Speak Outs
Speak Out
What does the Second Amendment mean?

Jan. 11, 2013

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices staff writer

The school shooting in Newton, Conn., has renewed debate over gun laws in this country. At the heart of the issue is the Second Amendment, one of the most contentious parts of the U.S. Constitution. The shortest of the amendments at 27 words, it addresses the right to carry firearms.

“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.”

That one sentence, filled with vague language, has led to the evolution of two views on how to interpret laws.

The first viewpoint argues that the right to bear arms is restricted to members of militias, which were common during the time of the revolution and instrumental in maintaining law and order in many towns and villages. The argument follows that militias, not individual citizens, have the constitutionally granted freedom to carry firearms. This viewpoint puts emphasis on the “well regulated Militia” clause of the sentence, stating that the founders believed that militias, not the individual, were responsible for protecting citizens from threats to their freedom from the government.

Writing the dissent in the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia… Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.”

The second viewpoint is much broader, and argues that the Second Amendment gives individuals, regardless of their membership in militias, the right to carry firearms. This argument puts greater emphasis on the second half of the amendment, emphasizing the clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” The reference to the militia is considered a setup to the rationale for allowing every individual the right to carry weapons – that as individuals, operating independently or in a militia, are fundamental in keeping the nation free.

In the majority opinion in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, ‘Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

What do you think?

How do you interpret the Second Amendment? Do you agree with Justice John Paul Stevens’ argument or do you agree with Justice Antonin Scalia’s? How does the Second Amendment apply to the modern times? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
2/15/2014
Bozeman, MT
Daniel
bozeman high
People need to read the federalist papers and other writings of the people who wrote the constitution. This is the easiest of all amendments to interpret. The militia are the people, who organize when it is needed to secure a free state.

1/4/2014
Bayonne/ New Jersey
Marc
Dr. Walter F Robinson
In my opinion it is absolutely ridiculous what you have to go through to own a gun. Not that I don't think a test is necessary to own a gun. It is also factual that where there are stricter gun control rules there are more shootings. Which is why I believe that citizens should be able to carry a weapon.

11/14/2013
Pelham/NH
Scott
Anonymous/PMS
Citizens should have a natural right to be capable of defending themselves if they find the need. Regardless of whether people have the right to bear arms or not, there will still be mass shootings. Think of gun free zones such as schools. If something bad happens there, we call on someone who has a gun. A ban won't stop illegal guns.

9/27/2013
Watertown MA
Dennis
Rimas/Watertown High School
i interpret as that civilians are allowed the right to bear arms. however, it should be regulated as to who carries one. Although the recent Connecticut event has put a scare onto people, it doesnt mean the whole world will become like the killers. its merely for protection, because you never what could happen to you.

9/20/2013
Sidney, Montana
Kyle
Mr. Faulhaber
I think that we should be allowed to keep guns in our homes. Just because there are some crazy people that go shoot up schools and movie theaters doesn't mean we are all going to do it. you should be able to keep them for personal protection. you never know when someone is going to trespass or break into your house.

5/15/2013
Montgomery, Texas
Blake B.
Metzger; MHS
I think that you should be allowed to keep guns in the privacy of your home, because of many reasons such as trespassing or people trying to break into your house, keep them for protection. I dont think that because there have been shootings going on that guns should be taken away, i also dont think that teachers should be aloud to carry guns or leave them in their classrooms. If America were to outlaw guns, no one would be safe. They are there for protection, just like many other things. People can kill people with other things than just guns, will they ban that too? I think Obama has some kind of plan under his sleeve. Things can be prevented with guns, its not guns that kill people, its people. This world is so messed up, you just cant help some things from happening. The "right to keep and bear arms" needs to stay that way.

4/19/2013
Irving/TX
Sean
Malcolm/Nimitz
Guns don't kill people, people do! I don't think that just because there was a shooting in a school or a theater they should take away gun rights from everybody because everybody that has a clean background should have the right to own a gun. If they take away the right to own a gun and everybody gets their guns taken, nobody will have guns anymore while criminals will be able to get guns regardless and nobody would have a way to protect themselves. People wont be able to go hunting with guns anymore. And if they take away our guns like that in the future it will just be like a militia.

4/18/2013
Irving/Texas
Blake
Malcom/Nimitz
i think that being able to have a gun should not be limited on how many guns it should depend on WHO gets the guns. we as humans must have a better systems on who and how do gun get guns in people hands in the first place . i think that guns are not the problem, the system to get them is .if there are more rules NOT on age but on MENTAL health there would not be problems on what happens in the world that deals with guns.

4/18/2013
Irving/Texas
Blake
Malcom/Nimitz
i think that being able to have a gun should not be limited on how many guns it should depend on WHO gets the guns. we as humans must have a better systems on who and how do gun get guns in people hands in the first place . i think that guns are not the problem, the system to get them is .if there are more rules NOT on age but on MENTAL health there would not be problems on what happens in the world that deals with guns.

4/17/2013
Irivng/Texas
Karina
Malcom/Nimitz
I believe that the second Amendment means that everyone has a right to protect what is theirs. I understand that they need to regulate how many and to who guns are sold to, this I am not opposed to that. I just believe that people should be allowed to protect them selves.

4/8/2013
Irving/Texas
KassandraD.
Malcom/ 2Nimitz
I think that we should keep the second amendment as long as there is a background check on everyone who purchases a gun. If they just took everyone's rights to bear arms then that would only leave criminals with arms cause they get theirs illegally anyways and leave regular citizens armless. This might only increase robberies cause criminals will know that people have no way to protect themselves.

4/8/2013
Pennsylvania
Erin
WPHS
Individuals should have the right to "keep and bear Arms." In places where guns have been banned, crime has gone up because the people have no way to protect themselves. If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. If the government doesn't allow people to carry guns in their purses or under coats (concealed carry) then what will happen when someone gets mugged? What if a 23-year-old woman, who is no longer permitted by the government to carry a small handgun in her purse, is raped? If she was allowed to have that gun with her perhaps the rape could have been prevented. What if a man breaks into a pastor's house, knowing that the pastor doesn't own a gun because the government no longer allows him to. The pastor, who previously owned a lot of guns, is shot because he can no longer defend himself. In countries like Switzerland, where gun licensces are "available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable" gun-related violence is very low. Switzerland also allows "widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel 'have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.'" (1) Another interesting fact: "Since Australia has banned semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pump action shotguns, the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country." (2) Yet another interesting tidbit: “After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime has doubled.” (3) If the government outlaws guns, America will not be safe. Keep guns legal! (1) www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities (2) godfatherpolitics.com/8975/australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-gun-crimes-not-lower/ (3) http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/28/will-banning-guns-stop-homicides-stats-from-england-and-australia-show/

4/4/2013
Irving/TX
Beverly
Malcom/Nimitz
The second amendment is necessarey because its the right to bear arms. I agree with john paul sevens arguement. The second amendment applys to the modern times because in the modern times the people would carry guns just to have them and for there protect.

3/28/2013
irving, texas
James
Malcom/Nimitz
I think that with all these new proposals about getting rid of guns because of all the shootings is covering the fact that bad guys can still get all these guns illegally just the way they have been doing for all these years. Taking away gun privilages for common citizens does nothing but put us at risk, because then all the criminals and such will know you arent protected. We should carefully make these decisions because they could easily lead to destruction.

3/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Rob Vasquez
Malcom/Nimitz Nation
The second amendment is a necessity to the constitution for it keeps civilians safe. Not having freedom, or the right to bear arms, basically opens the doors to more robberies and deaths to those who perform it. The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. I agree with Justice Antonin writings. If the government thinks that by taking away our right to bear arms our crime rates will decrease they are mistaken; just because it is illegal has not stopped people in the past from doing it. There just needs to be mandatory background checks and an increase in gun safety courses. Yes, there needs to be change concerning the gun laws but to get rid of them all together is not the answer. Overall I think all people should have the right to protect themselves with weapons. Weapons do not kill one another, humans do. The wicked is within us, not our devices.

3/27/2013
irving, texas
James
Malcom/Nimitz
I think that with all these new proposals about getting rid of guns because of all the shootings is covering the fact that bad guys can still get all these guns illegally just the way they have been doing for all these years. Taking away gun privilages for common citizens does nothing but put us at risk, because then all the criminals and such will know you arent protected. We should carefully make these decisions because they could easily lead to destruction.

3/27/2013
Watertown MA
Geoffrey
Rimas/Watertown High School
i think that what ever the police and any type of angenice that are suppose to govern the us (citizens) should be able to have the exact same weapons why should the government have more power over its people. citizens need to have the right to defend themselves against the government and that is what the well armed militia that is mentioned in the 2nd amendment is for.

3/25/2013
Irving, Tx
Yvette
Malcom/ Nimitz
I'm sure that with the shootings that there's been in the U.S there's been people that have debated nonstop about what the Second Amendment means! From what I understand it's saying that people should be allowed to carry a firearm depending on their membership in militias. Nevertheless, we all know how much our times have changed throughout the years! There's no such thing as militias here int he U.S. People shouldn't have the opportunity to have a firearm even if it's for protection. We all know what a firearm can do and that's something against God's laws to us.

3/21/2013
Irving/ Tx
Sara McCoy
Malcom #7Nimitz
Guns dont kill people, its the person behind it pulling the trigger. You should have to go through proper training and background check to own a fire arm. Some people may think it looks cool to go around with one and dont take to mind what will happen if its used. you can get one if you need protection but other than that people should not have a fire arm to shoot around for fun or to harm a person. A life is a precious thing that you dont want to take away with a stupid mistake.

3/20/2013
Irving TX
Michael Casarez
Malcom #Nimitz
i believe that if you are in any type of danger you should b able to protect yourself. Only if your really in danger.

3/20/2013
Irving, Texas
Bria j
Malcom #6Nimitz
i feel as if u are in danger u should be able to protect yourself by any mean.

3/19/2013
Irving Tx
Jonathan Escobedo
Malcom 6th Nimitz
The way that I interpret the second amendment is like justice antonin scalias. I believe that in our day in age that the individual should be allowed to own a firearm of any kind. As long as they have a license to own and carry and have a had a thro background check. There is no reason at all to take away guns from the American people,but only to help regulate who is aloud to own one.

3/19/2013
IrvingTx
Teresa Balcazar
Malcom 2 Nimitz
The second amendment should not change because we won't be able to protect our self by people that could hurt us. We need guns to give us protection and the security we need as individuals. If we didn't have guns some how in some point there is going to be guns why because they have the right to have a gun but with a background check and own it. We need guns to protect our self so without the amendment someone is going to have a gun either way.

