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"