Spring Break
Editorial: Up in arms for gun laws
Julian Russell
Issue date: 6/9/09 Section: Opinions
To be, or not to be? That is the overall question in the debate over the Supreme Court's decision to uphold its previous vote to ban the possession of handguns in Chicago.
They say the second amendment of the constitution only applies to federal laws. The National Rifle Association of course intends to continue their pursuit of an appeal.
So we ask, "What is the real answer to this situation?"
Many feel that the people carrying handguns at the current time have them illegally anyway. Others feel that their safety is put into jeopardy by those who are carrying handguns illegally; yet others feel if the law was upheld their safety would be of less concern.
What is truly put into question is the foundation upon which America has rested its justice since its beginning.
This country was founded upon beliefs, but at the current moment there stand two views of what those beliefs are.
In one point of view the constitution is the up-most law of the land and must be honored. Some also feel that the constitution represents a true vision of those beliefs that the founding fathers so transcribed into the constitution.
Others feel that the real beliefs the founding fathers intended to uphold was that of the right to a peaceful country and the yearning for a civilized society. Those same people feel that the constitution is a representation of that relevant to that time period only.
As America grows and flourishes, so should the laws in order to flower with America as a nation.
So, is the constitution still to be considered valid for the ever changing nation we live in; or should it be molded to fit a growing country such as an oversized tee shirt is meant to last as long is it stands the weathering of time and challenge?
The answer is still to be determined by the people.
The numbers teeter and totter near that fifty- fifty range, as do many civil rights situations. The Supreme Court, however, for now seems to have their minds made up.
Only time will reveal the effectiveness as the law turns to action at the hands of the officers on the streets everyday battling an ongoing effort to protect and uphold the right of every citizen to walk down the street with child in hand and not do so with fear.
Julian Russel is junior communications studies major. He can be reached at 581-7942 or at DENopinions@gmail.com.
They say the second amendment of the constitution only applies to federal laws. The National Rifle Association of course intends to continue their pursuit of an appeal.
So we ask, "What is the real answer to this situation?"
Many feel that the people carrying handguns at the current time have them illegally anyway. Others feel that their safety is put into jeopardy by those who are carrying handguns illegally; yet others feel if the law was upheld their safety would be of less concern.
What is truly put into question is the foundation upon which America has rested its justice since its beginning.
This country was founded upon beliefs, but at the current moment there stand two views of what those beliefs are.
In one point of view the constitution is the up-most law of the land and must be honored. Some also feel that the constitution represents a true vision of those beliefs that the founding fathers so transcribed into the constitution.
Others feel that the real beliefs the founding fathers intended to uphold was that of the right to a peaceful country and the yearning for a civilized society. Those same people feel that the constitution is a representation of that relevant to that time period only.
As America grows and flourishes, so should the laws in order to flower with America as a nation.
So, is the constitution still to be considered valid for the ever changing nation we live in; or should it be molded to fit a growing country such as an oversized tee shirt is meant to last as long is it stands the weathering of time and challenge?
The answer is still to be determined by the people.
The numbers teeter and totter near that fifty- fifty range, as do many civil rights situations. The Supreme Court, however, for now seems to have their minds made up.
Only time will reveal the effectiveness as the law turns to action at the hands of the officers on the streets everyday battling an ongoing effort to protect and uphold the right of every citizen to walk down the street with child in hand and not do so with fear.
Julian Russel is junior communications studies major. He can be reached at 581-7942 or at DENopinions@gmail.com.
The Daily Eastern News encourages on-topic, civil discussion on its articles posted online. It is our policy not to screen comments before they are posted or edit them after they are posted. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are off-topic, malicious, libelous or include excessive foul language. The DEN also reserves the right to turn off all comments on any story it deems necessary.
Comments violating copyright law will also be removed.
Users who repeatedly violate this policy will be banned from commenting.
If you have any questions on our comment policy or wish to report a comment that you feel violates these standards, please e-mail a link to the article to our Online Editor at DENNews.com@gmail.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 10
MAJ Bradley R. Royle (ret)
posted 6/09/09 @ 8:44 AM CST
Not a very well reasoned editorial, however, the constitution provides a method for it to be "molded to fit a growing country such as an oversized tee shirt is meant to last as long is it stands the weathering of time and challenge" it's called ammending the constitution. (Continued…)
Julian Russell
posted 6/14/09 @ 9:14 PM CST
As the writer, of course, i find it well reasoned because some people think that because the second amendment is included in the upmost law of the land that it must be followed through directly, they might be right but nonetheless the second amendment doesn't have a whole lot of room for altering, it either is or isn't, rather it is or isn't i am neutral but still i feel personally that we can't hold faith to a document written around the events of THAT time period, parts of it stand tall today but some of it is irrelevant to this time period
Use Punctuation
posted 6/15/09 @ 2:06 PM CST
As the writer you find it well reasoned because of what other people think?
What does followed through directly mean?
Whether there is a lot of room for altering is the whole question of constitutional interpretation. (Continued…)
Julian Russell
posted 6/16/09 @ 3:17 AM CST
I find it well reasoned because it points out two sides to the issue, what I feel is irrelevant to the article, it isn't supposed to be about how I particularly feel, but in a way it describes how I feel, I feel that time will tell whether it was a good decision to pass the new law or not, as of now the new law goes against the second amendment and as history has shown the constitution has been altered here and there as technology changes and life goes on, it isn't a hasty change it is an adaptation
Use Punctuation
posted 6/16/09 @ 10:56 AM CST
Something isn't well reasoned simply by having a bunch of jumbled facts in it. When one uses reason, there is typically a point, an end product.
What do you feel is irrelevant to the article?
What new law was passed?
The Constitution was altered WHILE technology changed, not BECAUSE technology changed. (Continued…)
Julian Russell
posted 6/16/09 @ 4:21 PM CST
Read the top of the paper bud, it isn't about facts, it is an opinions page, their is where you off first of all, second the constitution HAS changed because of technology, think about the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for instance, either way i think we agree that the constitution does change at least lol, and it changes because the country changes, also i meant that "my" opinion should be irrelevant to the article, also if you don't even know the law i'm referring to then really why are you arguing about it?
What?
posted 6/16/09 @ 6:08 PM CST
Shouldn't your opinion be based on facts and reason? You already admitted as much. Now you are basically saying that you can publish garbage because it appears in the opinions page. (Continued…)
Julian Russell
posted 6/17/09 @ 10:13 AM CST
I think you'd better check your facts "WHAT?", I obviously wouldn't write about it if it weren't the case, the Supreme COurt has ruled on it and has decided to uphold their ruling, that is the basis for the article, how could i publish garbage that appears in the opinions page lol? that doesn't make sense, the basis for this wasn't taken from an opinions page but rather a news story lol, i made it part of the opinions page lol, please become a bit more educated before you type
What?
posted 6/17/09 @ 9:20 PM CST
What was the name of the case, please?
Former DEN Columnist
posted 6/18/09 @ 12:08 AM CST
I feel the need to ask this question:
Isn't the purpose of a newspaper's opinion/editorial section to state a specific opinion? It's a good idea to present both sides of the argument on an issue, but remaining neutral should be reserved to an actual new article, shouldn't it?
Post a Comment