3/18/2013
Ledyard/Conneticut
Alec Chattin
Hargus/Ledyard High School
Although I firmly belive in the second Amendment, People must take the nessesary percausions. If you own a gun, be ressponsible. Keep it locked in a gun safe or put a gun lock on it. The tragedy at Newtown would have been avoided if the shooters mother properly stored her firearms. He wouldnt have been able to get them

3/8/2013
Irving/Texas
Ernesto Gonzalez
Malcom #6Nimitz
the school is about a shooting in Newton, Conn. and at the heart of the issue is the second amendment. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, the first viewpoint argues that the right to bear arms is restricted

3/8/2013
irving/tx
Rebecca
Malcom 6th period
I think that people should be able to own guns after they have passed a backround check and are older than 21. People shouldn't be allowed to sell guns illegally. I think that guns should only be used for the protection of an individual.

3/5/2013
Denver/CO
Khoa Hobui
Weber/John F. Kennedy
I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia because everybody should have the right to own a weapon without being in trouble. The second amendment applies to modern times because you don't really see militias anymore only a few of them.

3/1/2013
Irving/Texas
Kayla
Malcom5/Nimitz
I agree with the second speaker. I believe the the second part of the amendment is more modern and best fits the way society functions now days because we don't have militias anymore. The right to bear arms means that everyone has a right to own and obtain a legal weapon.

3/1/2013
Benson/AZ
Rhiannon
Sorensen/Bensons High
Second amendment: "Right to bear arms" so gun laws restricting gun ownership is unconstitutional, but if the distribution of guns was more under control, like more tests on gun safety and having to go through classes to own a gun, would make people more aware of the danger of guns, knowledge is power.

3/1/2013
Benson
Morgn
Sorenson
I firmly believe that guns don't kill people. It is the poeple with the guns that do the real harm. Even if guns are outlawed people will still be harmed because of them because of the black market. If someone wants to kill others there are many ways that can go about it. I think people should have to go through back ground checks before they buy semi automatic guns or high powered weapons but the right to bear arms should never be taken away from US citizens.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Cristian
Malcom 7 Nimitz
The second amendment gives people the right to bear arms. This amendment is causing many problems around the world. Many people have a different opinion some rather take this amendment away, some want to keep it. For the reason that gun violence is increasing around the world.

2/28/2013
irvingtexas
Alexxis Bastardo
malcom7nimitz
The 2nd amendment means "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." Militia is not really used in our time. No one really looks at it anymore. Other people have just changed it up an twisted it up. The particular amendment is broken into two different viewpoints.

2/28/2013
Irving, Tx
Norma Gonzalez
Malcom7/ NImitz
The 2nd amendment has two point of views. One of the points about it is the military being able to carry firearm.Militia to be able to maintain law and order in town and villages. and second view as an individual being able to carry firearms.the way people perceive this amendment is about the way they feel about firearms. The amendment need to be rewritten so that people can understand it better. The 1st part of the amendment is not modern, but the 2nd half is

2/28/2013
irving,texas
Alicia
Malcom7nimitz
I believe the second amendment was potentially made for earlier times when such things as militias where still iin action. Now in modern times people have twisted the meaning to uphold this type of power. Yes it states the people have a right to guns and that the governement cannot take guns away from the public. However they can put restrictions that make it more difficult to become an owner of a gun.

2/28/2013
Irving/TX
OMAR$$$$$
Malcon7Nimitz
I believe everyone has the right...but to a certain extent and that probably defeats the purpose of having the "right" to bear arms, even a knife can be a lethal weapon it just depends how you use it and with what purpose. Anything could be a tool or weapon it just depends on who's hands it's in.

2/28/2013
Irving/Tx
Charlie Tran
Malcom7nimitz
The second amendment is a necessity to the constitution because it keeps the people safe. Without the right to bear arms there would be more robberies and deaths. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If the government thinks that taking away our right to bear arms that crime rates will decrease they are mistaken; just because it is illegal has not stopped people in the past from doing it. There just needs to be mandatory background checks and an increase in gun safety courses. Yes, there needs to be change concerning the gun laws but to get rid of them all together is not the answer. Also, the government should try to reduce the sales of private contractors, that way not that many people can be buying or purchasing weapon as much. Also another way to increase gun control, is to raise the age, that one can buy a gun at, instead of 18, they can raise it to 21 or 30.

2/28/2013
Irving, Tx
Brenda Lopez
Malcom 7th Nimitz
I believe that the second amendment is often misinterpreted. Some people think that anyone can own a gun no matter what, but that is not true. It's mostly regarding about the militia. Some people think that the second amendment should be rewritten and not let anybody own a gun except for people in the army and all that. I think otherwise. Guns can be your protection against criminals. I think that they just have to be very strict on the way you can actually own a gun.

2/28/2013
IRVING/TX
KARRIABI
MS. Malcom 7
I feel the right to bear arms can be put in many different words. they should make a bigger back ground check and classes and psychological tests. some many people are crazy and they are the ones allowed to hold guns in there house. i just feel they should make that amendment stronger and harder to get guns.

2/28/2013
irving tx
victor
malcom7nimtz
I believe that second amendment grants private citizens the right to have firearms and that the government can't infringe this right because is given by the us constitution.but the government yes can change some details of the right.in 2013 something bad did happened in a school where a lot of innocent kids die with a gun. then president obama said that they probably will abolish the rights to bear arms but the rifle association did protest agaisnt it saying a bad guy with a gun just can be beat by a goo guy with a gun

2/28/2013
Irving Tx
Maria
Malcom 7 nimitz
i think that the second amendment should grant people the right to bear arms , to all that can but also to but regulations on people that buy guns , because of what has happened in the last years i think we should be more careful on who we let have guns. I agree with Justice Antonin Scalias Argument , cause what she says makes me more sense to me. Know that is the 24 century the 2 amendment really counts because of all the gun violence we have , i think they should make it more clear of what the amendment means and have more rules .

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Clint
Malcom 7 Nimitz
i think that the second amendment says that all citizens are allowed have firearms. But the government can choose to make it harder to get guns so that bad people wont get them. but they will never be able to fully take away guns. the second amendment does not really explain in detail what to do with firearms. So it can me interpreted in different ways so there is not really a right or wrong.

2/28/2013
irving texas
Milagros
malcom7nimitz
i think that being able to have a gun should not be limited on how many guns it should depend on WHO gets the guns. we as humans must have a better systems on who and how do gun get guns in people hands in the first place . i think that guns are not the problem, the system to get them is .if there are more rules NOT on age but on MENTAL health there would not be problems on what happens in the world that deals with guns.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Clint
Malcom 7 Nimitz
i think that the second amendment says that all citizens are allowed have firearms. But the government can choose to make it harder to get guns so that bad people wont get them. but they will never be able to fully take away guns. the second amendment does not really explain in detail what to do with firearms. So it can me interpreted in different ways so there is not really a right or wrong.

2/28/2013
irvingtexas
Gabby Carreon
malcom7nimitz
In my point of view the importance in the second amendment is the right to have or own firearms, but only for the use of protection and needs. Back in the day they were used for a stable militia, but now it's used for the good of the people. Most of the people who own these guns are the people who commit the crime. I agree with Justice Antonin Scalias because it in my point of view it is split in two parts.

2/28/2013
Irving, Texas
Jenrri P.
Malcom/7/Nimitz
The 2nd Amendment which is "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" has had many misinterpretations. The reason being that militia's are not used in our day of era. People have taken that concept into play and twisted its meaning into being able to wield a firearms. This particular amendment has been broken into two viewpoints, one being that individuals have the right to carry firearms. While the others debate that the real purpose for the amendment was for the militias. As for me on this argument I will be siding with John Paul.

2/28/2013
Irving,texas
rafael hibbs
malcom7/nimitz high school
The second amendment gives citizen the power to own firearms. Also that the government can act against the rights, to were you may longer own a firearm.

2/28/2013
Irving,texas
rafael hibbs
malcom7/nimitz high school
The second amendment gives citizen the power to own firearms. Also that the government can act against the rights, to were you may longer own a firearm.

2/28/2013
irving texas
brian
malcom6nimitz
i believe that the second amendment grants private citizens the right to have firearms and that the government can to infringe on that right yes they can make laws to make it harder to gain access to guns but they can not take away guns. and it is not only saying that militia are allowed gun but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" even though this amendment is very grey i believe it grants the right for all to bear arms not just the few

2/28/2013
irving tx
Jonathan
malcom 6p
the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to not protect the people from animals, it was to protect them from an unruly government. It is the right of the people to "alter or abolish" the government should it start taking away our rights.

2/28/2013
Irving/TX
Jose
Malcom6 Nimitz
I think the sencond amendment should not changed because it still make people feel safety. It is hard to understand about most people want it change and some don't want it change. In my opinion all schools in Untied State of America should add more security and protection to make students feel safety.

2/28/2013
Irving/Tx
John
Malcom6Nimitz
I believe that the 2nd amendment was taken advantage of, but I believe that people should still have the right to own a gun. I think that the government should try to keep the people in check about owning a gun, so background checks, if they committed a crime and etc.

2/28/2013
Irving Texas
Elena
Malcolm6Nimitz
I think the 2nd amendment should not change, because its been like this for quite a while. Why is it now? People don't just murder with only guns, what about knives, chainsaws , or even poison? Guns are used in many ways, like hunting, sports and even protection. And all these shootings that been happening isn't cause of guns, its cause of people making it so much of a big deal and showing it on tv over and over again, while others may-be wanting to react the shootings or just to get fame and be known all around the world. Guns didn't cause the shootings, we the people did.

2/28/2013
Irving Tx
Monica
Malcom6Nimitz
Guns do cause many deaths but then again they also save many lives. This is the reason why I believe that people should still have the right to carry guns.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Haley
Malcom6/Nimitz
In my opinion, the importance in the second amendment is the right to have and own firearms,but only to use for your own protection and needs. They use to use it to have a stable militia, but now it's used for the good of people. But the people who usally have the guns are the ones who usally commit the crimes. Justice Antonin Scalias is right and I do agree with him because in realiy it is split into two parts.

2/28/2013
irving texas
Elizabeth
Malcom 6/ Nimitz
I believe that the Second Amendment should not change. Guns give us protection and the security we need as individuals. If a sick person wants a gun even, if the Second Amendment is changed they will still get the gun some how. The Second Amendment gives us fellow Montananans the ablility to hunt and be protected at all times. Take away our guns and you will take away our pride, and freedom.

2/28/2013
Irving, TX
Xavier
Malcom6Nimitz
I personally think that the Second Amendment is a good amendment. It helps us to protect our self's form danger. Yeah, I understand that there has been a bunch of crime due to the second amendment. But you have to understand and think about the person who committed the crime. He could of had mental problems or something similar to that. It wasn't the second amendment's problem. We should keep the second amendment just in case there is a Apocalypse or America gets attacked, that way we have a way to defend out self's as civilians. Other than what I just said, I agree with the second amendment.

2/28/2013
Irving
Carlos P
Malcom5nimitz
The second amendment has more control gun and fact that allowed use one but the people using gun but the only thing is to take "gun license" so it wont cause any problem.

