What is the intended scope of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Is it an example of an “individual rights theory” or a “collective rights theory?”

The debate to bear arms in the United States has intensified in the past few months since the tragic massacres of last year, the first one was a mass shooting inside a Century movie theater in Aurora Colorado during the premier of the film The Dark Knight Rises, the suspect identified as James Holmes eventually rose from his chair and shot the audience, killing 12 people and injuring 58 others, the other one was the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, the shooter Adam Lanza enter the school and shot and killed 20 children and 6 staff members.

The second amendment of the United Stated reads; “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." In my opinion there are two key phrases that should be analyzed first “a well regulated militia” and second “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. While some interpreters believe that the amendment creates an individual constitutional right for citizens to bear arms others argue that the framers intended only to restrict congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Looking at this approach, the argument that the amendment intent to restrict congress from legislating away a states right to self-defense makes no sense because the congress is made up of citizens of the United States that were voted to represent the people and to legislate for the people, also in the history of the U.S.A we have never seen a congress not protecting the State or its citizens, instead the right to bear arms is a right for self defense also the founder fathers wanted to prevent a tyranny form of government and a tool to prevent an event like this one was the right to bear arms.

In my personal opinion and after giving it much thought the intended scope of the second amendment is an example of an individual rights theory because the United States constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession making it unconstitutional. The U.S supreme court strengthen the second amendment in the cases of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald V. the city of Chicago in 2010 in both cases the court eliminated and made unconstitutional any law prohibiting the right to bear arms.

Bibliography

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9759404/Connecticut-school-shooting-America-to-mourn-Sandy-Hook-massacre.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/da-colo-theater-shooting-victims-harassed-article-1.1257841

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

What response did the Americans give to British policies after the French and Indian war?

First to answer this question we need to understand what the effects were for the British in the French and Indian war.  The conflict between Great Britain and France erupted in Europe and slowly started to be fought around the world, this war came to be known as the seven years war, and consequently this war in American territory was named the French and Indian war. As British-American settlers started to move westward they encounter French settlers and Indian natives, this led to violent encounters, eventually the war lasted seven years from 1756 to 1763 with the treaty of Paris leaving British victory and the conquer of the French territories in America. But not everything had the taste of victory for the British, the war was extremely expensive leaving extensive debt and the need for quick money. In this case the British saw the perfect opportunity for the colonies to provide the money they needed to recover from the war with the French, as a result a series of act were pass incrementing taxes in the colonies.

For example the proclamation of 1763 prohibited settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains. With this act many colonist felt very discontent, in 1764 the sugar act and the currency act were place in to order, the first one raised revenue by increasing duties on sugar imported from the West Indies, and the second one banned the colonies from issuing paper bills or bills of credit, after this acts one act that led to a enormous discontent among the colonist was the stamp act of 1765 this act impose taxation on all form of documents. After the tea act and the intolerable act American colonist understood that the only way they could be represented equally was by breaking from British rule. The first big clash between the colonist and the British was reported in the harbor of Boston in 1773 where lord north gave the monopoly to the East Indian Company to ship tea to the colonies, the Americans responded to this by throwing the shipment in to the Boston harbor. In response to this acts in 1774 the first continental congress was organize, the main result of this reunion was the creation of an organization to boycott the British goods, and in 1775 the continental congress met in Philadelphia for the second time to prepare for war and for the discussion of the declaration of independence.

In conclusion the response that the American gave to the British acts after the French and Indian war were of the no toleration of the acts that restricted colonist liberty’s, also the idea of building a new nation were “All men are created equal and have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. The decision of the majority of the colonist was to fight for their building nation under the ideas of liberty, a representative government and the equal right for all men. We can conclude that the acts imposed by the British were harmful for them and awakening for the Americans.