their protection. It is their right to do so." 

Officer Owens also makes remarks similar to something that I touched on a previous comment to one of my blogs. I mentioned an extreme difference in ratio of armed to unarmed personnel that was shared between the locations of the most recent mass shooting incidents. Officer Owen, in his testimony to a committee concerning national security, stated that "There's 78 thousand police officers in the state of Texas, there's over 2 million. We're not every where. We can't be every where." This statement may be true not only to Texas, but to every city and state across the country, to include military bases. Officer Owens continues and addresses that law enforcement in his area of operation may take up to 13 minutes to respond to a call of distress when an incident may only last 30 seconds. Of course, he is describing a rural area situation, but are his cities incidents so different from major city incidents. According to a FBI bulletin, "The average active shooter incident last 12 minutes, 37% last less than five minutes" (fbi.gov). Of those 12 minutes, I would anticipate a great amount of time is spent between relaying the message to authorities that a shooter is present and time is spent for law enforcement to respond and show up. Also, a substantial  amount of time must be spent identifying the situation and locating suspects in question. So in theory, most of those 12 minutes may belong to the suspect alone carrying out his or her "shooting" spree.     

So what does Officer Owen's testimony say for the supporters of the 2A? Does it help the 2A justification? Do all Law enforcement feel the same way he does?... If you watch the entire 8 and 1/2 hour committee hearing, you will hear a number of testimonies regarding personal experiences and opinions in support of and against the ability or right to bear arms, both openly and concealed. Officer Owen states that not all of his counterparts feel the same way he does. At this day and age, the debate seems far from over. When police officers like Officer Owen understand the restrictions that police departments may encounter like time constraints and limited response times, the need for responsible armed citizens becomes imperative and the need becomes justified...


Source:
Schweit, Katherine W. "Active-Shooter Statistics." FBI. FBI, 22 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.
"Senate Committee on Agriculture, Rural Affairs & Homeland Security - Apr 7th, 2014."Senate Committee on Agriculture,            Rural Affairs & Homeland Security - Apr 7th, 2014. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2014

Good Guys and Guns

The quote "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun" was said after the Sandy Hook shooting incident by NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre. He himself took harsh criticism for uttering those words. I can understand why so many people were upset by those words, mainly because of the insensitivity it portrayed and because it was said so close after the incident when people where still grieving.  But I also believe I understand he (LaPierre) was trying to say. I firmly believe in those words and I hope I can explain and convey my logic on why I do so.

When I say “good guy” I think of all the good people I know in my life and there are tons of them. When it comes to situations involving disasters or crimes, I like to think of the good guys as first responders, fire fighters, EMT personnel, and especially police officers.  As for the bad guys, well that’s a given. The bad guys are those who intentionally try to hurt another human being or willfully disobey the law and put others at risk or wish to disturb the peace of the community. When a bad guy is confronted, he is usually confronted by a police officer. That police officer is the good guy. Regardless if the bad guy has a gun or not, the police officer will possibly meet him with gun drawn, ready to engage if need be. If you recall any of the past incidents involving mass shootings, we know that the good guys outnumbered the bad and the good guys stopped the bad guys. How did the good stop the bad? With Guns… From what I recall from researching these shootings, the bad guys didn't just stop and say “I think I killed enough people, I’m done” and then just kill themselves or surrender. No, the bad guys with guns were confronted by the good guys with guns and the good guys prevailed. I don’t think there is anything to argue about that.

***On a side note, I said something on my last post that I feel I need to address. I referenced the soldier/gunman as the ‘bad guy.’ This was clearly to identify the situation in my blog. I didn't intend to specifically call the soldier involved a bad guy. He committed a heinous act and as a result, many people are suffering and his name and actions will forever be infamous. He did, however, serve our country and he deserves a little respect for that. From what is being said in the news, he served several tours overseas and upon his return, he was under psychiatric treatment for PTSD and other mental disorders. The gunman may have experienced things that affected his state of mind that we will never come to understand. The issue is more than a gun problem. We have a mental health problem, especially with our military. Hopefully we as a nation come to give a greater amount of attention to this and figure out solutions to help curve the problem.    

