Comments on: Preview: The Second Amendment case http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/preview-the-second-amendment-case/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:38:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jonathan Raof http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16152 Jonathan Raof Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:10:37 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16152 The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of states or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. This opinion is affirmed through the idea that was brought up in Miller v. U.S; in which the court maintained that the right to bear arms is a right of the people of each state to organize themselves as a military and thus provide their own weapons (the latter is justified when the courts ruled against Miller because they couldn't demonstrate how a specific weapon would be used for a state militia). So as one can see, the individual has the right to bear arms on either side of the debate because in order to argue that the 2nd amendment is a collective right for the purpose of serving in a state militia, one must have their firearm beforehand. The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of states or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. This opinion is affirmed through the idea that was brought up in Miller v. U.S; in which the court maintained that the right to bear arms is a right of the people of each state to organize themselves as a military and thus provide their own weapons (the latter is justified when the courts ruled against Miller because they couldn’t demonstrate how a specific weapon would be used for a state militia). So as one can see, the individual has the right to bear arms on either side of the debate because in order to argue that the 2nd amendment is a collective right for the purpose of serving in a state militia, one must have their firearm beforehand.

]]> By: Elizabeth Gosein-Vasquez http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16151 Elizabeth Gosein-Vasquez Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:35:00 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16151 Why would the frames state in the second amendment that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" if they did not want their people to be able to protect themselves from the English. I believe that a lot of the confusion has come from the precedent set by previous cases that is making this case seem difficult. In the Miller case, the Supreme Court never clarified exactly what the second amendment stood for in the ruling of that case. Although, isn't each case supposed to treated differently and the times are different as well. Its obvious crime rates have increased from then to now. So the "right to keep and bear arms" should be for the individual rights. In a means to be able to protect themselves not only from other nations, but harmful people as well. Guns are not going anywhere any time soon, people are going to have them regardless if they are legal or illegal. If a person feels threatened their natural reaction is to defend themselves. Why would the frames state in the second amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” if they did not want their people to be able to protect themselves from the English. I believe that a lot of the confusion has come from the precedent set by previous cases that is making this case seem difficult. In the Miller case, the Supreme Court never clarified exactly what the second amendment stood for in the ruling of that case. Although, isn’t each case supposed to treated differently and the times are different as well. Its obvious crime rates have increased from then to now. So the “right to keep and bear arms” should be for the individual rights. In a means to be able to protect themselves not only from other nations, but harmful people as well. Guns are not going anywhere any time soon, people are going to have them regardless if they are legal or illegal. If a person feels threatened their natural reaction is to defend themselves.

