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.
Interpretation is a hard thing for people to agree on. Several news outlets picked up a recent Chicago school workbook that said the 2nd Amendment required registration. Recently there has been a lot of talk about how the founding fathers could not have imagined anything other than muskets so our new high powered weapons would not have been covered, at the same time they also claim that cell phones would be protected under the 4th.
ReplyDeleteIt is those kind of oddball interpretations that make these fights seem so out there.