Back to Interpretation for a Few Minutes...

Here is a clip I recently found about a West Virginia Mayor [Danny Jones] having a certain interpretation of a newly passed gun bill, different from his colleagues interpretations. I added this to show another example which supports my point that interpretations of laws and such may differ from person to person...



I found it a little frustrating and irritating watching the mayor act the way that he did in the clip... When you can't win the debate, puff up your chest, raise your voice, start name calling, and talk over your opponents... and then repeat!

Fort Hood Shooting - Update and Opinion

The initial press conference has just ended and here are some updates:

- Four soldiers killed, including the gunman; The gunman was a male and has not been named
- 16 other personnel injured
- The weapon used was a .45 caliber pistol. The pistol was purchased legally shortly prior to this incident
- The weapon was not registered on base

- The gunman has served in Iraq in 2011 and was newly assigned to Ft Hood
- The gunman was currently being treated for mental/psychiatric help, specifically for depression and anxiety
- The investigation is currently ongoing and further details will be released at a future time

A brief statement included that the gunman/soldier entered his unit headquarters building, opened fire and killed three other soldiers. He left the building, entered a vehicle and drove around to another location continued to fire. He encountered a Military Police (MP) soldier, was engaged and then took his own life. A total of 16 other persons were injured in the ordeal.

From my previous post, I asked two question and they have partially been answered tonight. Well I actually asked four questions... Who was the shooter? A active duty male soldier, who was also an Iraq War veteran. What was his background? He was currently being treated for mental health issues. What type of gun was used? A .45 caliber pistol. How was it obtained? Legally purchased shortly prior to the incident.

You may or may not know that personal weapons on military bases must be registered and are strictly prohibited to be carried on base, concealed or openly. The only weapons that are permitted to be carried on base are by MP's on duty. You can summarize these restrictions as 'Gun Control.' Now another question I ask (and I am sure it will be asked in the main stream media in the days to come) is "If law abiding citizens/residents were allowed to legally carry their sidearms on base, would this incident have been prevented?" The same question came up (somewhat) at the press conference when a news reporter asked [Lieutenant General Mark A. Milley] if allowing soldiers to carry weapons would have prevented or aided in the stoppage of the incident. LtGen Miley quickly gave his opinion and said "no" and that he believes soldiers should not be allowed. He said quickly after that he did not want to get into 'that' debate. He also mentioned that the response personnel (MP's) and the response time were adequate. That opinion may be up for criticism and debate as well. The LtGen was quick to give his opinion but may have been forgetful of the experiences the military goes though abroad. 

Several statements come to my mind when I hear opinions like what the General said, especially when it comes to incidents involving our military. If we can trust our military service members overseas in the Middle East to carry weapons and protect the innocent, themselves, and each other, then why cant we trust them here in the states on their own bases? Another statement I believe in is a very controversial one. I believe that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. I'm sure we can reasonably agree that the bad guy in this case was the gunman and the good guy was the MP. If it were not for the armed MP confronting the gunman at that moment, the casualties could have been higher. 

The 'gun' debate will come up over and over, there is no question about that. Which side we stand on and how we debate it is going to be a real sensitive matter. I think that the issue is not just guns but more importantly mental health, especially when it comes to our military. I am sorry this incident took place today and wish everyone involved my condolences and a speedy recovery to the injured. Although this is tragic, it will bring up a continuing debate.

Breaking News - Fort Hood Shooting

Ladies and Gentlemen, as you may already know there has been another shooting at Fort Hood Army Base in Texas this evening. For my fellow classmates, this news came while we were in class. I find this news very disturbing and am not trying to politicize the incident but at the same time, I feel this tragic event will raise some questions about guns in the days and weeks to come. I also believe that the issue and questions may tie into my research and analyst for my blog. The incident and details are still unclear and I am waiting to hear what the press conference will disclose about the incident.