2/28/2013
Irving/Tx
Emily
Malcom6/Nimitz
The second amendment is a necessity to the constitution because it keeps the people safe. Without the right to bear arms there would be more robberies and deaths. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If the government thinks that taking away our right to bear arms that crime rates will decrease they are mistaken; just because it is illegal has not stopped people in the past from doing it. There just needs to be mandatory background checks and an increase in gun safety courses. Yes, there needs to be change concerning the gun laws but to get rid of them all together is not the answer.

2/28/2013
irving texas
brian
malcom6nimitz
i believe that the second amendment grants private citizens the right to have firearms and that the government can to infringe on that right yes they can make laws to make it harder to gain access to guns but they can not take away guns. and it is not only saying that militia are allowed gun but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" even though this amendment is very grey i believe it grants the right for all to bear arms not just the few

2/28/2013
Irving/Tx
Emily
Malcom6/Nimitz
The second amendment is a necessity to the constitution because it keeps the people safe. Without the right to bear arms there would be more robberies and deaths. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If the government thinks that taking away our right to bear arms that crime rates will decrease they are mistaken; just because it is illegal has not stopped people in the past from doing it. There just needs to be mandatory background checks and an increase in gun safety courses. Yes, there needs to be change concerning the gun laws but to get rid of them all together is not the answer.

2/28/2013
Irving, Texas
Anthony
malcom6nimitz
I believe that the second amendment provides us the right to protect our selves. It is in my belief that we should be allowed to own and carry firearms, and knives and anything else we can protect ourselves, because back then swords were still being used as instruments of combat. I also believe that there should be extensive background and psychological tests that are preformed yearly for gun owners and there should be special permits for every type of weapon so that assault weapons are at our disposal in the case of a hostile invasion from an enemy country. I'm not just some pro gun red-neck who wants to keep his gun, i truly hope for the day when guns are only used for sport and not violence, so instead of trying to completely abolish our rights to own guns why not just make it to where you have to be mentally fit to even own a license for a gun no matter the size of the firearm.

2/28/2013
irving texas
Nessa
malcom 6 nimitz
i don't think that owning guns is bad, but some of the people who own them are. people misuse their right to own guns by killing innocent people, threatening, and robbing people. if you own a gun for protection only it should be allowed.

2/28/2013
Irving, Texas
Essifel
Malcom 6 Nimitz
I believe that the second amendment means that we as the people have the right to have arms. personally don't really care about this argument i'm not a fan of guns. but i agree that people should have the right to have a gun in case of a emergency

2/28/2013
Irving TX
Raul Arrambide
Malcolm 6 Nimitz
I think we should control gun control but not get rid of it other people use them for hunting. Most people use them as protecting. I don't fully agree that any one could have guns. I feel like a gun is a responsibly that people should not abuse

2/28/2013
Irving
Luis
Malcom 6th period
I believe that the second amendment was made to help people protect there families by being able to have there own gun. Also to feel more secure at home or where ever they are.

2/28/2013
Nimitz Nation, TX
Joseph Rodriguez
Malcom 6 Nimitz
The second amendment give people the right to bear arms. Giving us comfort in case something goes down. Then you can blast someone, if you are in danger of your life. but i think there should be more restrictions.

2/28/2013
Irving/TX
Edwin
Malcom5Nimitz
The Second Amendment does protect people even though there have been shootings, but it's not guns that cause these problems. Gus are just objects. People who own and have issues are the ones that are dangerous. I think the Second Amendment can be written clearer and fixed better, but we got to enforce gun control even more.

2/28/2013
irving/ Texas
emilie rodriguez
malcom6/ nimitz
i believe the second amendment is about protecting the people from certain things for example comunism also i agree that the second ammendment give people a right to own a gun for example hunters i do feel as if you should have to have a background check before getting one because i wouldnt trust people. it gives everyone in the U.S. a chance to have a gun and own one and protect your self in a situation when needing a gun.

2/28/2013
Irving Tx
Everardo Reyes
Ms. Malcom 6 Nimitz High School
I think the second ammendment is very protective but it doesnt say alot of information on who could use guns wen can they used them and so on. I think thats were the problem is. People that dont even know wat they need guns for they have them and i think thats not right. The only reason i think people should have a gun is to secure a place and only people with experience should be allowed to own a gun. They should enforce the laws on getting guns because now a days it is so easy for us kids to have contact with a gun. Protect People not kill people.

2/28/2013
Irving,Tx
Jesus
Malcome6Nimitz
The right of having fire arms has been taken granted by the people of the U.S, but even though we are doing so I believe that one should be able to own a gun only for their safety and nothing else.

2/28/2013
Irving Texas BOYYYYYY
David Romero
Malcolm Irving Nimitz
The 2nd Amendment gives people a feeling of protection for their familys, themselves, or danger. Their has been alot of incidents with shooings and deaths, their needs to be more security in schools and take advantage of this amendment to protect us more.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Jessica Hunt
Malcom6/Nimitz
Guns give us protection and the security we need as individuals.The second Amendment truly means that as a free nation and having a democracy the people have the right to have weapons for self defense and protection. Banning weapons of any kind will not stop anything. It is the person that makes the violence, nothing more.

2/28/2013
Irving, TX
Edgar
Malcom5Nimitz
I believe that the Second Amendment gives us a lot of protection. The Second Amendment makes people feel safe. Yes their has been lots of shootings lately but you have to think about the person who is committing these shootings. With that being said, I agree with the Second Amendment no matter what.

2/28/2013
Irving
Aliyah
Malcolm 5 Nimitz
our right to bear arms is being over used. nowadays people are using it for their own purposes. like killing the innocent or robbing stores. people are no longer using them for protection. so i agree with Justice Antonin Scalia.

2/28/2013
Irving Tx
Alex
malcom5nimitz
I think that the 2nd amendment should not change because, guns give people protection and the security we need as people. If someone bad wants to get a gun for a bad reason they will find a way to get one! People use guns for all sorts of things like hunting and gun ranges. In my opinion people can keep guns!

2/28/2013
Irving Tx
Ismael
Malcolm 5 Nimitz
I think that the 2nd amendment is one of the rights that fits just some certain people. This right is only for people that are 21 can own a hand gun. The second amendment means the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms should not be infringed, this is a regulated militia, that needs security of a free state. To be able to own a hand gun you at least have to be 21 or 18 to own a riffle or a shotgun.

2/28/2013
Irving/TX
Marissa
Malcom5/Nimitz High School
The 2nd amendment has two viewpoints. On one hand if talks about only militias being able to carry firearms, but militias haven't been around since the revolution and instrumental times. They used militias to be able maintain law and order in town and villages. On the other hand it can be precieved as all individuals being able to carry firearms. They way people precieve this amendment is all about the way they feel about firearms. I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia's statement. They amendment need to be rewritten so that people can understand it better. The first part of the amendment is not modern, but the second half is.

2/28/2013
Irving
Aliyah
Malcolm 5 Nimitz
our right to bear arms is being over used. nowadays people are using it for their own purposes. like killing the innocent or robbing stores. people are no longer using them for protection. so i agree with Justice Antonin Scalia.

2/28/2013
irving/tx
David
Malcom/Nimitz
The 2nd amendment has two different parts to it . One of the part states that we must have guns to protect our state from tyrrany by having a militia. The other part to the 2nd amendment just states in general you have the right to bear arms. I think that guns should not be abolished because a gun would be the only way to protect ourselfs when they are used by criminals to cause murder.

2/28/2013
Irving Texas
Iris Jarquin
Malcom 5 Nimitz
That the 2nd amendment is being miss interpreted by many people. Their is so many shooting at school. Some people think people owning guns is a good thing but then yet others dissagre. Some protest on everyday bases to try to avoid the gun buying. Little inasent kids die from the gun shooting at school. Others try to build their own militia. With it allows people to carry weopans everywhere!

2/28/2013
Irving TX
Dulce
Malcom 5 Nimitz
The second amendment says that we have the right to keep and bear arms. i don't think people should take away guns, i just think they should not sell them to the wrong people. People that sell guns should be more wise about who they are selling guns to. They should not sell them to just anybody they need to do a background check of the people they are selling the gun to. most people just use a gun to shoot other people, but others really do use guns for protection. i think they should just check who they are selling guns too and make sure they are not selling guns to the crazy people out their. Even if they do take guns away, people will find a way to get their hands on one.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Samantha
Malcom 5 Nimitz
The 2nd amendment is essentially provoking two ideas into one amendment. The first part of the 2nd amendment is covering the use of a Militia, which is irrelevant to our day and age since we are not as bound nor required to have Militias anymore since we have our own certified army. The second part of the 2nd amendment is the most vague and open to interpretation. The 2nd half of the amendment leaves us to decide whether we have the right to only bare arms in a Militia or by personal use. These two ideas of either the right to bare arms within an Militia only or to only have the right to bare arms for personal use or defense is the biggest argument within the 2nd amendment. These viewpoints essentially show how vague and open the 2nd amendment is to interpretation. However, from these two points comes what the 2nd amendment essentially means -- the right to bare arms either by Militia or by an individual, and since we do not operate in an Militia country, we are left to have the right as individuals.

2/28/2013
Irving, Tx
Pedro
Malcom5Nimitz
The 2nd amendment dosent clearly show and say what it really means. It gives two different perspectives of you owning your own guy and also about having a militia. I agree with Justice Scalia because it is seperated for a reason for your own safety and other peoples safety.And its a right that cant be taken away from people.

2/28/2013
irving texas
Olga Mireles
Malcom/ Nimitz high school
I don't think guns are bad but we do need better policies and some control over who sells what, to whom. People are saying that guns are bad but they aren't, it's the person with the gun. And what they do with it. It really just comes down to that. The individual.

2/28/2013
Irving/tx
Argey
malcom5/nimitz
The 2nd amendment is interpreted as two parts. The first part is considered from the militia point of view. It states that if it is a well regulated militia, they are allowed to have firearms. But, in this day of life, we don't have militias anymore because we have a strong central government. So this part of the amendment should be no longer followed. The 2nd view of the amendment is that the amendment gives individual, whether they are in a militia or not, the right to carry firearms.

2/28/2013
Irving
Delvon (Delveezy)
Malcom 5 Nimitz
In My Opinion we should have the rights to defend our selves from invaders. Back then they used them for the militia. they not using them for what they supposed to. it is a right for both the people and for the militias to bear arms. Leaving the power to just the militias would just make the people feel oppressed, so Justice Antonin Scalia is right.

