(Bozin) Hello everyone. Welcome to the second edition of the Constitution Chronicles. This week we are talking about the 2nd amendment and what it means in today’s society. Chris and I will try our best to explain both sides of the issue and we will give our own opinion as well. I hope you enjoy the article; it took Chris and I awhile to write and research everything (3 days of blood, sweat, and tears). Also, I will not talk about the March for Our Lives movement – I do not want to violate the school’s student code of conduct. (Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al. –  484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a decision made by the supreme court that holds public school newspapers to a lower level of the First Amendment. 

The case concerned the censorship of two articles in The Spectrum, the student newspaper of Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County, Missouri, 1983. When the school principal removed an article concerning divorce and another concerning teen pregnancy, the student journalists sued, claiming that their First Amendment rights had been violated. A lower court sided with the school, but its decision was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which sided with the students.

In a 5–3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the circuit court’s decision, determining that school administrators could exercise prior restraint of school-sponsored expression, such as curriculum-based student newspapers and assembly speeches, if the censorship is “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns”. School-sponsored student newspapers will not be presumed to be operating as public forums for student expression absent evidence indicating otherwise.) (Wikipedia if anyone is curious because IT’S A VALID SOURCE OF INFORMATION)

*Warning! The videos we are listing in the article have explicit language in them and if you don’t want to watch them or hear them then do not click the links*

The Second Amendment:

“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.”

You know the deal guys I’m going to break this apart piece by piece and explain each section carefully. Let’s start with what a well regulated militia is.  A “militia” is “a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.” (Google.com) So what that means is this is a force of citizens from the US summoned to defend their nation from any form of threat. (Of course The U.S. realized we needed a national army or else we would get steam rolled in an actual war; see anything about The War of 1812 to see my point in this) The militia is very important because it allows us to form a defense and an actual resistance against invaders. ( A militia would work today because of how far technology has advanced and the coordination with the army) Well regulated means either training the militias (citizenry)or quite possibly the national guard.(In today’s terms) the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” This means that the government has no right to impose restrictions on the American people to arm themselves with guns and preserves the American people’s right to self-preservation.

Now whether or not you believe that is up to you my fellow readers.

(Bozin) Let’s go over to both sides of the debate/Positions about The Second Amendment.

Liberals: More Gun Control is needed, Guns should be used for mostly hunting purposes, more Gun free zones, and restrictions on the sale of guns and modifications,  and more background checks, and in favor of a Gun registry. These practices should be employed in the hopes that gun violence drops significantly and many lives are saved in the process.

Conservatives: We need to ensure that our right to bear arms are protected under the Second Amendment. Our right to self preservation is not just restricted to recreational activities such as hunting. It’s a proven fact that most mass shootings occur in Gun free zones and when you cripple a citizen’s Second Amendment right then they are less likely to obviously protect themselves in that horrible situation. Bump stocks are impossible to classify and ban because of how available the materials are. More psychological evaluations are needed when purchasing a weapon. We absolutely don’t want to have a national Gun registry because its a violation of privacy and it will make it easier to confiscate them at a later time. If you arm citizens then there will be less crime in areas of crime. All we want is a fair chance to defend our homes and ourselves from the bad guys.

(Bozin)

       My view of the Second Amendment is as follows; I believe that the Second Amendment should be interpreted as it is stated in the Bill of Rights that’s in the Constitution. The right to self-preservation is a human right. It’s not meant for just hunting or just for the police and the National Guard. We should all have the right to protect ourselves and our family. I’m not here to start a giant political debate. I just want to say my peace and move on with my life. Gun free zones don’t work and never will. God Bless the Second Amendment because without it the Government will probably become tyrannical at one point in the future and will want to restrict the other Amendment’s as well. Once the Second Amendment is gone then the first will go as well and it will become a huge domino effect until the very foundations/bedrock of American freedom will perish. I believe that having a Gun registry IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. Giving the federal government a list of everyone in the United States who owns a weapon is a nightmare waiting to happen. Also to finish things off the Gun show loophole doesn’t exist. Let me be very clear and honest about this. Adolf Hitler instituted Gun Control and stripped the Jews right to defend to themselves and massacred 6 million of them. The Democrats post Reconstruction era in the U.S. got back into power in the south and stripped African Americans right to defend themselves which resulted in huge increases in attacks by the K.K.K. and lynchings. D.C. vs. Heller is one of the greatest supreme court cases of the 21st Century because of the profound effect it’s had in Washington D.C. (As listed below)