A few questions and opinions of my own came to mind upon news of the shooting tonight. Some questions I have relate to my topic at hand. Although these questions may sound premature, they may be valid and actually come into debate very soon. First off, who was the shooter and what was his background? (i.e. religious, mental state). Reports are initially saying it was a soldier on soldier incident, but nothing further. Second, what type of gun was used and how was it obtained? These reports are unknown at this time. I ask these two questions because the answers are important and will be used in the ongoing nations 'gun debate.'

After then press conference, I will try to post updates and maybe some answers to my own questions. Please pray for the injured and family members involved...

Interpretation

How should we interpret the 2nd Amendment?

Interpretation is basically the action of explaining the meaning of something. As we will see, there is nothing basic to interpreting the 2A. The key questions are: Who's interpretation do we believe and why do we believe them? In this post, I am not trying to convince anyone to pick and choose anyone else's interpretation of the 2A. I just want show examples of the different types of sources and interpretations that are out there regarding the 2A.


I would like to give three example of interpretations I found on the web. Each example interprets the 2A quite differently. First, the above video clip is of a comedic magician duo, Penn and Teller, briefly explaining the 2A. The video is short, direct, and somewhat comical. It is obviously in support on the 2A and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The second example I give is of an article I found by a columnist on examiner.com. The columnist by the name of Marc Rubin states "But the plain truth is, once and for all, the 2nd amendment has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with an individuals right to own a gun. And never did. There is no Constitutional right to own a gun. And there never was" (Rubin). He goes on to explain that constitutional scholars agree that that the phrase "of the people" in the 2A was in regards to "the state" and that any rights regarding the people meant it applied to the states. This interpretation is the complete and extreme opposite of the first example. In the same article, below are comments by readers who seem to refute he columnist understanding and logic. The last example is from a blogger named Melynda Price. Her article, "Get Rid of the Right to Bear Arms," seems to stem from personal tragic events in which her family members were killed and incarcerated by gun violence. She states "The Second Amendment acknowledged the vulnerability of a nation in its infancy, but could not predict a world where some would move through life feeling more like targets than citizens" (Price). In her article she believes "In writing the Second Amendment, the Framers didn't envision the kind of gun toting that is permitted across this country today" (Price). This blogger also mentions more about her family and race in her article. This last example clearly has a point of view which is more than likely ruled by emotion than anything else.

Ultimately, I believe that excepting and understanding an interpretation of anything all depends on a persons background and beliefs. The background may include political views, upbringing, social activities, and even their mental state of mind.

Work Cited:

Price, Melynda. "Get Rid of the Right to Bear Arms." nytimes.com. The New York Times, 8 Jul. 2012. Web. 28 Jul. 2014.

Rubin, Marc. "There Is No 2nd Amendment Right to Own a Gun and There Never Was." examiner.com. The Examiner, 22          Apr. 2009. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.

Spirit o f Liberty 1775. "Penn and Teller: The 2nd Amendment." YouTube. YouTube, 02 Jan. 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.

Let's Get Started...

Narrowing down my topic about the 2nd Amendment (2A) to a specific or redistricted topic is easier said than done. After some research on various subtopics of the 2A, I am finding it hard to decide what one topic I want to focus on. There are quite a few subtopics I would like to blog about, but the objective is to narrow it down to just one. I ask myself "What do I want my peers to take away from my blog?" but more importantly "What do I, myself, want to take away from my research on the topic of my blog?" The second question to myself is the one I really need to answer. I need to understand that what I have researched is something I believe in and that I can write it down, blog about it, and stand behind it 100%.

Where to begin?... Lets start with the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. We would hope to think that after so many years, almost 223 years after the Bill of Rights and the 2A were introduced, that we would have a definitive understanding of what our founders intended. Surprisingly (NOT), our nation continues to debate over the meaning of the 2A. Everyone from Supreme Court Justices, congressmen, and lawyers down to columnist, bloggers, and the average Joe Schmo have discussed the interpretation of the 2A.  The 27-word, single sentence amendment is broken down word by word, sometimes in fragments, and analyzed over and over again... But who do we believe? What do we believe? This is where it starts to get frustrating. Many more questions come into play: Should we believe one man (or woman) over the another? What are these person qualifications to speak on this issue? What are these persons personal or political beliefs?Why should one person tell me what to believe in? It can go on and on and it really depends on how much, we as individuals, want to believe and/or accept.

