It sounds partly friendly and partly terrifying, or at least this is how I intend it to sound.
Originally published as 82 Mich. For educational use only.
The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S. Among those which this Article will not cover in any depth are: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The individual right view is endorsed by only a minority of legal scholars,  but accepted by a majority of the general populace who, though supporting the idea of controlling guns, increasingly oppose their prohibition, believing that law-abiding citizens may properly have them for self-defense.
While the New York Times editorializes that "[t]he urban handgun offers no benefits,"  its publisher is among the few privileged to possess a New York City permit to carry one at all times. By concentrating attention on the state's right position, the gun-owner organizations have been able to avoid the details of their own individual right position, which seems inconsistent with the kinds of gun controls the A reflection of kates addiction have themselves endorsed.
Why not of artillery, flame-throwers, machine guns, and so on, to the prohibition of which gun-owner groups have readily acceded? The evidence to be examined must include: This Article will then consider the amendment's subsequent judicial interpretation, and the question of its incorporation against the states, before returning to constitutional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms.
The Original Understanding of the Second Amendment The two opposing camps naturally rely on different interpretations of the origins of the second amendment.
Proponents of the exclusively state's right view  see the amendment as responding to p. Those clauses give Congress the power to call out the militia and "to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining" it. According to the state's right interpretation, the amendment was motivated by fear that Congress might order the states' organized militias disarmed, thereby leaving the states powerless against federal tyranny.
Thus, this view sees the amendment as a response to concerns that time and the course of American history have rendered anachronistic. During the Revolution, and the subsequent period of the Articles of Confederation, the states loomed larger than the federal government and jealously guarded their prerogatives against it.
While the Constitution itself heralded a decisive though limited repudiation of those attitudes, they remained strong enough to assure two precatory admonitions a place in the Bill of Rights.
These became the second and tenth amendments. The purpose of the second amendment was simply to place the states' organized military forces beyond the federal government's power to disarm, guaranteeing that the states would always have sufficient force at their command to nullify federal impositions on their rights and to resist by arms if necessary.
Though the federal government could not be denied authority to maintain a small army, the basic military defense of the country would rest in the states' reserved power to maintain their own organized military forces. These could be joined together to resist foreign invasion in time of need.
Thus, the philosophy underlying the second amendment not only guaranteed the states' right to keep armed forces, but obviated any need for a massive federal military which might defeat them if they found it necessary to revolt. Though it yet lingers in the Constitution, it does not for it was never p.
Rather, it guarantees an exclusive right of the states, which only the states have standing to invoke. This they need not do today when any value the amendment might presently have for them is satisfied by their federally-provided National Guard structure.
Advocates of the individual right position, on the other hand, rely on the fact that the natural reading of the amendment's phrase "right of the people" is that it creates not a state right, but one which individuals can assert.
This is how the identically phrased  first and fourth amendments are interpreted. Indeed, the evidence suggests it was precisely by protecting the individual that the Framers intended to protect the militia.
To demonstrate that no individual right was intended, he must show not just that there was a desire to protect the states, but that there was no desire to protect individuals--despite the most natural reading of the amendment's phraseology.
As we shall see, this is a particularly difficult burden to bear. Such debate as the amendment received is sparse and inconclusive, while other legislative history strongly supports the proposition that protection of an individual right was at least one of the amendment's purposes. Parsing the Language of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights In general, the text of the second amendment, and of the Bill of Rights as a whole, provides a series of insuperable obstacles to an exclusively state's right interpretation.
State's right analyses have tended not to come to grips with these obstacles; if they focus on the amendment's wording at all, it is only on the word "militia," assuming that the Framers meant "militia" to refer to "a particular military force," i.
The Militia Throughout their existence, the American colonies had endured the constant threat of sudden attack by Indians or any of Britain's Dutch, French and Spanish colonial rivals.At Mount Sinai, our mission is to provide exceptional patient care.
To help patients feel more confident about their choice of doctors, we provide patient experience star ratings based on information collected by an independent organization, Press Ganey, which surveys hundreds of . Multiple perspectives are infused throughout the programs to develop a student’s self-reflection and critical thinking in order to effectively and competently serve the needs of a diversity of communities.
Action on Addiction is focused on the research, prevention and treatment of addiction in the U.K. and runs a number of treatment centers that provide support to people suffering with addictions. Matthew J Kates, ASSISTANT CLINICAL PROFESSOR at Mount Sinai Health System, specializing in Ear, Nose, Throat / Otolaryngology.
require a minimum of 30 surveys before we post results to ensure that the rating is statistically reliable and a true reflection of patient monstermanfilm.comtion: ASSISTANT CLINICAL PROFESSOR.
Latest environmental news, features and updates. Pictures, video and more. Our society tends to characterize addicts by their appearance.
When the term addict comes to mind one may conjure up the image of a skinny, pale person in a dark street corner shooting up heroin.
Addiction although cannot only be characterized by the physical traits, there are many factors.