]]> By: Christa Cavolina http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16150 Christa Cavolina Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:30:51 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16150 “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 to be infringed.” It is our fundamental right as a citizen of the United States to be able to own and carry a gun. It is our right to be able to provide ourselves with our own means of self-defense. I believe the Framers purpose of the Second Amendment is not to enforce governmental interest in the regulation of a citizen’s right to gun possession. Instead, their purpose is to ensure that by owning or caring a firearm we are fulfilling our divine right to defend ourselves. For example, the Framers of the Second Amendment use the word Militia. The Militia the Founding Fathers are referring to is composed of regular citizens trained to defend themselves and their country. These citizens are not militarily trained solders that the government provides for the nation; they are civilians. Additionally, when the Amendment was written, the purpose was to provide citizens with the right to defend themselves in times of threat. With the safety of the citizens in mind, the Founding Fathers stated that individuals who were a part of the regulated Militia had the right to keep and bear Arms. Today our nation has well regulated Armed Forces with no need for a Militia. However I do not believe that this should infringe on our right as civilians to carry and possess a firearm. Also when the Second Amendment was written the Founders wanted to limit government control. They did this by promising citizens that the government could not deny individual firearms. One reason for this limitation was to prevent the government from becoming a Tyranny and having complete control of the people. Today if the government denies citizens the right to defend themselves by means of legally owning a firearm, then they are strictly going against our Founding Fathers intentions in regards to the Second Amendment. Additionally, the second amendment states “shall not to be infringed.” I agree with Carl Donath when he says that the “writings by those who wrote the 2nd Amendment _ clearly _ meant that “shall not be infringed” meant SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED-_period_.” This means that it is our fundamental right to own and bear arms and that this right is not to be violated by any means such as the government. Finally, it is ones fundamental right to protect their lives, their family’s lives and belongings from outside forces. The Second Amendment states “the right of the people” which in this case guarantees every individual the right to bear arms. For example, if we as citizens are prohibited from owning and caring a firearm, then who will protect us? Yes the government provides protection to citizens with means such as police and the military; however, they also state that it is our responsibility as a citizen to protect ourselves. The primary responsibility of the police is to enforce our written laws. They are also responsible for protecting the citizens. The police however are not Omni-present and therefore we as citizens of the United States must have the right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our possessions in circumstances when the police are unable to provide protection. By denying citizens the right to own and carry firearms we are unable to realize this right. “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 to be infringed.”
It is our fundamental right as a citizen of the United States to be able to own and carry a gun. It is our right to be able to provide ourselves with our own means of self-defense.
I believe the Framers purpose of the Second Amendment is not to enforce governmental interest in the regulation of a citizen’s right to gun possession. Instead, their purpose is to ensure that by owning or caring a firearm we are fulfilling our divine right to defend ourselves. For example, the Framers of the Second Amendment use the word Militia. The Militia the Founding Fathers are referring to is composed of regular citizens trained to defend themselves and their country. These citizens are not militarily trained solders that the government provides for the nation; they are civilians. Additionally, when the Amendment was written, the purpose was to provide citizens with the right to defend themselves in times of threat. With the safety of the citizens in mind, the Founding Fathers stated that individuals who were a part of the regulated Militia had the right to keep and bear Arms. Today our nation has well regulated Armed Forces with no need for a Militia. However I do not believe that this should infringe on our right as civilians to carry and possess a firearm.
Also when the Second Amendment was written the Founders wanted to limit government control. They did this by promising citizens that the government could not deny individual firearms. One reason for this limitation was to prevent the government from becoming a Tyranny and having complete control of the people. Today if the government denies citizens the right to defend themselves by means of legally owning a firearm, then they are strictly going against our Founding Fathers intentions in regards to the Second Amendment.
Additionally, the second amendment states “shall not to be infringed.” I agree with Carl Donath when he says that the “writings by those who wrote the 2nd Amendment _ clearly _ meant that “shall not be infringed” meant SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED-_period_.” This means that it is our fundamental right to own and bear arms and that this right is not to be violated by any means such as the government.
Finally, it is ones fundamental right to protect their lives, their family’s lives and belongings from outside forces. The Second Amendment states “the right of the people” which in this case guarantees every individual the right to bear arms. For example, if we as citizens are prohibited from owning and caring a firearm, then who will protect us? Yes the government provides protection to citizens with means such as police and the military; however, they also state that it is our responsibility as a citizen to protect ourselves. The primary responsibility of the police is to enforce our written laws. They are also responsible for protecting the citizens. The police however are not Omni-present and therefore we as citizens of the United States must have the right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our possessions in circumstances when the police are unable to provide protection. By denying citizens the right to own and carry firearms we are unable to realize this right.

]]> By: Devin Feher http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16149 Devin Feher Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:12:02 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16149 I believe that rights should reflect responsibility. When the responsibilities of a militia became supplanted and/or obsolete, any rights that such an informal group may have had should have been revoked; however, due to the fact that there is only the vague reference to a well-regulated militia, there has been little effort to create these expected regulations. So, supporters of gun rights under this supposition, only have grounds to do so because states have not made the effort to clearly designate who should be allotted the responsibilities and, thereby, the rights of militia members. Those who support the individual right to bear arms as a form of check against the government were right to do so at a certain time. Today, such a notion is naïve. There is little currently armed individuals could do if the government sought to initiate a totalitarian hold on the nation, that is circumstantial, and results necessarily from the global technological/arms race. The only earnest defense against a corrupted, republican government is increased political awareness and involvement. Those who see the right to bear arms as a necessary supplementation of the police force, are forced to do so because current laws are not properly enforced, and because of the right itself being overextended. Most killer firearms are obtained legally or stolen from someone who obtained them legally. The circumstances which demand individual protection through firearms arose because of the right for individual protection through firearms. This is obviously a positive feedback loop which sets the stage for the ~30,000 gun related deaths in the U.S. annually (principally suicides/accidents). If one takes that number and extends it over time, it becomes clear that allowing firearms to civilians serves almost entirely to empower statistics to take lives, a force which cannot be brought down with bullets. If one considers individual safety the key motive for the defense of the second amendment, than statistics would quickly denounce such an argument as self- contradictory. The correlation between an increase in guns and an increase in gun-related deaths is indisputable. In regions where civilian firearm use is discouraged, there is a corresponding reduction in gun-related deaths. This is most obvious in Japan, where a population of about half of the U.S. sees only about 60 gun-related deaths annually (the same amount as about 18 hours in the U.S). Those 30,000 or so, who die annually, do so by and large to satisfy a mere semblance of autonomy. IMHO I believe that rights should reflect responsibility. When the responsibilities of a militia became supplanted and/or obsolete, any rights that such an informal group may have had should have been revoked; however, due to the fact that there is only the vague reference to a well-regulated militia, there has been little effort to create these expected regulations. So, supporters of gun rights under this supposition, only have grounds to do so because states have not made the effort to clearly designate who should be allotted the responsibilities and, thereby, the rights of militia members.