If we pay attention to the news, issues surrounding the guns seem to come up every year but more recently it has come up frequently due to firearms used in tragic murders and suicides  throughout the country. Supreme court ruling on the 2A come up infrequently, but when they do come up they cause a big stir in the 2A debate. There have been nine supreme court cases regarding the 2A since 1875, five of those cases involve interpreting the 2A. The most recent was McDonald v. Chicago (2010), in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the 2A applies to individual states and that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bringing up these supreme court cases goes back to my point about interpreting the 2A for over 200 years. When will the debate end? Probably NEVER! As our nation changes, so will technology, so will our leaders, and so will the interpretation of not just the 2A, but possibly all of our rights we have in this country and maybe even this world.

A Brief History

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. "The Constitution of the United States," Amendment II.

The first ten amendments of the United States Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, guarantee several freedoms that we as citizens are free to exercise. These amendments also limit the United States Government's power and reserve specific powers to the states and its citizens. The "Father of the Bill of Rights" is credited to James Madison. He originally submitted twelve amendments to the First Congress of the United States and to the states for ratification. On 15 December 1791, ten of the twelve amendments that Madison proposed were ratified by three-fourths states vote and came into effect as constitutional amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights. Of these ten amendments, the Second Amendment guarantees citizens of the United States the right to bear arms.

The two main political parties back then were the Federalists and Anti-federalist. Basically, the Federalist wanted big government and the Anti-Federalist wanted government to be involved as little as possible, per se. Although the Federalists and Anti-federalists disagreed over the amount of authority the government should have, the core debate was over trust in government itself, in which neither party had. The U.S. had just come out of the American Revolution and both the Federalists and Anti-federalists believed that the greatest danger to the republic was a tyrannical government. Both parties believed an armed population of its citizens was the ultimate deterrent to tyranny and government abuse. Members from both parties such as Richard Henry Lee, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, and Patrick Henry were primary supporters of the Second Amendment and the right of the people to bear arms. Ultimately, these men agreed that an armed population was essential in preserving the citizens right to liberty.



Sources:

"The Heritage Guide to the Constitution." Guide to the Constitution. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2014

Vandercoy, David. “The History of the Second Amendment.” 28 Val. U. L. Rev. 1007 (1994). Web. 20 Mar. 2014.

Yassky, David. "The Second Amendment: Structure, History, and Constitutional Change." Michigan Law               Review 99.3 (2000): 588. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Mar. 2014

Introduction

Hello, my name is Luciano, but you can call me "Duke."

I took up this class, English 112, on very short notice.  Literally the day of class is when I signed up.  A few hours later I walked into class and realized this class is going to be fast paced.  Professor Meehan cut straight to the point and laid out his expectations.  When  he informed us that we would be blogging each week on a topic that we found interesting, I was interested to see if the topic I had in mind would be acceptable.  As you may remember, I was the first one to suggest a topic when our professor asked for ideas.  That topic was the Second Amendment...  Yeah, I'm that guy! Now you remember...  As you know, our professor laid out a simple outline on the whiteboard as an example. This helped me see a good strategy on how to approach this topic, and decided to stick to this idea.

This semester I will be blogging about the Second Amendment (2A) and the issues surrounding it.  It can be considered one of the most serious topics in the news today. Opinions in support of and against the 2A are controversial and have seemed to stir up a lot of emotions and arguments around the country lately.  With recent incidents involving mass shooting in public areas and in incidents involving children, the topic of the 2A is a very sensitive issue as well.  I, myself, am partial to the support of the 2A... but for the sake of research and understanding of both sides of the spectrum, I will try to exclude any bias opinion I have in support of or against any opinion. The best I can do is try, and the worst I can do is lie. So I will do my best to present facts surrounding my opinions and I hope you will enjoy my blog.

Happy Blogging!

Respectfully,
"Duke"