24 Comments
Barter
3/27/2018 01:33:16 pm
Read the NYTimes opinion piece written by former Justice Stevens and then look at the majority opinion in the Heller case that was written by Justice Antonin Scalia.
Reply
Braxton Neeley
3/30/2018 09:06:57 am
I believe that Justice Antonin Scalia Opinion is the correct way of looking at this issue he describes the 2nd amendment as being put in place to allow individuals to protect themselves from a corrupt govt or in self defense from someone or something. and while he does go to the extreme that an individual should be able to own any gun they desire he does cede that the right is not unlimited and some restriction is understandable so while his decision/opinion on the subject may not be perfect i find it more reasonable that stripping the right away
Reply
Toscya Williams
3/31/2018 09:12:07 pm
I agree, the second amendment should remain in place due to the sole fact that it protects an individual who deems a situation dangerous enough to require a weapon to protect themselves. That should always be a right for everyone.
Austin Olsen
4/1/2018 10:32:50 am
I didn't even think of that, about the whole corrupt government thing. Yes I agree that the second amendment is there to allow for personal protection of citizens. This whole situation with rapid school shootings is a mental problem not a gun problem. They could just as well gotten into a car and run people down. Then what are we going to do, ban cars? Probably not.
Gabriela Galaz
4/1/2018 09:47:05 pm
While I understand the point of view you are presenting, I do not agree that the second amendment is doing much good. Now a days, gun violence is growing worse and worse, and it is not reasonable "self-defense".
Gabriela Galaz
4/1/2018 09:44:25 pm
In my opinion Justice John Paul Stevens has the correct opinion. The second amendment is a demonstration of hundred year old fears which are mostly invalid now. There definitely needs to be some type of regulation in the very least. Time and time again, innocent victims lose their lives due to need for gun restrictions. When drinking age was 18, there were plenty of issues, so they raised the age to 21. How many lives must be lost before we take action.
Reply
Mariah
4/1/2018 10:12:57 pm
I too, agree with, Justice Stevens that we need gun control. Too many tragedies have occurred that could have been prevented with the right legislation. It is even mentioned in the article that the decision made was based on the broad interpretation of the second amendment claiming that the powers granted to militias apply to the individual as well. Therefore, gun control is something that is needed and not necessarily going against the second amendment.
Reply
Kylie Thompson
8/16/2019 03:53:16 pm
i as well believe that the Justice antonin Scalia Opinion is the right way because it is explained by protection in order to survive self defense used. Once you are a certain age you are able to by a firearm. While creating stricter gun laws will help i also believe that doctors should have a say in weather someone is healthy enough or not to own a fire arm.
Reply
Terik Steele :)
3/28/2018 08:47:38 am
I believe that Justice Stevens has the moral high ground in his argument for repealing the 2nd Amendment. The idea rooted in the second amendment, preserving a militia, was the core reason for the creation of the amendment. However, no one cares about keeping a militia. But as of today, the meaning has been skewed to protect citizens who have firearms- separate from a militia. By repealing the 2nd Amendment, we would be effectively creating the most extensive and strongest form of gun regulations possible- in the fastest time possible. Gun laws in the United States are honestly out of hand. Any person over the age of 21 can have a concealed firearm with out a permit in Arizona. In more conservative states, there are few regulations to buying, selling, and owning of firearms. In the United States, we have mass shooting after mass shooting with nothing being done about it. Sure there have been masses of protests, but they have accomplished nothing. If the United States won't pass comprehensive and understandable regulations, then repealing the 2nd amendment is the right idea. Vehement defense of firearms is only a death sentence to the innocent children who loose their lives.
Reply
Angelise Garcia
3/29/2018 01:46:01 pm
I do not agree with the repeal of the amendment as you explained it. The argument is solely based on children who lose their lives and the protests that came as a result. While this is obviously a tradgedy, you do not take into account the owner of the weapon and their intentions. Most people own weapons as a means of defense and sporting purposes. There are those who mean to do harm, but there are regulations that could be put in place to prevent these people from ever getting their hands on a weapon. Further more, the repeal could only escalate the violence by creating a situation similar to the drug trade. While the repeal of the amendment could work in a perfect world, keeping restrictions are a precautionary measure to keep those who intend harm in check. There is also the prospect of being overtaken by our government. The 2nd amendment was created as a means of the people as a whole being able to protect themselves from a government gone awry. In Nazi Germany, the first step towards total control was disarming citizens. Though it is highly unlikely in the states, what's stopping the government from repealing other fundamental rights and stretching their control even further?
Reply
Toscya Williams
3/31/2018 09:18:29 pm
I agree that the annulment of the 2nd amendment would be the strongest gun regelation possible, yet it's still a bit extreme. Gun laws do need to be stricter because mass shootings are getting out of control. Although the second amendment brings certain groups a feeling of comfort just like those who would feel uncomfortable without the use of a gun, therefore it should remain in tact.
Reply
Austin Olsen
4/1/2018 10:10:48 am
The mental health in this country is what we should be concentrating on when it comes to these shootings. Every signal one of these shooters who go into these schools and tragically take innocent live have a major mental problem. Instead of taking guns away from law following citizens who are responsibly able to handle a fire arm for protection we need to work on getting guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Reply
Salvador
4/2/2018 08:14:22 am
I agree with Austin on this. He is looking at this from a different perspective. Mentally ill shouldn't be handed a gun but then again how do you know if that person is ill? In my opinion we should focus more on the schools and not the person.