2/28/2013
Irving, TX
Felix Fonseca
Malcom 5 Nimitz
The 2nd amendment is broken down into two seprate parts. first the right to bear arms, is a broad statement. Having the right to own guns with a concield hand-gun license. the second part i dis-agree tat only matlias need guns because this is out of its own time there arent any state sponored malitias. I believe that it would be impossible to take away all guns, people think that taking away guns will be the right thing to do because there will be less mass shootings and homicides, but in reality people do needs guns to protect themselves. In other words, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun

2/28/2013
Irving TX
Monica M
Malcom 5 Nimitz
I think that people should be able to own guns after they have passed a backround check and are older than 21. People shouldn't be allowed to sell guns illegally. I think that guns should only be used for the protection of an individual.

2/28/2013
Irving, TX
Kathya
Malcolm 5 Nimitz
The second amendment is one of the Bill of Rights, that helps protect the state, where people have the right to keep and bear Arms. This amendment was adopted in December 15, 1791 along with the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. To be able to own a hand gun you have to be at least 21.

2/28/2013
Irving/Tx
Jasmine
Malcom 5 Nimitz
I believe that the 2nd amendment allows each individual to own a gun, but there are requirements that we also put into this amendment. For example you have to be 18 or older but to buy a handgun you have to be 21 or older. You must buy the gun from a federally licensed dealer & you have to get a background check using FBI databases. I think we should really enforce these regulations because the incidents that have happened are really effecting society. the amendment does't say that we can't have them but they also say something about militia which we don't have anymore. There needs to be more control in everything having to do with requirements to buying a gun & whose hands the gun will be in next.

2/28/2013
Irving.Texas
Jareisy Gonzalez
Malcom-5 Nimitz
The second amendment is very vague on its initial point, but feel that its just a way for us to protect ourselves. Although this is becoming very questionable because of the any shooting. guns aren't at fault, but the people who pulled the trigger are. The second amendment gives us the right to have guns, we should just be more careful to who'm the gun goes to.

2/28/2013
Irving,TX
TAHER
Ms.Malcolm/Nimitz
The 2nd Amendment is broken into two parts it says that regulated militia and right to keep bear arms. after the shooting there are lot of arguing going on about the firearms someone disagree and someone doesn't disagree for the gun. Somebody syas the guns should be banned.

2/28/2013
irving tx
Rudis
malcom5nimitz
The second amendment has two points of view the first one says a militia is necessary to the security of free states and that members of this militia have thee right to posses and carry weapons. The second point of view says that individual persons can posses arms regardless if they are members of the state militia or any military force, but this can cause deaths , because more people can posses arms and kill others like in the massacre in the school in Newton, Conn.

2/28/2013
Irving/Tx
Marissa
Malcom5/nimitz
The 2nd amendment has two viewpoints. The first viewpoint is that that right for people to have guns is only for members of militias. Militias where common during the time of war and revolution so that people could protect their towns or villages. This viewpoint would mean that individuals don't have the right to carry a gun. The second viewpoint is that every individual has the right to carry a gun. This sheads light on the part of the amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." This allows for people to sale, keep guns in there house, carry a gun out in public, and use it for self-defense. I agree with Steven's statement, but even if we try to take guns away from our citizens they will end up finding a way to get a firearm.

2/28/2013
Irving,TX
Erica
Ms. Malcolm/Nimitz high school
Milita are from 1770s and there had been alot of shooting in schools. A lot of people got injured or killed by people who have a guns because people have their way of being uncontrollable.

2/28/2013
Irving/TX
Samantha Acevedo
Malcom/Nimitz
The Second Amendment isn't an Amendment that has a clear statement. The wording is not straight forward, therefore there is no firm stand. Guns are not an important object in my everyday life, but I don't mind people having them as long as they follow the law in order to own a gun. Today's society is corrupt and guns have been used to harm innocent people and not for personal security like it was strictly written for

2/28/2013
irving tx
christina c
malcom/nimitz
The second amendment, in my opinion, says that anyone can have guns. That is why it's seperated into two parts. One talk about militia, the other about just the general right to own guns. I agree with Justice Scalia, It's seperated for a reason. And it's a right that can't be taken away from people. Although, i think before people only strictly used it to protect themselves, and weren't so quick to shoot just anybody.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Ismael P. , 4th
Malcolm/Nimitz High School
I believe that the second amendment gives us a sense of self protection. What I think it didn't account for is the time period. Back in the 1700-1800 America did not have weapons like Assault rifle and sub-machine guns. What will we do if the Government. takes away our guns how will we be able to fight back if they turn into a tyrant? so in my opinion the people are allowed to have guns. But should be handguns.

2/28/2013
Irving Tx
Mauricio V
Malcom4/Nimitz
The right to bear arms is the right for any citizen of the United States to own and carry a firearm. We have the right to bear arms and have the right to protect ourselves from any harm It also says that the militia was able to have guns but there's no longer militia. The second amendment is open to debate due to the incremental violence but restricting fire arms will not reduce the violence.

2/28/2013
Irving TX
Sharon T Period:5
Malcom/nimitz
The gun rights supporters assert that the Constitutional Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bears arms is an inalienable individual right just as freedom of speech or religion, and confirmed by the our Supreme Court. Gun opponents assert this right pertains only to collective bodies such as the militia, the military, police or National Guard.

2/28/2013
Irving/TX
Emma V
Malcom 4 Nimitz
I agree with Justice Jon Paul Stevens. I think that the second amendment was set for only the militias. The second part of the amendment refers to the militia as the people who need to have guns. But the reason people now a days talk so much about this amendment is because they are trying to make it apply to this time period. We don't really have militias anymore so the first part won't apply to us. But since the second part of the amendment mentions the right of the people we assume they mean us. But what I think is that the second part of the amendment actually means the rights of the people in the militia. Since a militia was a group of the people this amendment was giving each person individually the right to have a weapon. At least that I what I think about it. So in my opinion this amendment doesn't apply to us in the present time.

2/28/2013
Irving/TX
Samantha Acevedo
Malcom/Nimitz
The Second Amendment isn't an Amendment that has a clear statement. The wording is not straight forward, therefore there is no firm stand. Guns are not an important object in my everyday life, but I don't mind people having them as long as they follow the law in order to own a gun. Today's society is corrupt and guns have been used to harm innocent people and not for personal security like it was strictly written for

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Eric E. , 4th
Malcolm/Nimitz High School
I believe that the second amendment was written to protect the people from communism. And that it only gives the militia the right to keep and bear arms, though they don't exists anymore the amendment was written for that purpose. therefor the amendment did have a purpose to begin with, but changed as time went by. for example the 18th was abolished and changed in the 21st.

2/28/2013
Irving/TX
Angel 4th T
Malcom/Nimitz
My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is similar to Justice Antonin Scalia's argument. I believe that this amendment was written with the intent to allow individuals the right to keep and carry weapons with them for their self defense and for our nation's freedom. Yes, a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but as the second half of the amendment states, the right to bear arms is not and should not be limited to only militias. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" clearly states the rights of our citizens. While it's true that allowing people to bear arms can be dangerous, it is also true that keeping the people from owning guns limits each individual's self defense. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Gun ownership should not be restricted.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Jeremy M.
Malcom4/Nimitz
The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. I agree with Justice Antonin writings. I think all people should have the right to protect themselves with weapons. To modern times I think this Amendments applies only for carrying weapons not about militia. We have people protecting us already in the army, navy, marines etc. I think taking our right to bear arms is taking our right to protect ourselves from evil. Also taking a little bit of our freedom.

2/28/2013
irving/tx
Luis S 4th
Malcom/nimitz
people are not shore what the second amendment was saying if is was saying that all people should have guns or if only the military. in the first point people are saying that it was only for people on the military because it says that militias can have guns and they are saying the people that are in the military are like are militias. but the people that are for guns are saying that militias were just people not in the military or anything like.

2/28/2013
Irving, TX
Natividad T.
Malcolm 4 Nimitz High School
In my opinion the 2nd amendment interprets that everyone has the right to bear arms because the amendments were made for the freedom of the people not just for a group like a militia. It's true that there has been cases of people misusing a firearm but it can not be changed. Not every law is followed by everyone, therefore this country isn't perfect as any other country isn't. Imagine guns were abolished there would still be crimes committed because people are gonna find a way to get firearms .My point is that every one should have the right to bear arms with the exception to have a full background check and have a license.

2/28/2013
Irving, TX
Natividad T.
Malcolm 4 Nimitz High School
In my opinion the 2nd amendment interprets that everyone has the right to bear arms because the amendments were made for the freedom of the people not just for a group like a militia. It's true that there has been cases of people misusing a firearm but it can not be changed. Not every law is followed by everyone, therefore this country isn't perfect as any other country isn't. Imagine guns were abolished there would still be crimes committed because people are gonna find a way to get firearms .My point is that every one should have the right to bear arms with the exception to have a full background check and have a license.

2/28/2013
Irving/ Texas
Morgan M.
Malcom 4/ Nimitz
The 2nd amendment says that we are allowed to regulate the militia and we have the right to own your own weapons in your own house. Also to carry a concealed weapon with a concealed weapon license. In my opinion if all the guns were taken away or banned how would anyone protect their property or family? So if someone came and stole their possessions what would you do? just let them walk away with your stuff. In my opinion society needs to go back to how it was in the ole wild west and carry hand guns so if anything goes wrong you can deal with the problem right away.

2/28/2013
Irving, TX
Nancy Y. 4th
Malcom 4 /Nimitz
The second amendment is to give citizens the right to bear arm, the right for protection. Both viewpoints have their own strong opinions to the second amendment and I have no disagreement to either points. I believe that citizens should have the right to own guns for defending ourselves. As much as what the government think is best for the economy itself, taking guns away and abolishing the second amendment will not solve any problem.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Jimmy B. , 4th period
Malcolm/Nimitz High School
I believe that the second amendment gives the right to every individual to own a firearm. I agree with the right to own a firearm because many people want to protect there families or be protected. However having the right to own a firearm can backfire as it can fall into the wrong hands. Another danger that comes with owning a firearm in this time period is that there's all type of firearms now, back then they only had single shoot rifles. so this time period posses a more dangerous threat. I believe a simple handgun can do it.

2/28/2013
Irving/Tx
Jorge G.
Malcom/Nimitz
Pretty much what the 2nd amendment is trying to clarify is that anyone who is over the age of 21 is allowed to have a gun. The catch to this is that in order to be able to carry a gun with you, you must go through a a background check in order to get the license to carry a gun. Guns should be limited to the public, but people also carry illegal guns. In my opinion every person who has a gun must register it in order to be able to carry them or even have them.

2/28/2013
Irving, TX
Nancy Y. 4th
Malcom 4 /Nimitz
The second amendment is to give citizens the right to bear arm, the right for protection. Both viewpoints have their own strong opinions to the second amendment and I have no disagreement to either points. I believe that citizens should have the right to own guns for defending ourselves. As much as what the government think is best for the economy itself, taking guns away and abolishing the second amendment will not solve any problem.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Jeremy M.
Malcom4/Nimitz
The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. I agree with Justice Antonin writings. I think all people should have the right to protect themselves with weapons. To modern times I think this Amendments applies only for carrying weapons not about militia. We have people protecting us already in the army, navy, marines etc. I think taking our right to bear arms is taking our right to protect ourselves from evil. Also taking a little bit of our freedom.

