Gun Control: simply stated
The right to bear arms. What an interesting sentence. Of course we all know it's not really a sentence because it lacks a subject. And therefore we need a who. But who does have the right to bear arms? Do I have the right to bear arms, and if so do I even want that right? The majority would say yes, I want that right, being obvious with the incredible hoards that follow the NRA in their uproars and what not. But I might actually stray from the pack, not to say no, but rather to say why. Why would I want that right and how could I benefit? And more importantly, what responsibilities are non-refundable when I make that purchase? How about the responsibility of holding someone else's life in my hands. That's non-refundable. Once I point that deadly mouth at my target and let her spit, that's it. There's no time for a second thought and certainly no time for taking it back. A being's life is non-refundable. There's no taking it back and no putting it on hold. It's a one time deal tagged with an incredible price, one I'm not to willing to pay. My right to hold a gun is completely tipped by another's right to live. At least on my scale anyways. Maybe I'm just hoping my life in return will be on the sam
Now that I've established where I stand, for today anyways, I'll make an attempt to attack the nitty-gritty's of the Second Amendment...and search for the real meanings behind the words of our founding fathers! I'm going to start out by stating the Second Amendment. It reads like this: "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." Ok, so there we have it. The right of the people to keep and bear arms. It's pretty obvious what our answer is if we're going to take a literal approach. It does say pretty plainly, and flatly for that matter, this so called right of ours shall not be infringed. But as William Glaberson wrote in his article, "To Bear or Not to Bear" the meaning of the Second Amendment all depends on how you read into history. The literal approach, like the one we took above, is probably representative to the approach taken by the vast majority of us who own guns and are intent on keeping them. This black and white argument is often the primary argument for, and the deciding factor for, gun control laws protested by supporters and in favor of judges alike. Glaberson exampled this when he said " The judge, Sam R. Cummings, held that history proves that the right 'to keep and bear arms' in the Second Amendment gave individual citizens a right to weapons. I'm inclined to comment on this judges incredible ability of screwing up what seems to be like a hand fed argument. Where again does it give the individual citizen a right to a weapon? I know is states the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but I must keep missing that part about the individual and h
Some common words found in the essay are:
Maybe I'm, Simply Stated, Contradictory NRA, Bear Bear, Who's Madison, Sam Cummings, James Madison, Jimmy-gone-wrongs Maybe, bear arms, William Glaberson, people bear arms, literal approach, people bear, Alright I'd, there's taking, i'm prepared, simply stated, founding fathers, words founding fathers, words founding,
Approximate Word count = 1137
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