Mariah
4/4/2018 05:15:47 pm
Sal while I agree with the more security in schools, to say that more focus should be on the school than the person is vacuous . If anyone is showing signs of planning a school shooting or even just acting out in a hateful manner wouldn't you want to seek help for them ? I understand that precautions need to be taken incase a shooting or any other horrid event occurs, but there is a reason behind every action . Mostly its the kids that get bullied , teased , don't have friends , are mentally challenged etc.. , it is not that hard to be kind to others or even have a simple conversation to the "outcasts" in high school. If we can prevent shootings from happening by all means I hope we do . We definitely shouldn't have to be facing the problems we are in the world today, we should feel safe in school . If we want a safer school environment , we have to , as Austin said " we need to work on getting guns out of the hands of the mentally ill".
Gabriela Galaz
4/1/2018 09:54:55 pm
I agree that with your opinion, the lack of gun control in this country is a true concern. We need action now, before more innocent people lose their lives just because some people want to own an automatic weapon.
Reply
Braxton Neeley
4/13/2018 09:15:34 am
I understand were your coming from and why you feel this strongly about the amendment's repeal however i believe there is more to the 2nd amendment than its purpose being maintaining a standing militia and beyond even self defense within the declaration that emphasized the ideals of our founders said that it is the right and duty of an oppressed people to throw off and overthrow said government by peaceful change or if necessary violent revolution and they considered our right to arms critical to this means if required to overthrow the govt they set down for us Alexander Hamilton even states in the federalist papers that every citizen should have the capability to be equally armed to any individual military soldier. While i don't think we should have predator drones i do believe this right remains as a critical barrier to the dangers of a corrupt govt.
Reply
Toscya Williams
3/28/2018 08:53:42 am
Although the article goes against my morals, I would have to say that that Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion is correct. Justice Stevens is calling for the annulment of a 200 year old adoption of the Second Amendment. And in essence, it is possible to repeal the amendment with two thirds votes from the House and Senate and three fourths votes from the states, but that's a large stretch. I agree that we the people have the constitutional right to bear arms in moments of emergencies or self defense, yet we still need stricter legislations on gun control because it's truly devastating how easy it is to take the life on an innocent high school student.
Reply
Angelise Garcia
3/29/2018 01:49:34 pm
I agree with your statement because while it would be extremely difficult to repeal because of the many who don't agree with taking such extreme measures, regulations put in place could help control gun violence while retaining a right for those who can be trusted.
Reply
Salvador Valencia
4/2/2018 08:18:35 am
I do agree with Toscya but at the same time I disagree. I agree with her as far as what she said about self defense and more strict legislation, but I think that we should focus more on the schools than the legislation. Increase security at our school would be a better alternative.
Reply
Angelise Garcia
3/29/2018 12:53:24 pm
I believe that Justice Scalia is correct in his views over the second amendment. While Stevens basis for argument and reasoning for the repeal of the amendment is compelling, it does not account for the pitfalls that would result. A complete ban on weapons and repeal of the amendment could result in an underground operation that could prove to be more dire of a situation than we already face. Arguments over the repeal point to this as a potential outcome, using prohibition and drug violence as points of reference. Instead of barring private citizens from weapons altogether, Scalia suggest that the amendment be regarded with careful regulation. While guns can still be privately owned, Scalia proposes that strict regulations be put in place as preventative measures. While citizens ownership would be strictly regulated, they are still able to use the weapons for sport or for situations that call for self defense. I believe that Scalia's decision is more effective and more practical
Reply
Austin Olsen
4/1/2018 09:51:28 am
The main problem in this country is mental illness, we need to concentrate on making sure mentally ill people are unable to get they're hands on a weapon and get them help in some way. Repealing the second amendment is not the answer. If we do repeal the second, it will stop those who follow the law but not the criminals, they don't follow the law so what's stopping them from getting their hands on a fire arm. Just look at Chicago. That city has some of the strictest gun law in the country, and look at what's going on there, shooting are happening there daily. All the criminals have guns and there's no vigilante citizens to stop them. There is the Chicago police but they've got there hands full. This amendment is there to protect us from those who wish to harm us. its very unfortunate that a few bad bunch are to irresponsible to beable to properly handle this right that we have. To sum it up we need to make sure guns stay out of the hands of the criminals and the mentally ill, not the responsible citizens.
Reply
Mariah
4/4/2018 05:27:33 pm
I like how in depth you went with this . But, although stricter laws will make it more difficult for the as you stated "responsible citizens" to own a gun , it would be a lot harder for criminals and the mentally challenged to have any firearm in their possession . I think it is a risk that needs to be taken .
Reply
Salvador Valencia
4/2/2018 08:10:43 am
I believe that Justice Antonin Scalia Opinion is right. Justice Antonin Scalia provides a firm argument as to why we should look at the 2nd amendment as protection. He states that the Second Amendment acts as protection for citizens. He go's on to say that owning a firearm is for self defense purposes but he also states that there should be some restrictions to the 2nd Amendment
Reply
Gavin McCormick
4/9/2018 12:12:20 pm
I believe that Justice Scalia is right on this matter. Like Angie said, Stevens argument on why the 2nd amendment should be repealed is is a good one. But people should have the right to keep and bear arms in their homes as a caution for home invaders. Repealing the 2nd amendment will not stop someone who wants to kill. They will find a way to get a gun and use it if they want to kill. We should have guns that protect us from those who are not okay mentally. Which brings me to my next point, I agree sole heartidly on the fact that guns are not the problem. Its the people who are not mentally sound getting there hands on weapons. Also, when there is a report that someone who has been bullied, made fun of, and a long history of repeated offenses and who has had a couple of tragedies, says they are going to shoot up a school, it should be taken more seriously. We also need to make it a mission that these types of students at school are helped and talked to by counselors and fellow students alike.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2020
Categories |