2/28/2013
Irving/Tx
Courtney Grabeel
Malcom/Nimitz
The first part is about militias, well we don't have those anymore, so whats the point of even having it anymore, its not in use. The second part talks about how you have the right to bear arms, well thats something we still use in everyday life, whether someone has a license for the weapon they have, they are gonna have it either way, so whats the point of trying to take it away?

2/28/2013
Irving Tx
Isidro L.
Malcom 4th Nimitz
What i was understood by the second amendment that every one that over 21 is allowed to carry a gun a around . But before being sold to the customer the sales man need to make a background check before final sale to the customer . Firearms should be limited only for military and armies.

2/28/2013
Irving,Texas
Kevin Rodriguez
Malcom/Nimitz
Some people suggest that the second amendment suggests that only militia can have firearms while others say that firearms are free to anybody who wants it because it does not specify. I am not sure of it's true meaning because in fact, the writers DIDN'T specify. But one thing that it DOES say is: "being necessary to the security of a State". To me, this says that there needs to be a militia who keeps and bear arms. If the free state is not secure, then the right to bear arms is fringed. That's how I see it

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Marcus
Malcom4/nimitz
I think the second Amendment means both, because it talks about both. I belive it was say the goverment has a right to make an army whit gun to protect the people and the people are allow to have guns at home to protect themselves. I think it is the main branch say they are both allow to have guns, but only if you follow the other gun laws that will be made and use to protect people and yourself. Because when they wrote the bill of rights they new things would change. so they made in possible to make new laws for the changes.

2/28/2013
Irving/TX
Gabby M
Malcom 4-Nimitz
The second amendment to the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. I believe that the government should not take guns away, but to be more strict on background checks, licences weapon owners, and getting rid of unlicensed weapon sellers. I understand why people would want guns to be banned and I also see why other might want them. Some people enjoy their guns for sport, and others just to feel safe. But more regulation it needed for the wild minds behind a gun. Guns aren't bad, it's just the minds behind them.

2/28/2013
irving/texas
NincyC
malcon4th/nimitz
The 2nd amendment is broken into two parts! first the right to beararms and the second is a broad statement. At the time when madison wrote the bill of right they did it because they teared a strong central government. i agree that at the time that the admendment was being written were meant for militia and not as much for citizens. Now days everyone wants to own an gun, but the problem is that guns are bein getting into wrong hands. and now people are going to find any way to get their hand on a gun regarless of our restriction. BUt at same time guns gives us protection, it help us to protect ourself and our family!

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Justin P 4th
Malcolm/Nimitz
i believe that the second amendment means that the states are able to have a well regulated militia. as in their national gard or militias like that for example. i also believe that the citizens of the united states of america should have the right to own and carry guns. the more armed citizens we have te less mass shooting we would have. yes there needs to be restrictions. such as better background checks and mental checks and check ups even might be a good idea. but they can not take the weapons that people already own away from them

2/28/2013
irving/tx
christopher rodriguez
ms.malcom
i think they need to make laws more strick know because guns are getting in to the rong peoples hangs and people are dieing from that

2/28/2013
Irving tx
Jennifer S
Malcom4-Nimitz
The Second amendment has to do more with guns and the fact that you are allowed to have one but you must have a "gun license" without a gun license you will not what so ever be able to own a gun and it will be taken away from you no matter what. Even though the people think that taking away the guns is the best thing they should do because their has been many people dead from the cause of a gun.If people need a gun they will always have a way to find one.

2/28/2013
/
Betty
Malcolm 4th/ Nimitz
The Second Amendment was put into place for what all boils down to one word: protection. We as humans have the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment aides us in that right by allowing us to own guns to protect ourselves from evil.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Christi W per.4
Malcom/Nimitz
In my opinion the 2nd amendment is strictly talking about Militias. It is saying that the regular people that are ready and willing to VOLUNTEER their time & effort into keeping their community/country safe, are allowed to keep and bear arms. No person, who just wants to have a firearm should be allowed to have one, because they can't be trusted. People fighting, literally, for our freedom, can own weapons for self defense, and protection against life-threatening situations.

2/28/2013
irving tx
celeste and mikey
Malcom/nimitz
The 2nd amendment is broken into two parts. 1 part; right to bear arms, is a broad statement. Having the right to own guns with a concield hand-gun license. I agree that militas do need guns,to protect. I believe that it would be impossible to take away all guns, people think that taking away guns will be the right thing to do because there will be less mass shootings and homocides but in all reality some people do needs gune to protect. People are going to find any way to get their hand on a gun regardless of our restriction.

2/28/2013
irving/texas
ledwin
malcom/nimitz
i believe that the second amendment is broken up into two parts , there's the whole only militia's can have guns in order for a state to be free,and the whole everyone can keep guns. Now i do agree that militia's do need guns to give the nation its security, but i mean come on the amendments have been around for so long that if they meant for it to say only militias can have guns they would have already changed the amendment in order to make it more understandable.now some might say this is a loophole but as i stated above i believe if they had figured that it didn't state everyone can have guns then congress would've changed it by now .Guns do play an important role in today's society because you constantly hear about them on the news and see them in people houses,you even see them on ads. Now granted not all news on guns is good i mean there are some bad experiences with guns like in Newton,Conn but there's also some good news like hearing about a person saving someone from a thief with guns. What I'm trying to say is that i don't see guns as bad as long as you have a license to use a gun,everyone should own one. Its better to have a gun than to be in a situation where you wish you had one.

2/28/2013
Irving, TX
Jimmy
Malcom Government Nimitz
The 2nd amendment everybody over 21 is allowed to carry gun but they must pass the background check before they get it. Firearms should be limited only for the militia and armies. Civilians should not be allowed to carry a gun, but on these days, there are many businesses that they sell guns without going throughout a background check even though they should.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Jessica Schingle
Malcom/Nimitz
In my opinion I see the importance of the right to own and maintain firearms, but only to keep within their homes for their own protection. Back in the day it was to maintain a well stable militia, but now it's really used for the good of the people, granted people who own a gun usually are the people to commit crimes. I agree with Justice Antonin Scalias because in reality it is split into two parts.

2/28/2013
irving,tx
isela garcia
malcom nimitz high school
The second amendment is something that can’t be taken away. I see that change needs to be made. I think that the best thing that we could do is make restrictions on high capacity magazines and never be able to own a full automatic weapon.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Adrian Nunez
Malcom/Nimitz
I can't really interpret the Second amendment. No one knows exactly what it means by the right to bear arms. that's why I can't say that I agree with either of the two. I feel like they both have good points, but I think we are always going to be in a controversy about this Amendment.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Itzel Aviles
Malcom/Nimitz
I believe that the second amendment was written to protect the people from communism. And that it only gives the militia the right to keep and bear arms, even though the they don't exists any more the amendment was written for that purpose. The people shouldn't be able to own weapons because most of the people don't even use them to protect themselves.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Taya
Malcom/Nimitz
The Second Amendment is one that as very vague and hard to understand. The founding fathers when they wrote the Second Amendment were in a completely different time then we are now, and because of this the way we may interpret it is very different. However, I believe it is our right to own guns whether we be in a militia or not. Without guns, some say that all of our problems would be solved and that there wouldn't be near as much violence but the truth is there would still be guns around and the individuals who needed to protect themselves from danger would be the ones who would get hurt. I believe that the Second Amendment was intended for all United States citizens to have the right to bear arms, so that we could all protect our rights and ourselves.

2/28/2013
Irving Tx
Oscar Rodriguez
Malcom Nimitz
The second amendment says that we aare allowed a regulated the militia and the people have the right to keep an bear armsand that shall not be infringed. I agree with Antonin Scalias view because he for the most part agrees with the way i had interpreted the amendment. Using a strict interpretation that means that any citizen canown any wepons they want to buy. This is why the second amendment in a modren context has to be limited as a protection of a right to a wepon designed for personal defense. I dont think should be debate. There is no grey areas of owning a gun. It gives American citizens the right to own there own guns and to own any gun they want own. They can also have it in there house for self defence unless they have a licence to have it on there property to use.

2/28/2013
Irving, TX
Andy L.
Malcom/Nimitz
I think that citizens can own guns. I think the second amendment is saying that citizens can own guns and form a militia if we need to. What will we do if the Govn. takes away our guns how will we be able to fight back if they turn into a tyrant? so in my opinion the people are allowed to have guns.

2/28/2013
Irving/TX
DomNem
Mrs. Malcom /Nimitz HS
I agree to both arguments because it is very hard to interpret this Amendment. First I think it is right that a militia is allowed to bear arms to defend the freedom and the rights of the United States. I also think that it is right that individual are allowed to hold their on arms, but I if all the gun owners should be listed and their background information should be checked.

2/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Roberto
Malcom/Nimitz High School
I believe that the second amendment gives right to every individual to own a firearm. What I think it didn't account for is the time period. Back in the 1700-1800 America did not have weapons like Assault rifle and sub-machine guns. At those times all they really had were single shot rifles. So the danger wasn't as high. Now we posses greater weapons that can pose a greater threat when in the wrong hands. I agree with Justice John Paul's point of view more. I believe that each state should regulate a militia and that the militia should be funded with the more dangerous weapons since those are the people who are actually protecting us. The average person wouldn't need to posses such a weapon to protect themselves. A simple handgun can do that.

2/28/2013
Irving/Tx
Brittany Coleman
Malcom/Nimitz
I believe that the second amendment gives us a sense of self protection. Everyone wants to be able to feel safe and the second amendment lets them do that. People look at all the shootings and think that guns are bad, but its the people behind the guns that are pulling trigger. So I agree with the second amendment, that we have the right to own guns and protect ourselves.

2/28/2013
Irving/tx
Francisco Soto
Mrs. Malcom
cool

2/28/2013
Irving/TX
Dannie
Malcom/Nimitz
In my Opinion is we should have the right to have our own weaponry to defend our selves from invaders or like a bad person to defend ourselves with. However the states shouldn't have to make their own militia anymore since we have already a strong military in our country.

2/28/2013
irving. TX
Ashely a
malcom/nimitz
the second amendment is realy two things. the right to bar arms as a start and a nation against harm and the other one is the right be bar arms for pertection..

2/26/2013
Sidney
Jason
Mr. Faulhaber
The belief that if we take all guns out of America with the intent that there will be less homicides and mass shootings is maybe the most naïve thing I have ever heard. Bad people will always find a way to get their hands on guns. Therefore, the only thing we would accomplish by taking the guns out of America would be preventing the good people from, not only feeling safe, but stopping the bad people from doing more damage than they probably already have. I look at it like hard drugs. The good people in America don't have hard drugs. Even though hard drugs are illegal, people still get illegally get them, just as people would still get illegal guns.

