Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
In asserting that the right to bear arms must be interpreted in the collectivist point-of-view, the author rationalized that "the more collectively the right is interpreted, the more broadly Congress can legislate to restrict the right to bear arms" (347). In effect, what made sense in Busch's analysis is that this particular right, as stated in the Constitution, must be interpreted in the proper context. Thus, Emerson's ownership of a gun for militia purposes, whether he has the intent to use this or not, is a threat to civil society; hence, the Court's decision to deny him his rights to bear arms is considered just, in the collectivist's point-of-view.
Spitzer (2003) argued against Busch's position regarding the interpretation of this right. For him, the right to bear arms is considered part of the individual's rights, thus, s/he has the right to practice this right -- an individualist's point-of-view of the right to bear arms. Spitzer countered...
However, his arguments do not complement the objective of the Constitution, in which the right to bear arms is just a part of the whole. Moreover, an individualist point-of-view of interpreting the right to bear arms serves a lot of objectives from different people, with different points-of-view. In effect, an individualist stance does not resolve a gun control issue that can pose as a danger, threat, or problem to the civil society.
Bibliography
Busch, M. (2003). "Is the Second Amendment an Individual or a Collective Right: United States vs. Emerson's revolutionary interpretation of the right to bear arms." St. John's Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 1.
Spitzer, R. (2003). "The Second Amendment "right to bear arms" and United States v. Emerson." St. John's Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 1.
Bibliography
Busch, M. (2003). "Is the Second Amendment an Individual or a Collective Right: United States vs. Emerson's revolutionary interpretation of the right to bear arms." St. John's Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 1.
Spitzer, R. (2003). "The Second Amendment "right to bear arms" and United States v. Emerson." St. John's Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 1.
The framers did not mention police departments or other local governmental units, which has led to some misconceptions about the right of people to arm themselves when protected by municipal government agencies. However, this is because municipal police forces, as they currently exist, did not exist at the time of the Revolutionary War. The closest approximation was a standing army or militia, and the concerns about the citizenry failing
5.0 Conclusion As this paper has argued, the Second Amendment was designed not only to protect the militias; it was also intended to protect an individual's right to own and bear arms. Those groups opposed to the private ownership of firearms should base their arguments on their own personal beliefs rather than a Constitutional interpretation defense. As supported by its historical background and analysis of Constitutional context and meaning, "A well
The first argument would be to point out that essentially, the right to bear arms is an individual right that can be exercised by any member of the civil society. In so doing, an individual is merely accomplishing a right that is rightfully his/hers from the beginning. The second main argument to be pointed out is that gun ownership does not necessarily translate to its improper use, posing as
5 ounces of steel in them. The bill did not pass, but eventually a compromise bill went through requiring all handguns to have at least 3.7 ounces of steel. No completely plastic gun has ever been produced, although guns with a plastic frame are popular because they weigh less. The legislation was unnecessary because, again, no problem existed. Apparently, the gun debate is not the place to look for facts. The
" The strength of Reynolds' report lies on the evidence he had shown to support his arguments, wherein he cited a study that compared communities that have high and low rates of burglaries and break-ins. One similarity that communities with high rates of burglaries share is the fact that these communities have "restrictive gun laws," which proves that indeed, gun control acts more as a detriment rather than a support to
Right to Carry Handguns for Self-Protection: The right to carry handguns for law abiding citizens has been a continual social and political debate about the restriction or availability of firearms within the country. Actually, the right to carry handguns has developed to become one of the major controversial and intractable issues within the social and political environments in the nation. The main reason attributed to the development of this controversial issue