Entry 5- Ammendment 2

1) Source:

Fighting for our rights to bear arms. September 14, 2010

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/03/18/fighting_for_our_right_to_bear_arms/

2) Constitutional Connection:

Amendment 2:
"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."

3) Explanation for Connection:

Many argue that it is unconstitutional to ban fire arms. Especially, when there is a need for self defense. The 2nd amendment ensures that it is every man's right to own a handgun. There are quite a few people who wonder how a ban has been placed in many cities against firearms- such as Washington. Washington has placed a ban only on handguns, allowing people to own shotguns and rifle. However, it is required that these guns are kept unloaded, dissembled, or with a lock on the trigger. The state of Washington argues that they have not violated any part of the constitution. They say that they have not outlawed firearms entirely- just handguns.

The 2nd Amendment protects our rights to have firearms, but it doesn't specify what kind, or if any at all can be banned. If the constitution proclaims that it is the right of the people to carry firearms, the state of Washington shouldn't have the power to override that by banning any kind of firearm, even if it is not specified in the second amendment. If the executive branch cannot enforce this law, then it is not a law.

I agree on the idea that there should be qualifications and licenses required for owning firearms. In my opinion, you can’t just grant anyone a gun just because the 2nd amendment says it's a right. If anyone could get a gun and carry it around, crimes would dramatically increase. It is a right, but there should be some limitation to it. If this 2nd amendment wasn't created, many people would feel unsafe in their homes. Many people depend on firearms to feel a sense of security.