2/25/2013
Benson/Arizona
Amanda
Mr. Sorenson Benson High School
The second amendment allows people of the United States to keep and bear arms. Which means that people have the right to own a gun to protect themselves and family. Even though people do take it out of control but it shouldn't mean that the rights to have a gun should be taken away, there should just a stronger policy with them

2/20/2013
Sidney, MT
Matt
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I believe that the second amendment is important because it is a way of being secure and also for hunting. The people that think they should go shoot other people are crazy and its not the guns fault. You should outlaw crazy people not guns.

2/20/2013
Sidney,mt
Chris
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I think that the second amendment allows us to have a gun for our protection. If they took the guns away some people would feel unsafe in their homes because they have no protection if they were to have a intruder in their house.

2/20/2013
Sidney, MT
Courtney
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I think the second amendment doesn't just allow us to have a gun, it allows us to have a sense of self protection that is very valuable to us. If the fathers of our constitution think that we have a right to own a gun, then I think our government should allow it as well. It's the person behind the gun who is hurting our country, not the gun itself.

2/15/2013
Belleville, NY
John
Colby- BHCS
The second amendment is more than simply saying someone as the right to own a gun. It is the basis of our self-protection, of what allows us to defend ourselves should the need arise. By no means should the government ever be allowed to infringe on these rights. It is critical that we are allowed to maintain our own arms. A government that tries to disarm the public is just a step away from a dictatorship and a communist nation.

2/15/2013
Henderson, NY
Samantha
Colby/Belleville
The second amendment to the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. There is no debate. There is no grey areas. It gives American citizens the right to own guns.

2/8/2013
Benson Arizona
Alyssa
Sorenson
The Second Amendment pretty much says that nobody has the right to take our guns. I agree with the second view point. Anyone can have their guns not just militia.

2/7/2013
Rudyard Montana
Aron
Mrs. Campbell
The second amendment says that we are allowed a regulated militia and the people have the right to keep and bear arms and that shall not be infringed. No where does it says this amendment is restricted to the militia its allowed for both the people and the militai. I agree with Antonin Scalia's view because he for the most part agress with the way I had interpreted this amendment. This amendment applys today in a great way. Guns are a big part of life now. Although with the president and congress trying to pass bans on our firearms is going against our amended right. The definition of infringed is violate or transgress and it shall not be infringed which is exactly what there trying to do.

2/7/2013
Rudyard MT
Donovan
Ms.Campbell Northstar
The second Amendment means that anybody can bear arms. That means to protect themselfs from any harm way. I agree with Ryan from harrisburg,PA. Doing background checks is a good idea, because you dont know what that person has done in the past.

2/6/2013
Harrisburg,PA
Ryan
Morris/Central Dauphin
I believe that the government can not take are guns away because there would be a lot of mad hunters and skeet shooters. Now I do believe that they should do backround checks when people are buying a gun so we don't have any more situations like Newtown or the Colorado movie shooting.

2/6/2013
PA
Jake M IIII
Central Dauphin Highschool
I agree exactly with Sam. If you take away peoples guns then you leave people, their homes, and their property valnerable and thats dangerous if you cant protect your self. Being an owner of several guns people think I am bias, but I'm not tho. Guns should be in the hands of the right people. Guns dont kill people people kill people. Yours truely Jake

2/6/2013
Harrisburg,Pa
Terrence
Central Dauphin Highschool
{OBAMA RULES] Everybody is entitled to own a gun of their own choice but if you really feel the need to own an fully automatic assault rifle join our armed forces. But since the cant infringe the second ammendent the right to bear arms but limiting the amount of bullets a clip can hold could possibly save some people in the long run. If you think about a pistol is just as fast and can put down just as much rounds its just they have to reload thats why they could limit clips.

2/6/2013
Harrisburg, PA
Samuel Lowe
Central Dauphin High School
I understand why people would want guns to be banned like in the U. K., but I can see why others might want them. Some people may enjoy skeet shooting, hunting, or for the sake of security. Perhaps a bit more regulation is indeed in order, but I doubt that taking them altogether is the answer.

2/6/2013
Harrisburg
Mackenzie
Central Dauphin High School
I do not believe that it's right for the Government to take away gun rights because of the school shooting. The shootings have happened because we need better background checks. The shooter took the gun, it was not his gun. Others need to make sure they take the responsibility of locking up their guns.

2/6/2013
Harrisburg Pennslvania
Cameron
Mrs. Morris Central Dauphin School District
I agree with Justice Antonin. The governement does not have the right to take our guns away. Its unconstitutional. I also think its ridiculous how the government is putting all these restrictions on guns its just dumb and unneccessary.

2/6/2013
harrisburg PA
Christopher Brame
Mrs.Morris Central Duplin High
The way I see it is that the secound ammendment was written not only for the people to help defend the country they love but also it was basicly written so that just in case the government goes bonkers and our rights are reppressed we can arm ourselves and fix it.

2/6/2013
Harrisburg, PA
Sam
Central Dauphin High School
If you take away guns, you take away people's lives. Many people make their living through hunting. Just because some people use them for illegal practices and killing people doesn't mean everyone does. Pearl needs her guns. Let her keep them. Love Sam

2/6/2013
harrisburg PA
trsan
ms. morris
i personaly see the importance of the right to own and maintain ones own arms and weponds, but only to keep them within their own homes. i think anything short of a fully automatic assault rifle should be allowed in ones home. but i think that any person with any gun on them in a public enviornment is a person with the intention to commit a crime. the founding fathers wouldnt have wnated civilians to carry weponds that could kill an entire school in a hour

1/30/2013
new rochelle
amy
issac e. young
i dont understand what it means

1/28/2013
Benson/Arizona
Brandon
Sorensen/Benson
If you take away the right to bear arms, you will just be taking away the guns of the law abiding citizens who have guns for self defense and recreation. The bad guys who use weapons to commit crimes like the Sandy Hill shooting will just buy guns on the black market. Taking away the Second Amendment will only take disarm the innocent, not the criminals.

1/28/2013
Kansas City, MO
Heather
na
I think they meant what they said, the right to bear arms for a well regulated Militia. I do not think they wanted everyone to have guns or they would have just said the people have the right to keep and bear Arms. It is there for a reason.

1/25/2013
Benson
Kourtney
Marv Sorensen
I think that people should be allowed to have guns if they are not crazy people. How can you tell this? Well I think that if they have a job then maybe they aren't that crazy. So I think that if you have a job then you can have a gun and you aren't really that crazy. Unless your job is to kill people like the mafia then you are crazy so you will have guns regardless. Thank you.

1/25/2013
Benson, AZ
Jacob
MR. Sorenson Benson high school
The second amendment is kind of meaningless to me because ive never really been one to love guns . But if you want my out look on it i would have to say that im not to sure if i agree about it because it can leave to very much harm ,but then again it really helps that person with self defense. Now days though we really abuse the words self defense .so that leads to much harm and deaths so i would honestly have to say i dont agree and i do agree depening on the citizen .

1/23/2013
Irving, TX
Timothy
Bradley/Nimitz
For the majority of Americans, the second amendment details a personal right to carry a weapon. I can agree with this; however, for some, this right is much more than the right to a tool for personal defense. The second amendment has evolved, in the view of some, into the right for an individual to have their own personal arsenal against the eminent threat of a tyrannical government that is out to get them and their beloved guns. This is folly. As defined by the Princeton online dictionary Word Net Web arms is a generalized term for weapons collectively. Using a strict interpretation that means that any citizen can own any weapons they want. That is not acceptable in a modern context when the document itself was written in the age of muskets. Aside from this, the United States, as a government, has a duty to its people to promote their well being and safety to "...secure the blessings of liberty..." to its citizens. This is why the second amendment in a modern context has to be limited as a protection of a right to a weapon designed for personal defense. Recently, we as a nation have been forced to make a choice between drying up a supply of weapons that are designed specifically for mass murder in war times and protecting the ill-conceived idea that all weapons are protected under the second amendment. Just as we do not allow persons to own nuclear warheads we cannot allow people to own assault weapons. This does not in any way imply that citizens should be denied the right to maintain arms for their personal defense, but that right is not infringed upon by an assault weapons ban. This must be the modern interpretation of the second amendment because in an age where humans have the ability to literally destroy the world, we have to put a limitation on what arms an individual can have in order to protect the liberties of those who own the guns and those who may become victims of crimes in the future.

1/19/2013
Irving/Tx
Jennifer R
Bradley/Nimitz
By the second amendment, we have the right to bear arms. I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia when she says that the amendment needs to be rephrased. A militia is necessary for the security of a free state, but the right of the people to bear arms shouldn't be a violation of law.

1/19/2013
Irving/TX
Marisol
Bradley/Nimitz
The 2nd Amendment can be directed to a well regulated militia and to the people. Both sides could be combined in to one to not have just one side have all the power. Each individual should have the right to feel protected. Therefore, it is a right for both the people and for the militias to bear arms. Leaving the power to just the militias would just make the people feel oppressed, so Justice Antonin Scalia is right. We need the militia to keep this country safe, but we also need the people to keep each other safe. The fact that the 2nd Amendment had vague wording had to do with the type of government that we had back then. The problem was that the militia had all power with guns, and the people didn't have the right to bear arms themselves. But, things have changed and a different interpretation of this amendment needs to be taken in to consideration.

1/18/2013
Benson/AZ
Krystal
Mr. Sorensen/Benson High School
I believe that people should be allowed to bear arms so they can protect themselves. Criminals would find a way to get them anyway. However, I also think that something should be done to make guns harder to obtain. We should make sure responsible people have them, its not the gun that kills people but the person who pulls the trigger.

1/18/2013
Irving, TX
Bethany
Bradley/Nimitz
The Second Amendment shouldn't be scrutinized so closely. It clearly gives the right to bear arms to individuals. I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia when she said that the amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” With regard to the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, and other terrible shootings around the country presently and in years past, the problem that faces us in light of these events is not whether or not we should allow individual gun rights, but whether we should allow individuals to become so troubled that they feel as though they have to shoot up a school or mall to get attention. Guns are not the problem, it's the people themselves. If these people can't use guns to create panic and destruction, they will find another way using some other deadly weapon. We can't focus on if we should permit gun ownership, we should focus on helping people just like the man who shot innocent children in Newtown and the man who started shooting in a Batman movie theater; they need help, and we will be just as responsible for the destruction they cause if we sit back and do nothing about the state of their well-being.

1/18/2013
Irving, Tx
Dominic
Bradley/Nimitz
I interperet the Second Amendment as allowing people to own guns in their households. It clearly states this fact, so I don't see what all the hooplah is about. I will admit that the amendment might be a little outdated, but it is still part of the basis on what our country was founded on. It would be stupid to try and get rid of it.

