Discuss the two opposing interpretations of the Second Amendment that have clashed over the years. In light of current rulings, has either side won?
What will be an ideal response?
Proponents of individual rights (the first perspective) say the Second Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee the right of all citizens to bear arms, whether they are part of a militia or not. Proponents of state rights (the second perspective) claim the Second Amendment was adopted with the primary purpose of preserving the state militia; thus, where there is no militia, there is no right to bear arms. Current rulings seem to have turned the tide away from state rights toward individual rights, but state rights to regulate issues such as who can purchase firearms, where they can be sold, where they can be carried, or who can carry them concealed appear not to be in jeopardy in light of current rulings.
You might also like to view...
In the Likert procedure, the respondents do the work the judges perform in the Thurstone procedure
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Which microscope is best suited to the study of birefringent minerals and fibers?
a. Stereoscopic b. Microspectrophotometer c. Polarizing d. Comparison
Under this act, the president is authorized to establish military commissions to try unlawful enemy combatants, and the commissions are authorized to sentence defendants to death.
A. Exclusionary B. Military Commissions Act C. Special Forces Act D. Unlawful Enemy Act
Explain the incapacitation rationale.
What will be an ideal response?