Kelliann H has left a new comment on your post "":
The Supreme Court does not make decisions based on “feelings.” It has a text – the Constitution – and it has the task of interpreting that text on the basis of textual evidence. As we note in class, even a single word and its function in a sentence can shape crucial interpretation. The justices regularly wrestle with the word “militia” in the second amendment.
For instance, Justice Stevens noted that the “Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. . . . by its terms, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States; read properly, it does not even apply to individuals outside of the militia context.” This, as much as anything, illustrates the importance of what we know as “close reading” beyond the classroom, in actual life. Stevens labors over a single word. If we apply Justice Stevens to Kelliann’s comment, Mr. McDonald does not have the right to bear a gun, even for self-protection.
Given what we are reading this semester, I would like to hear from those of you who have seen scrutiny of a single word change your point of view with regard to a text.
To be honest, I can't think of one.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people have a right to protect themselves, but we can get tangled in the web of the battle between self-protection and a crime. Owning a handgun is a choice of protection that people make. There are other options but I believe that some people are frightened by the word "gun". If there was someone in their home threatening to do evil, how would they protect themselves?
ReplyDeleteSwitzerland gun laws allow miltiamen to keep their military grade rifle in their service so long as the gun is modified to only fire semi-automatically. This has led to approixmately 1.2-3 million citizens owning a fire arm in their home. However this has not led to violence. The number of assault cases for fire arms yearly is about one fifth of the number of cases with bladed weapons. About one person out of a quarter million will be assaulted with a firearm yearly that's very small. Long story short no one wants to screw with you so long as you have a gun.
ReplyDeleteFor comparision the United States homicides by fire arms are about 10.3 for every quarter million, just the number of deaths caused is ten times the amount of assaults in Switzerland.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question. Listening to the speeches, one word could ruin the whole point of view that we would have on that speaker.
ReplyDeleteI think that every human has the right to protect themselves, but there is a difference between self defense and aiming directly to physically hurt someone.
ReplyDeleteThomas Hobbes believes that if a man were to be attacked by anyone (for example, his government) he has the right to defend himself to the best of his abilities.
Therefore I do not see the harm in letting the man posses a hand gun as long as he does not use it for any other reason than to protect himself. and his family.
Bobby has an interesting point
ReplyDeleteSmall conjunctions like though and but really can change the flow and implied intent of a passage. We see this all the time when reading Chaucer.
ReplyDeleteIf everyone owns a gun, then those with guns don't feel as strong or protected. I would imagine crime would drop because of fear that the person being attacked or robbed would have a gun to defend themselves. Also, home invasions would unquestionably drop, and the peace of mind of everybody would increase.
ReplyDeleteIf everyone owns a gun, then those who have anger management issues would kill people.
ReplyDeleteThe right to bear arms could have been misinterpreted. For example, maybe the original intent was the right to own a pair of bear arms to hang on your wall? I'm just saying that certain phrases have two meanings.
ReplyDeleteCharlie's point is interesting and so is William's, but what do the people do such as Mr. McDonald who are simply using his gun for protection. Also, how do the people selling the firearms tell if the person they are selling the gun to is using it for the right purpose.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Wilson, the vendor has no idea what the person is using the gun for. For all they know, they're going to kill an elephant.
ReplyDeleteTo answer wylie there are someways to tell what the gun will be used for, often times it can be told by the caliber and the type of gun for instance, if one were hunting an elephant they would need an exceptionally large bullet such as a .50 cal. However common guns used for protection tend to be small caliber pistols due to the fact that people who buy them for protection more often times than naught don't use other guns and don't know how to properly use higher or larger weapons. Common murder weapons largely include pistols, no one actually uses a sniper rifle to commit murder. So in some ways you can tell and if you can't that is why gun laws require the buyer to have a background check. So it's possible for some speculation on what a certain gun would be used for.
ReplyDeleteOh and to William there are not that many of those people, if there were people in switzerland would have higher homicides with fire arms.
ReplyDeleteI just don't understand... A gun won't defend him... If there are gang members after this man, his best bet is to inform the police or to go into hiding. Sure, the constitution clearly implies the right of Mr. McDonald to possess a gun, but that's not going to help him.
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about gangs, but I do know that a gang members possess weapons to ensure their power over others. Of course McDonald wouldn't want a gang to have power over him, but that's better than threatening them. If he were to pull a gun, these people would kill him.
Sure, a gang could kill Mr. McDonald regardless of whether or not he has a weapon, but why do so? Without a weapon, he's not seen as a serious threat. If he's not a threat, gang members probably don't care whether he's dead or alive. I don't know how he angered them in the first place, but I doubt any gang members are gonna care enough to track him down and kill him. He probably just irritated them. However, if he had a gun, his murder could be seen as the neutralization of a threat. Therefore, it could become the gang's top priority.
This man clearly has no intention of using the gun. Naturally, he wants to use it to for the imposition of fear. Unfortunately, when people get scared, they do some crazy stuff. There's no question: if McDonald scared a gang member, they would shoot him.
And finally, if by some miracle Mr. McDonald managed to kill one of these gang members, he would only anger everyone else. Instead of having a conflict with a few of them (as he does now), he would be faced with the wrath of everyone associated with the man he killed.
But even if he managed to escape ALL of these gang members, he would then be facing jail time.
Bottom line: The constitution may grant McDonald the right to possess a gun, but that doesn't mean he SHOULD.
I don't get it; if everyone brought guns to McDonald's, who would be brave enough to make a complicated order?
ReplyDeleteIn the General Prologue, I believe that the tone of certain words plays a crucial role in our interpretation of the piece. Like when Chaucer tells us that the cook made "blankmanger...with the beste," if one were not mentally prepared for Chaucer's extensively dry sarcasm lines like this would be easy to skim over.
ReplyDeleteThe supreme court of course doesn't make judgments based on feeling. It has to be strong. But I feel that it is easily biased, and needs to be without preconceived judgment. There is a difference. Make no opinion until all the facts are on the table. Anyone else still sickened by Troy Davis' execution???
ReplyDeleteBobby has made some great pints and I agree with him.
ReplyDelete