1/18/2013
Benson
Emily
Benson High School
the second ammendment is a vital part of our country. everyone should have the right to bear arms, with only a few exceptions, so that they are able to defend themselves in a time of need. those exceptions include the right taken away when a crime is commited, or when a person is mentally unstable. also, guns are not allowed in airports and high security places so i doubt anyone would be too dissappointed if guns arent allowed in schools with children. plus, you should always keep in mind that guns arent what kill people, people kill people.

1/18/2013
Benson Arizona
Allison
Mr. Sorenson/Benson High School
The Second Amendment gives people the right to protect themselves, by giving them the right to bear arms. I agree with Justice Antonin. I believe that people should be allowed to bear arms. Taking the right to bear arms away from people will not protect them. Criminals will find a way to get a gun illegally, if they really want to. In the 21st century, we have an army and no longer need militia's. The United States of America is free, and I believe that taking our right away to own guns is restricting our freedom.

1/18/2013
Benson Arizona
Allison
Mr. Sorenson/Benson High School
The Second Amendment gives people the right to protect themselves, by giving them the right to bear arms. I agree with Justice Antonin. I believe that people should be allowed to bear arms. Taking the right to bear arms away from people will not protect them. Criminals will find a way to get a gun illegally, if they really want to. In the 21st century, we have an army and no longer need militia's. The United States of America is free, and I believe that taking our right away to own guns is restricting our freedom.

1/18/2013
Irving/Tx
Kristian B
Bradley/Nimitz
The the second amendment can be interpreted basically by allowing the people of a well regulated Militia to have guns. This interpretation is similar to Justice John Paul Stevens'. The second Amendment applies to modern times by having people educated enough to be in the armed services to have a gun and the “right to bear arms.” The second viewpoint may not be as safe. With the different view of the second amendment dangerous people can be seen to have the firearms, and therefore the second amendment is too vague and not updated enough.

1/18/2013
Irving/Tx
Vanessa C.
Bradley/Nimitz
The Second Amendment gives the people the right to protect themselves from harm. I agree with Justice Antonin. Even though the amendment is vague it still gives the citizens the right to bear arms. Having a gun was something normal to have back then . But now that we live in the 21st Century we don't need to regulate militia because we have a army and people that want to have a gun they can have one. It is us to protect your self from harm.

1/18/2013
Irving/TX
Jennifer T
Bradley/Nimitz
I find that Justice John Paul Stevens' interpretation of the amendment makes perfect sense. Our founding fathers left many amendments with open ends, but this one is somewhat vague. With all the current problems we have had with shootings, the issue revolving the second amendment and its validity comes up every time. The second amendment means what we want it to. Each person has different beliefs and ethical values.

1/18/2013
Irving, TX
Liliana
Bradley/Nimitz
At the time when Madison wrote the bill of rights they did it because they feared a strong central government, so he wanted to make sure that the rights of the people would not be taken away. In many places when the government starts taking away the guns from the citizens is because they are trying to control them and take over like it happened in the past. Since history can repeat itself it is important not to loose the right for the people to bear arms. I interpret the Second Amendment as a protection from government oppression. Therefore I agree with Justice Antonin.

1/17/2013
Irving/TX
Julio F.
Bradley/Nimitz
I would say that firearms, at the time the amendment was being written. were meant for militia and not so much for citizens, but in the U.S. today people would need the protection a firearm can give them. I agree more with Justice Antonin Scalia's statement because the way the amendment was worded was suited for the time but now a days it's creating tension in the United States. The 2nd Amendment can be reworded where it won't be such a disputable topic and it can just let citizens bare firearms. The second amendment can be applied in our modern world because there are going to be many people that will use weapons to murder or hurt innocent people.

1/17/2013
Irving, TX
Daniela R
Bradley/Nimitz
Every teacher, since the beginning of one's education, will tell you that the second amendment is the rigt to bear arms. Because of that, that is the way I interpret that amendment. If the Founding Fathers did not mean for the people to have the right to beat arms they wouldnt have said people. I agree with Justive Antonin Scalia, his rephrasing of the amendment makes perfect sense. In our soiety, right now, many people enjoy hunting for their own food. Some others like to know that if anyone were to threaten their life or their families life they have a gun to protect them. It provides a sense of security, but to others it is a weapon used for evil.

1/17/2013
Irving, TX
Lily
Bradley/Nimitz
I agree with the viewpoint that states that the Second Amendment gives individuals, regardless of their membership in militias, the right to carry firearms. Those people who use guns the right way shouldn't have to be punished for the few who use them the wrong way. I would prefer if the government made the process of owning a gun a little bit longer though. Just to be on the safe side. I just don't think that the Militia should be the only ones with the right to bear arms. What happens if someone breaks in to my house while everybody’s sleeping? Is the Militia going to be there to save us? No.

1/17/2013
benson, AZ
Kasey
Sorenson/Benson
I believe all US citizens should remain to have the right to bear arms. If there were any changes, the government should at least make it a little more difficult for just anyone to purchase a gun. Coming from a family that hunts i have grown up around gun saftey and see no issue with people owning a weapon. The people who use guns the right way should not have to be punished for the few who use guns the wrong way.

1/17/2013
Benson Arizona
Sabrina
Sorensen Benson High School
I agree with justice antonin, The second admentent is for our protection. Many peoples lives have been saved cause of guns and they shouldn`t have the right to take our RIGHTS away. Besides when the goverment starts taking away one right whats gonna stop them from taking away our other rights. We need our guns for our protection our rights shouldnt be taken away cause of stupid people. Sure guns kill alot of people but so do cars so our they gonna take our cars too? People if they want to kill and harm their gonna do it anyways even if its with a rock. They need to leave the 2nd admenment alone.

1/17/2013
tx
jesse
metzger montgomery
I interpret the second amendment as this the second amendment gives the right to keep and bear arms to individuals not just the ones in militias. Because if someone breaks into your house with a gun the militia if they come at all will be to late in my opinion the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun . A lot of people agree with me you cant just take our guns away because someone bad did something bad with a gun if you make good smart people give up guns then that will only leave the bad and dumb people with guns and they wont give them up then we are all done for . Even if they did turn in their guns they would do the same things by different means.

1/17/2013
77356
jesse
metzger/montgomery
I interpret the second amendment as this the people as individuals should be allowed to keep and bear arms not jus the ones in militias because if someone breaks iinto your house with a gun the militia wont be there to stop them in time this right shouldnt be taken away because bad people do bad things in my opinion the only way to stop a bad guy with a weapon is a good guy with a weapon .

1/16/2013
Irving/Tx
Heather E
Bradley/Nimitz
I interpret the Second Amendment as a vague addition to the Constitution. It will not matter how you interpret what it means because of how different the interpretations can be made to be. I agree with John Paul Stevens because I feel like in the world today, the amendment needs to be modified and restricted. As of right now it talks about the militia and right to bear arms. Where are the provisions? There are none. You can't have an amendment without having laws, especially if the amendment itse;f is so vague.

1/16/2013
Irving/Tx
Rebecca M.
Bradley/Nimitz
The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. It is a very vague amendment because saying the “right to bear arms” can mean many things. The Sandy Hook shooting is an example of the Second Amendment being too vague. Because of this shooting, many places want to make it legal for teachers to carry concealed weapons. This can backfire in so many ways and cause more harm than good.

1/16/2013
Irving, TX
Brittany H
Bradley/Nimitz
The purpose of the second Amendment was to give citizens the right to protect themselves from the government. At the time, the people did not fully trust the government and wanted to be able to defend themselves if the government tried to overthrow the people. Now a days people would say that there is no reason for this Amendment because “we can trust the government now”. I disagree. I'm my opinion you can't put all your faith in politics or your political candidate. Personally, I do not feel safe with our current President and I like the idea that my family has many guns in our house to protect ourselves with in the event that something does happen. I completely agree with Justice Antonin Scalia, guns are there for our protection. Even if they were to take them away, I would not feel safer. I'd feel more endanger because people would find ways to kill people without guns. Like with bomb. Remember Oklahoma City in 1995? 168 lives were taken, 19 of them being children, and over 600 injures with ONE bomb. With that, I feel guns are the least of our problems.

1/15/2013
Irving/TX
Jessica H
Bradley/Nimitz
Recently, my sociology class had a discussion over banning assault rifles. I suspect that Congress is having similar discussion concerning gun control with about the same results: a very strongly opinionated discussion with no real compromise. The 2nd amendment was brought up to defend the right to own an assault rifle as a citizen. While the 2nd amendment does give the right to bear arms, it was also written a long time ago when the United States was much smaller and there was a need for that right. In 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, the 14 states could have easily been oppressed by the young government had they not been allowed to bear arms and form a well regulated militia. The purpose back then can be interpreted to have been to protect the people from the government. Today, however, it seems the right to bear arms causes more harm than protection. We are allowed to have guns for security, which I have no problem with, but a good amount of the population does not use the guns for that purpose. Some use them for protection and for hunting while others use them to cause harm and even death to others. While taking away guns won't solve the problem of violence, it limits the amount of people that can be killed in a matter of seconds by a single person.

1/15/2013
Irving/ TX
Amber P
Bradley/ Nimitz
The second amendment was written for the citizens, giving them the decision to protect themselves and their property using a gun. I agree with with Justice Antonin Scalia, The amendment is vague- but despite this it dose give citizens the right to bear arms. The part of the amendment that applies to the 21st century is that guns are still used for protection, and it's your choice to have one or not.

1/15/2013
Benson, AZ
kayla
sorenson
i agree with justice antonin, the 2nd admendment is there for us to protect ourselfs of harm from other people or things. without guns i think people would still find a way to kill and harm other people, and with no protection that leaves us vulnerable.

1/15/2013
Irving/TX
Alex H.
Bradley/Nimitz
I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia in the fact that the first part of the second amendment does not limit the second part, but just introduces the subject. Back when the Bill of Rights was written, state Militias were a common thing, so it was necessary for there to be an amendment to provide the right to form a regulated Militia. But as we now live in the 21st century, there's really no need for the first half of the second amendment as we only have a national army and have no need for militias. Now, we can apply the latter half of the amendment and interpret it as us human beings, have the right to keep and bear arms for the necessity of security.

1/15/2013
Irving, TX
Stephen Slaughter
Bradley/Nimitz
The second amendment was written so citizens can have the right to bear arms, giving them the choice to own a gun or not. They never specifically stated what was meant by the amendment when they wrote it, it just said gave the people to bear arms. It never stated that only the militia can have a weapon. This was created so people can have something to defend themselves. Gun control won't help the country, instead it will hurt it, how are people going to protect themselves from murderers? Murderers won't let a silly gun control law stop them from stealing guns or taking them from family. So I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia, the amendment was written for both the people and the militia.