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Due to Washington, D.C.’s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment‘s protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are “arms” for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock“. Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

(Chris)

The whole purpose of the second amendment is to provide the citizens the ability to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Many people criticize how we interpret the second amendment and say that it provides citizens with too much power. We are all part of the “well regulated militia”. The fact of the matter is that we cannot have a well regulated militia if we cannot arm ourselves. The more we restrict the seconds amendment, the weaker the control we have of other core freedoms. Freedom of Speech is only protected by the government, as is the second. Should the second amendment ever be changed drastically, it then would become easier to change other core freedoms. If we take a look at history, Nazi Germany took away the ability of the people to have firearms, and they were eventually barred from reading certain books the government didn’t agree with. The second amendment and liberties similar to it have been seen to be the keystones of past freedoms.

Another aspect to take into consideration is that many of these politicians who viciously attack the second amendment don’t even know the basics when it comes to firearms. The same people who call AR-15’s assault rifles and “Fully semi-automatic”, which doesn’t exist. In many cases they haven’t ever even operated a firearm. Personally, I believe they want to limit our freedoms because they’re afraid. They are afraid to prove themselves wrong when it comes to guns and mass shootings, or self defense. What’s most ironic is that these lawmakers protect themselves with armed guards. They seem to understand that someone else with a gun is the best way to protect themselves. They are too afraid to keep their lives in their own hands. The second amendment “Shall not be infringed”. This means that our freedom to be part of the militia shall at no point be modified, regardless if it’s episodic or immediate.

(Bozin and Chris) Thanks again for reading this article guys and I hope you enjoyed it. God Bless you and your opinion and God Bless America.

Sources:

“Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment.” The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment, Guncite, www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html.

Kirchoff, Courtney. “WTF? Judge to Retired Marine: Surrender 2nd Amendment Rights, or Surrender Your Grandson…” Louder With Crowder, Louder With Crowder/CRTV, 20 July 2017, www.louderwithcrowder.com/judge-tells-marine-its-your-grandson-or-the-2nd-amendment/.

“You Searched for 2nd+Amendment » Louder With Crowder.” Louder With Crowder, www.louderwithcrowder.com/?s=2nd%2Bamendment.

Stallings, Corey. “Of Course! Oregon Bill Allows Judges To Deny 2nd Amendment Rights.” Louder With Crowder, Louder With Crowder , 14 July 2017, www.louderwithcrowder.com/oregon-bill-strip-2nd-amendment/.

Crowder, Steven. “WATCH: The 2nd Amendment : The Liberal Version.” Louder With Crowder, Louder With Crowder/CRTV, 9 June 2016, www.louderwithcrowder.com/2nd-amendment-liberal-version/.

Crowder, Steven. “MYTH BUSTED: Second Amendment For ‘Well Regulated Militia’ Only? The Truth…” Louder With Crowder, Louder With Crowder/CRTV, 28 June 2016, www.louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-second-amendment-for-militia-only/.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_School_District_v._Kuhlmeier

Conservative Videos: (L.W.C.)

https://youtu.be/aM88wp03DNo?list=PLnqvK1pO44ukBTW5NPHMRRgC0eTuTVoJb

https://youtu.be/Bsidht3X6kI?list=PLnqvK1pO44ukBTW5NPHMRRgC0eTuTVoJb

Liberal Viewpoint: