Rhetorical Response #4

I found it very interesting what the Government and certain Senators had to say about the Second Amendment. Many of their opinions surprised me, as well as confused me and made me question as to why they were thinking as to what they thought.
First, the 5-4 decision in the court lead by Justice Scalia surprised me. I would have thought that wise men and women like them would have ruled it out. I did not know though that most of the court was very conservative, which also surprised me. I thought it was very interesting that 4/5ths of them support gun ownership and rights, which I am glad for, given that I support it also. This also brings me to what Levy commented on. He mentions that the court rejected both arguments saying that the Second Amendment only ensures members of the state militias are to be armed and not private citizens, as well as, “…. that D.C.’s Legislature can constitutionally ban all handguns if it determines, for example, that rifles and shotguns in the home are reasonable alternative means of self defense.” It still surprises me that both arguments are rejected even when the courts are very conservative. I never really figured the courts to be this protective of their gun rights.
It confuses me as to why D.C. has a ban on the right to carry a hand gun when so many other states allow it. Is it because that is where the President of the United States resides? All individuals should have the right to keep and bear arms. Agreeing with Justice Scalia, in conjunction with her comments on the Heller case, people need guns for necessary protection. However limits are essential, and the limits and rules we have are enough as it is. I am also confused with Justice Stevens’ comments. He mentions that the political process is “working exactly as it should.” However, not too long ago he voted to invalidate Louisiana’s death penalty for child rape and substitute an outright ban on capital punishment for any crime that isn’t fatal to its victim. Reading that threw me off, given that he is basically contradicting himself. Why would someone be in favor for the current political processes if at the same time in favor of child rape?
The different readings differentiate in many ways. Everyone seems to have their different interpretations of the Second Amendment, and whether it applies to all individuals or just our armed forces. I am surprised that after many centuries, the courts are just now starting to question who the Second Amendment applies to. I feel that the quarrels that are going on right now will be going on for quite a while, given that everyone has their different opinions, so it will make it harder to make decisions as to who it applies to.
I believe that reading these readings will help me greatly as to how to structure my argumentative essay. Just as I remember in class, an argumentative essay is not about taking sides; rather it is about keeping an open mind and developing your opinion as you research on a certain topic of interest. The comparisons between the courts’ opinions and what not will help me to see how to compare to others in my next essay.One question that arose while I was reading deals with the government and their control over our basic rights. Has the government thought about what would happen if they did take away our gun rights? I think that the courts need to take a step back and realize how it will affect the economy and our way of society. As mentioned in the cartoon, “Senator, the point is that once you have gun control, the only people left with guns are criminals!” I have never thought about this before, but I have realized that this would be a huge issue if the courts would take away our individual rights to carry even just a hand gun. Even if the courts do decide to do that, they have to think about what is going on on the streets. The black market will always be there. I am not sure how it works, but what happens when our rights are taken away and the only ones in control are the government and the criminals making deals on the street? How will we defend ourselves? I do not think that this will happen any time soon, but it’s something for everyone, including the courts, to think about as they are deciding who the Second Amendment applies to.