Blogging Rhetorically #4

While the Second Amendment may state that the Constitution allows for an individual to lawfully posses a handgun, it continues to amaze me that such a law was passed. After multiple known gun shootings at schools, public places, and other unknown places, how can such a dangerous weapon be allowed a part of our daily life?

As it is stated in Robert A. Levy’s response “legislatures in all 50 states have rejected bans on private handgun ownership” but concealed carry of a weapon is permitted. This to me is surprising because having this rule of concealing a weapon seems just as dangerous as having one for everyone to see. Understanding the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms is a little confusing because although it clearly states that we as American citizens, have the right to bear arms, still have little freedom in having weapons. The disagreement that is brought up states that there is a collective right of the people to have a weapon such as for “state militia, or an individual right that guarantees a person’s right to own firearms” but later in the complete opposite is shown. “…even if the Second Amendment protects private ownership of firearms for non-militia purposes, D.C.’s Mayor stated that legislature can constitutionally ban all hand guns if it determines, for example, that rifles and shotguns in the home are a reasonable alternative means of self defense ” this argument was raised by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty. This confused me because if the Second Amendment states that we have the individual right that guarantees a person’s right to own firearms, then how is that allowed to be taken away by the court.

I can directly relate our new topic of an argumentive research paper to this example because the writers are stating exact research and giving examples that help support the research given. As for arguing about gun control, it isn’t as strong and powerful of a fight as I thought it would be. I figured although you are not taking a side, rather stating the argument, its still a little confusing as to what the argument actually is. D.C. continues to go back and forth with the idea of guns and gun use. The Second Amendment clearly states that people have the right to bear arms for their protection, yet he continues to ban in while most of the rest of the country is all for personal gun use and the right to bear arms. Although it is clearly stated in the second amendment that an individual is lawfully allowed to posses a handgun, there is no detailed statement saying whether or not its people of the armed forces that can use weapons or if it’s for the general citizen’s of America.

I personally believe that guns are extremely dangerous weapons that should only be used in certain situations by certain people. Although people are worried about family and keeping them safe, I think they are more likely to have an accident happen such as a suicide, or an accidental shooting because of a lack of knowledge regarding the cautions of guns. Scalia wrote that the second amendment does not limit or expand the right to keep and bear arms expressly stated in the operative clause. It’s confusing to understand because one person is saying that people have the freedom to bear arms and to feel safe by owning a weapon while a different person says that although the second amendment states that people have the right to bear arms, there are certain rules behind it that prevent people from being able to keep weapons inside their homes.

These two articles are very different in many ways. Not only do they have different views on what the Second Amendment is trying to convey to people, but it also contains different opinions as to why they have decided to make such opinions.