1/15/2013
Irving/TX
Rose
Bradley/Nimitz
I agree with Justice Antonin the 2nd Amendment is very vague and its open for different view points and debate. Despite the points of view the amendment does give individuals to bear arms. After the tragic shooting in Newton this amendment has come into question. The problem to the recent shooting is not the 2nd Amendment but rather the fault of the people. That is why their should be very stick gun regulations.

1/15/2013
Norman, OK
Jessica
Woodard/MNTC
I think if you are in active duty in the military and out on the field, you should be able to carry firearms but not be able to take them off the field. If you are a hunter, you should be able to carry firearms to hunt and kill food then turn them back in to a secure and locked area that only a government personal can get into. I think law enforcement should carry non-fatal firearms to just stun or wound a person instead of potentially killing them. I think the Second Amendment means that only our militia can carry firearms but only to protect.

1/15/2013
Irving, Tx
Hector S.
Bradley/Nimitz
The Second Amendment gives every individual the right to have fire arms. I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia, the 2nd Amendment is stated in a odd way which is open to much debate. However, the Bill of Rights was passed to protect the citizens from their very own government and is more logical to think of the 2nd Amendment as a privilege given to the majority. The 2nd amendment is open to much debate due to much violence but restricting fire arms will not reduce the violence if nothing is done to make the people respect the law.

1/14/2013
Irving/TX
Sandra C.
Bradley/Nimitz
Initially, I would say that firearms were meant for militias and not so much civilians, but there are different reasons for civilians to be able to have firearms such as for protection. I agree more with Justice Antonin Scalia's argument because the way the amendment was phrased was appropriate for the time it was written which now creates tension. Justice Scalia's argument is that it could be rephrased to not be controversial and let citizens have firearms. The second amendment applies to modern times because there are many people using firearms for the wrong reasons and murdering many innocent people.

1/14/2013
Irving, TX
Sandra E.
Bradley/Nimitz
The second amendment means that as citizens of a governmental democracy, we have the right to bear arms and have the right to protect ourselves from any harm. The militia were made up of citizens that tried to retaliate against their government because of many reasons and for those same reasons the second amendment was made. I strongly agree with Justin Antonin's statement about his view points towards the second amendment. Back then, the second amendment was written in the revolutionary era, were our government was corrupt and unfair. Now, our government is more stable and there is no reason for militia(like back then). The real war now is between the good and the bad. By means bad people and good people. There are bad people out there and its up to us to be able to protect our selves and for what we believe is right. The government shouldn't restrict what little right we have to protect ourselves in these bad times such as the recent shooting in Connecticut. Honestly, if they want to restrict gun control then they should regulate who buys the guns, not take our rights; because like it or not, history will repeat itself and its not going be a pretty sight.

1/14/2013
Benson/AZ
Katelin
Sorensen/Benson
Guns aren't what hurts and kills people, people hurt and kill people. By restricting gun use people will only get angry and more rebelious. If you tighten the chain on a dog you will only strangle them, sometimes you just have to give them some slack and let them explore. We shouldn't restrict gun use but maybe the people that we let buy the guns.

1/14/2013
Benson/ Arizona
Dylan
Sorenson
The second amendment is something that can’t be taken away. I see that change needs to be made. I think that the best thing that we could do is make restrictions on high capacity magazines and never be able to own a fully automatic weapon. People say that the outlaw of tactical weapons but all there are is a semi-automatic. People surround themselves with things that can destruct but we are not doing anything about that. Guns don’t kill people kill people!

1/14/2013
Benson, AZ
Richard Rose
Marv Sorensen. Benson High School
I interpret the Second Amendment as a right for citizens to own and operate firearms for various reasons. Those reasons could be for recreation, defense, actually starting their own militia, or just in case the government does turn tyrannical. The framers of the constitution feared absolute government power and wanted the people to be keepers of the nation. Historically the United States has never had or needed a large military, hence the need for a "well regulated militia". If those who argue this point so vehemently wish to take the amendment seriously, then disband the military and train the populous as a "well regulated militia", which we currently are not. Tyranny has been described as that which is illegal for citizens yet legal for the government. Those who say that citizens have no right to own certain firearms must also work to disarm our soldiers of those exact weapons, or else therein is cause for oppression and inequality between government and the people.

1/14/2013
Benson/AZ
Kady
Sorenson/Benson
I'm just a kid. So I'm not really into this stuff. But bad people will find a way to get a gun regardless of restrictions, so regular law-following people should be able to have their guns to be able to protect themselves and their family.

1/14/2013
Benson/Arizona
Joey Simpson
Sorensen/Benson
I want my guns!!! They just a be runnin their mouths about stuff they dont understand. They dont know nothin' about what our guns mean to us. Amen.

1/14/2013
Benson, AZ
Ashley
Benson
It really doesn't matter how hard people try guns will never be fully outlawed. The best way to prevent something like a school shooting is to limit the number of bullets in a magazine. Even if they try to do something to prohibit the selling of guns people are still going to find other ways to harm each other.

1/14/2013
Benson/AZ
Destiny
Sorensen/Benson
I live in Arizona, so of course everyone down here is going to say, "Oh, the Second Amendment blah blah I want my guns!" But what does that even mean? We can put age laws on guns but it takes any age to go crazy and do what happened in Conneticut. I really am indifferent of the situation. There are others ways to attack besides guns. SO what does taking them away even do?

1/14/2013
Benson, AZ
Evan
Benson High School
“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.”, Shall not be infringed the constitution says it pretty straight forward and for the government to take that right away would be un-constitutional, the 2nd amendment gives people the right to protect themselves against threats by keeping Arms (guns and other weapons), Most people who own guns live there whole lives without needing them but they make them feel safe and the government cant, no shouldnt take that away. majority of people live to far away from police and gov. protection anyways so they need that protection. As far as the "shootings" go that has to do with the user and not everyone as a whole who has weapons. In Sweden every citizen is man dated to have an automatic weapon and has to know how to use it and they also have one of the lowest crime rates.

1/14/2013
Benson/Arizona
Antonio
Sorensen/Benson High
I believe that the 2nd ammendment is there for a reason and always will be. I belive since one guy screws up with a gun it doesnt mean i get my guns taken away. If you take away guns it screws up T.R. set of principles for allowing the Game and Fish. All I can say is there is no way you can take away all guns. GOD BLESS

1/14/2013
Benson/Az
Jordan
mr. sorensen/Benson high school
The second amendment is a right that should still be given to all people. It is not the fact that guns are used to harm others in the hands of the wrong person. Anything could can be used to harm anyone in the hands of the wrong person. So the second amendment should stand.

1/14/2013
Benson AZ
Janetta
Mr. S
I think that gun control is stupid! Guns don't kill people, pople kill people. There is always going to be bad people out there and they will still find a way to hurt people. After this past shooting there was a guy in another country who also went into a school except he used a michedy insted of guns. So it is the same thing, there is always going to be bad people who want to hurt others. Plus gang members will find a way to get guns, so why should us law abiding citizens have to suffer the consiquences for things that are most of the time not our fault? So I totally disagree with gun contol laws, it will olny make people angry.

1/14/2013
Benson/ Arizona
James
Sorensen/ Benson HIgh
If you ban guns people will still get them. do you really think that most of the gangs on the streets get they weapons from a store? Well most dont, and the right to bear arms started with the people being the milita, thats what people forget, and it was the people that defended this country when we fought for independence. I can tell you right now, they will pry them out of my cold, dead, unmoveing hands.

1/14/2013
Benson/Az
Andrew
Mr. Sorensen/Benson high school
Everyone should have the right to bare arms but it shouldnt be as easy to get a gun. People should be tested of there sanity, because people with guns dont kill people. its people who are crazy that kill people. Start making test that will prove if some is sane or insane.

1/14/2013
Benson Arizona
Kaelin Lockett
Mr. Sorenson Benson High School
i believe that we should be allowed to carry fire arms. it is our own right. and i believe that if you are certified to protect people, like a cope ect. then that is what you signed up to do so do it. and everybody should try to protect themselves.

1/14/2013
Benson/Az
Andrew
Mr. Sorensen/Benson high school
Everyone should have the right to bare arms but it shouldnt be as easy to get a gun. People should be tested of there sanity, because people with guns dont kill people. its people who are crazy that kill people. Start making test that will prove if some is sane or insane.

1/14/2013
BensoN/Arizona
David
Marv Sorenson/Benson High School
The right to bear arms is simply that. It is the right for any citezen of the United States to own, carrry, and know how wto use a firearm. This right was put in place in order to place a people's restriction on the government such that, if the government were to "go bad" as we might say and start to suppress the rights of the people, then the people would have the ability to fight back.

1/14/2013
Benson/Arizona
Gunner
Sorensen/Benson
I personally believe that the Second Amendment allows for the people to bear arms, not just a militia. Banning weapons of any kind will not stop anything. It is the person that makes the violence, nothing more.

1/11/2013
Sidney/Mt
Cody
Faulhaber/SHS
Me personally think that the Second Amendment shall be upheld and stay constitutional. The banning of guns is just like saying you should ban tobaco, cars, or anything else people of this wonderful state can have in hand. So for my total opinion i beleive they should take the shootings in hand and say it is the person handleing the weapon and keep the Second Amendment

1/11/2013
Irving/TX
Mayra Z
Bradley/Nimitz
The second Amendment truly means that as a free nation and having a democracy the people have the right to have weapons for self defense and protection. This amendment is specifically just for protection of other trying to hurt them. I agree with the second viewpoint in the concept being implied that weapons should be used by individuals not just militias because this could return to the kind of government we ran away from the British and their rule over the colonist.Their forces made sure we followed rules and most of the time did not even protect the colonist against Indian and french stacks.In case we were to have another emerging new government we might not be able to oppose or defend ourselves.I believe currently having weapons should be regulated because of the murders, but we as citizens should be able to protect ourselves with fire arms.

1/11/2013
Sidney, MT
Jim
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
As a gun owner and a member of the NRA it is very hard to look at the pros of gun ownership. Its hard to stick up for the crazy people in this world that go into a school and shoot it up. Its wrong in every aspect. But without the personal ownership of firearms our nation would be weak. I say this because during WWII the Japanese emperor was afraid to attack our mainland due to the fact that our central mainland was so heavily armed. A person also has to look at the recreation side of hunting. If you have never been up and down canyons, walked through the Montana Breaks after a B & C muley you wouldnt know. But the hunters know what im talking about. People say that so called "assault rifles" are not needed but who can say how dangerous and assault rifle is compared to any other weaon in the right hands. Its an opinion that many people can argue. But this is what the second amendment means.

1/11/2013
Sidney, MONTANA:P
Maci H.
Sidney High School/ Mr. Faulhaber
I believe that the Second Amendment should not change. Guns give us protection and the security we need as individuals. If a sick person wants a gun even, if the Second Amendment is changed they will still get the gun some how. The Second Amendment gives us fellow Montananans the ablility to hunt and be protected at all times. Take away our guns and you will take away our pride, and freedom.

Related News
Related Resources
Share