My school paper on the 2nd Amendment

Cerick · March 28, 2009, 03:43 PM

This is a short paper I wrote for my American Government class on the 2nd amendment. Please tell me what you think. There is alot of other things I could have added, but it couldn't be too long. I didnt think it was a great paper but my teacher gave me a 100% on it so I guess it wasnt that bad. I will be taking much of this info that I gathered for this paper and use it in another 2A paper I have coming up. Your advice and critisim will be much appreciated. BTW, sorry about the format, I cant attach word documents.

Brian Pfleuger · March 28, 2009, 03:49 PM

You might include a section discussing the several ways that the amendment is actually written. It's a fascinating study, in my opinion. The Constitution, as it was voted on by each of the states, and then the way it was finalized actually contained several punctuational variations that could influence the interpretation of the original intent.

You're paper is just fine. I'm glad to see some young people who give a damn.

Cerick · March 28, 2009, 04:02 PM

I didnt even touch on the 2nd's meaning of protecting the people from a totalitarian govt. There are alot of statistics that I wanted to put in but again I was limited in the paper's length. By next week I'll have another version of this approximately twice as long and detailed.

chemgirlie · March 28, 2009, 06:02 PM

I'd avoid Wiki as a source.

BlayGlock · March 29, 2009, 01:51 AM

Great paper. Good Job.

If you want some interesting reading, read Justice Scalia opinion in the D.C. vs Heller case. He wrote the majority opinion. I had never pondered it the way he explained it. He said that the 2nd amendment does not give us the right to bear arms, that the right to arm ourselves for defense is a pre-existing right (given by God) and that our government would simply not "infringe" on it. good stuff.

thallub · March 29, 2009, 06:18 AM

Quote:

I'd avoid Wiki as a source.

Good post. Wiki is a total mess on the 2nd Amendment.

Re4mer · March 29, 2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

I'd avoid Wiki as a source.

Yea, most professor look down on Wikipedia.

Cerick · March 29, 2009, 12:35 PM

I agree about Wiki but I only used it to cite the DC vs Heller case. All facts.

chemgirlie · March 29, 2009, 12:54 PM

Just swap the source out for something else that says the same thing, that way you don't have to reword your paper.

Mr. Davis · March 31, 2009, 02:55 PM

If you want to use Wikipedia, don't. Find the citation at the bottom where they got that information, and cite the original source.

Beetmagnet · April 2, 2009, 09:40 PM

I'd like to expound on what you said Blayglock. That type of language that the media perpetuates is what has everybody so screwed up concerning constitutional issues. The Bill of Rights gave us absolutely no rights whatsoever. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution was a limit on Government. Our rights were described perfectly by the Declaration of Independence when it said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now think about that for a moment. Our founders agreed that it was a truth that was self-evident. Self evident means that it was so apparent to the individual that it was beyond debate. What was self-evident; that our rights were creator endowed and unalienable. Today our schools have lost the meaning of something that is self-evident. You are taught in schools of higher learning to question the reality of truth, and that nothing is absolutely true. Quite a turnaround in 200 plus years. Back then the founders said that it was beyond debate that we had absolute rights, now it is seen as an opinion to be decided on by 9 people wearing black robes.
Let's continue with the phrase "endowed by our creator". That means that your rights were given to you by creator; whoever you deem that to be. So in essence if your God gave you a right, you were given it when you were born, and only your creator could give it to you or take it away. That means that no man, government, or any document could take that right away from you if it was given to you by your creator (again whoever you deem that to be).
Now let's move on to the term "unalienable". That means that it is unable to be surrender. So in essence you rights cannot be taken away nor can you surrender them. You might ask why. It's a question of authority. If you creator gave you a right, then only something that has the same authority as your creator can take it away. So because you are not a deity, and other people are in the same boat as you, then your rights are secured by your creator.

So when Scalia said what he said in that opinion he was right. The problem with that is that is how it should be universally regarded here in the US. That is how it used to be taught, and it's how it should be taught now. The reason why it's not taught that way now, is because you would have to admit the existence of God, and that is just not going to happen in a public school.

That's why you see polls in news that ask you if the 2nd amendment gives the individual the right to bear arms. That type of question should be laughed at. The obvious answer is no. The 2nd amendment doesn't give rights, it limits government from plundering your god given unalienable right.

The best way I could put it is like this: You are given rights at your birth by God. Before the US government existed you had those rights, while the US government exists you have those rights, and if the US government dissolved tomorrow you would still have those rights.

There has been a transition during the last century to quite thinking of rights as being god given. Now you are taught to think of them as "human rights". You are taught to think of them as being given to you by government. Thats because if government gave them to you...then they can also take them awaY. That is not the case if it's God given.

If they keep parading these issues in front of the public and then get everybody to except that nine people in robes is the final authority on our rights instead of God, then very soon our rights will become privileges. And you know what happens after that.

sewerman · April 7, 2009, 01:05 PM

nice paper.

the politicians today all are wondering how to interpert the message of the second amendment.

if these so-called learned men, leaders of our society would just acquaint themselves with the personal writings of the great men who labored to write the bill of rights then our modern so-called learned politicians of today would easily understand and know what our fore-fathers meant when writing their beliefs in the plain and simple diction of english common law useage.

without knowing the feelngs and beliefs of these great men it is easier to misconstrue the message of their writing.

paraphrased from paul,
in the last days there will be teachers come unto you having itching ears,
speaking fables, ever learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. sounds like our government to me!

sewerman

March 28, 2009, 03:49 PM	#2
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	You might include a section discussing the several ways that the amendment is actually written. It's a fascinating study, in my opinion. The Constitution, as it was voted on by each of the states, and then the way it was finalized actually contained several punctuational variations that could influence the interpretation of the original intent. You're paper is just fine. I'm glad to see some young people who give a damn. __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

March 29, 2009, 01:51 AM	#5
BlayGlock Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 243	The second amendment gives people the right: Great paper. Good Job. If you want some interesting reading, read Justice Scalia opinion in the D.C. vs Heller case. He wrote the majority opinion. I had never pondered it the way he explained it. He said that the 2nd amendment does not give us the right to bear arms, that the right to arm ourselves for defense is a pre-existing right (given by God) and that our government would simply not "infringe" on it. good stuff. __________________ (Space for Rent.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txeGZoBW7vY The Double Glock TM.

April 7, 2009, 01:05 PM	#12
sewerman Senior Member Join Date: December 30, 2005 Location: hurricane alley, florida Posts: 304	nice paper. the politicians today all are wondering how to interpert the message of the second amendment. if these so-called learned men, leaders of our society would just acquaint themselves with the personal writings of the great men who labored to write the bill of rights then our modern so-called learned politicians of today would easily understand and know what our fore-fathers meant when writing their beliefs in the plain and simple diction of english common law useage. without knowing the feelngs and beliefs of these great men it is easier to misconstrue the message of their writing. paraphrased from paul, in the last days there will be teachers come unto you having itching ears, speaking fables, ever learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. sounds like our government to me! sewerman __________________ "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny!" Thomas Jefferson "They that can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety!" Benjamin franklin The Armed Citizen PREVENTS tyranny!

March 28, 2009, 04:02 PM	#3
Cerick Senior Member Join Date: May 13, 2008 Location: 973, NJ Posts: 345	I didnt even touch on the 2nd's meaning of protecting the people from a totalitarian govt. There are alot of statistics that I wanted to put in but again I was limited in the paper's length. By next week I'll have another version of this approximately twice as long and detailed.

March 28, 2009, 06:02 PM	#4
chemgirlie Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2009 Location: WI Posts: 331	I'd avoid Wiki as a source.

March 29, 2009, 12:35 PM	#8
Cerick Senior Member Join Date: May 13, 2008 Location: 973, NJ Posts: 345	I agree about Wiki but I only used it to cite the DC vs Heller case. All facts.

March 29, 2009, 12:54 PM	#9
chemgirlie Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2009 Location: WI Posts: 331	Just swap the source out for something else that says the same thing, that way you don't have to reword your paper.

March 31, 2009, 02:55 PM	#10
Mr. Davis Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2009 Location: South Carolina Posts: 127	If you want to use Wikipedia, don't. Find the citation at the bottom where they got that information, and cite the original source.

April 2, 2009, 09:40 PM	#11
Beetmagnet Member Join Date: March 15, 2009 Posts: 36	I'd like to expound on what you said Blayglock. That type of language that the media perpetuates is what has everybody so screwed up concerning constitutional issues. The Bill of Rights gave us absolutely no rights whatsoever. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution was a limit on Government. Our rights were described perfectly by the Declaration of Independence when it said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now think about that for a moment. Our founders agreed that it was a truth that was self-evident. Self evident means that it was so apparent to the individual that it was beyond debate. What was self-evident; that our rights were creator endowed and unalienable. Today our schools have lost the meaning of something that is self-evident. You are taught in schools of higher learning to question the reality of truth, and that nothing is absolutely true. Quite a turnaround in 200 plus years. Back then the founders said that it was beyond debate that we had absolute rights, now it is seen as an opinion to be decided on by 9 people wearing black robes. Let's continue with the phrase "endowed by our creator". That means that your rights were given to you by creator; whoever you deem that to be. So in essence if your God gave you a right, you were given it when you were born, and only your creator could give it to you or take it away. That means that no man, government, or any document could take that right away from you if it was given to you by your creator (again whoever you deem that to be). Now let's move on to the term "unalienable". That means that it is unable to be surrender. So in essence you rights cannot be taken away nor can you surrender them. You might ask why. It's a question of authority. If you creator gave you a right, then only something that has the same authority as your creator can take it away. So because you are not a deity, and other people are in the same boat as you, then your rights are secured by your creator. So when Scalia said what he said in that opinion he was right. The problem with that is that is how it should be universally regarded here in the US. That is how it used to be taught, and it's how it should be taught now. The reason why it's not taught that way now, is because you would have to admit the existence of God, and that is just not going to happen in a public school. That's why you see polls in news that ask you if the 2nd amendment gives the individual the right to bear arms. That type of question should be laughed at. The obvious answer is no. The 2nd amendment doesn't give rights, it limits government from plundering your god given unalienable right. The best way I could put it is like this: You are given rights at your birth by God. Before the US government existed you had those rights, while the US government exists you have those rights, and if the US government dissolved tomorrow you would still have those rights. There has been a transition during the last century to quite thinking of rights as being god given. Now you are taught to think of them as "human rights". You are taught to think of them as being given to you by government. Thats because if government gave them to you...then they can also take them awaY. That is not the case if it's God given. If they keep parading these issues in front of the public and then get everybody to except that nine people in robes is the final authority on our rights instead of God, then very soon our rights will become privileges. And you know what happens after that.