Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The Clackamas print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1989-2019 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 22, 2017)
O PIN IO N 2 A Â £M£° W“ '"’"ï j ASSAULT WEAPONS b ™ m m ““ se s-^sojtw(nHi&^r.M«ï lf - dë fënsè « ^ » •si MkftCA.Îfjj, HEALTH SiMÛWëMMMJNITION " ' Ì I M ® £S0! ssS-o^ BY IAN VAN ORDEN h NEWS AND OPINION ■ R a tif ie d on D e c e m b e r 15, 1791, th e U n ited S tates B ill o f R ig h ts added the firs t ten am endm ents to the U nited S tates C onstitution. Among the included rights are free speech, as noted in the F irst A m endm ent, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as noted in the Fourth Amendment, and the idea o f separation o f powers, stated in the 10th Amendment. Along with these is, perhaps, the most controversial right in today’s w orld, the right listed by the Second Amendment of the C onstitution, or the right to keep an d b e a r a rm s. Hotly debated- over the decades, the intention of the Second Amendment,and, until a s recently as 2008, how far the right extended were unclear. The U.S. Supreme Court decision reached during the District of Columbia y, Heller case helped clariiy this aspect, but it hasn’t stopped many from arguing against the decision, or even against the very existence of the amendment. But how important’ is our right to bear^àrms, really? Thè Second Amendment of the Constitution states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free statej ihe right o f the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Throughout the history o f our country, there have been substantial disagreem ents about the m eaning o f th is tex t. Some argue th a t the am endm ent was supposed to apply only to specific, organized bodies, such Tas the police force or the national guard. Others argue that the amendment applies to all citizens. But which interpretation is correct? In order to make this determination, it’s important to look at our country’s origins. Before the War of Independence bega», the 13 colonies ON THE COVER: ^ ^ "® Should history guide our understanding of gun control? Having just-'Won a war against the superior B ritish felt,'for a variety of reasons, that they were not being granted the rights that should have been granted to Army, the Founding Fathers understood the dangers them as Englishmen, due to their lack of representation o f a potentially ty ran n ical governm ent who w ielded w ithin the B ritish governm ent, they believed laws, ^significantly more pow er than the people it served. such as the Sugar Act o f 1764, were a violation of their They u n d e rsto o d th a t i f the p eo p le did not have rights. This, along with many other grievances and the the ability to defend them selves from this kind of growing differences in colonial society, led to events government, there was a chance that the country could such as the Boston Tea Party, which escalated into the end up in the same position they had found themselves in with the British government. And having witnessed Revolutionary War. the outcome o f a war with a superior force, they did not want this to be a possible outcome. Thus, the Second Amendment. Though the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment applies to personal protection (see the D istrict o f Colum bia v. H eller), that was not the amendment’s original intent. It wasn’t to protect against thieves or murderers, but to protect the people against tyranny, or perhaps against foreign invaders, should the need arise. George Mason, known as the father o f the B ill o f Rights, spoke during Virginia’s Ratifying Convention about advice given to the British Parliament before the war: “To disarm the people ... is the most effectual way to enslave them.” . This, above all else, defines my stance on the Second D espite their desire for independence, though, the A m endm ent. The Founding F a th e rs’ experiences colonists were ill-prèpared to fight a war w ith the gave them unique wisdom regarding the dangers q f better-equipped B ritish Army, and the wàr was long tyranny, leading to their decision to include the Second and bloody, lasting nearly eight and a h a lf years. Amendment in our Bill o f Rights. In a perfect world, we will »ever have to »se our right Though independence was won, many today believe that if the trip from England to the colonies w ere to keep and bear arms for their original intention. We less treacherous, the fight would have been nearly will never have to defend against a foreign invader or a tyrannical government. The possibility o f the latter im possible. But how do these events play into the decision to seems absurd in today’s world, after all. But if the need include thè Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights? should arise, the American people are prepared. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security o f a free state, the right o f the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” - Second Amendment NOVEMBER 22, 2017 „The annual “Printsgiving” feast Photo by Sam Weston. Cover designed by Alexis Wagar. ■ Editors-in-Chief Autum n Berend chiefed@clackamas.edu; Managing Editor Merari Calderon Ruiz chiefed@clackamas.edu; Copy Editor Nicholas Allison copyed@clackamas.edu; News Editor Ian Van Orden newsed@clackamas.edu; Arts & Culture Editor tuis Correa aced@ciackamas.edu; Sports Editor Doug Fry Assistant Jacob Thompson sportsed@clackamas.edu; Photo Editor Sam Weston photoed@ciackamas.edu; Multimedia Editor Alexis W agar webeditor@clackamas.edu; Ad Manager V icto ria Tin k e r adm gr@ciackam as.edu; Staff Jared Preble, William Farris, Liam Anderson, Ali Miller, Jeanette Wright, McKenna Streed, Kristi Date The Clackamas Print aims to report the news in an honest, unbiased and professional manner. Con- tent published in The Print is not screened or subject to censorship. HI 8 Email comments, concerns or tips to: chiefed@dackamas. edu or call us at 503-594-6266 19600 Molalla Ave. Oregon City, OR 97045 The Clackamas Print is free, but please take only one copy. Any person removing our papers irr bulk will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