Those who support the individual right to bear arms as a form of check against the government were right to do so at a certain time. Today, such a notion is naïve. There is little currently armed individuals could do if the government sought to initiate a totalitarian hold on the nation, that is circumstantial, and results necessarily from the global technological/arms race. The only earnest defense against a corrupted, republican government is increased political awareness and involvement.

Those who see the right to bear arms as a necessary supplementation of the police force, are forced to do so because current laws are not properly enforced, and because of the right itself being overextended. Most killer firearms are obtained legally or stolen from someone who obtained them legally. The circumstances which demand individual protection through firearms arose because of the right for individual protection through firearms. This is obviously a positive feedback loop which sets the stage for the ~30,000 gun related deaths in the U.S. annually (principally suicides/accidents).

If one takes that number and extends it over time, it becomes clear that allowing firearms to civilians serves almost entirely to empower statistics to take lives, a force which cannot be brought down with bullets. If one considers individual safety the key motive for the defense of the second amendment, than statistics would quickly denounce such an argument as self- contradictory. The correlation between an increase in guns and an increase in gun-related deaths is indisputable. In regions where civilian firearm use is discouraged, there is a corresponding reduction in gun-related deaths. This is most obvious in Japan, where a population of about half of the U.S. sees only about 60 gun-related deaths annually (the same amount as about 18 hours in the U.S). Those 30,000 or so, who die annually, do so by and large to satisfy a mere semblance of autonomy.

IMHO

]]> By: Michelle White http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16148 Michelle White Mon, 02 Jun 2008 03:21:09 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16148 I feel there are a few issues under scrutiny here. One being if the second amendment is applicable in modern terms, if the amendment is applicable to individuals and lastly what types of arms are declared in the amendment. I understand the amendment to be relevant in today’s day and age just as well as it was in the 18th century when it was introduced. Personal protection from all foes is a necessary evil that should never be infringed. Whether it is protection from the impending threat of the British or other country during the birth of the states or today from a stranger on the street to someone even as close as a family member. It is your duty and natural right to protect yourself from an inherent danger. There are risks within the privilege of the use of arms just like anything else; you can’t make everyone do the right thing; but your right to do so should not be infringed by those who take advantage of the right granted under the amendment. This also implies to the second issue I feel is under question; is it applicable to individuals. My interpretation and understanding of the amendment is, yes. If it is your duty to protect yourself then you should be able to do so as you see fit. Furthermore, the Framers make a clear distinction between the powers of the state and those powers granted to the people. This is one power granted to the people. Finally, if the question to now scrutinize is which types of arms are specified in the amendment, it should be those of which the owner of the arm legally has the right to bear. Whether it is a shot gun or a pistol, if it is legally owned, unmodified, and safe to operate, it should be protected under this amendment. Any infringement on a personal right to protection under the amendment is one against the constitution and the ideas of the Framers. I feel there are a few issues under scrutiny here. One being if the second amendment is applicable in modern terms, if the amendment is applicable to individuals and lastly what types of arms are declared in the amendment.
I understand the amendment to be relevant in today’s day and age just as well as it was in the 18th century when it was introduced. Personal protection from all foes is a necessary evil that should never be infringed. Whether it is protection from the impending threat of the British or other country during the birth of the states or today from a stranger on the street to someone even as close as a family member. It is your duty and natural right to protect yourself from an inherent danger. There are risks within the privilege of the use of arms just like anything else; you can’t make everyone do the right thing; but your right to do so should not be infringed by those who take advantage of the right granted under the amendment. This also implies to the second issue I feel is under question; is it applicable to individuals. My interpretation and understanding of the amendment is, yes. If it is your duty to protect yourself then you should be able to do so as you see fit. Furthermore, the Framers make a clear distinction between the powers of the state and those powers granted to the people. This is one power granted to the people. Finally, if the question to now scrutinize is which types of arms are specified in the amendment, it should be those of which the owner of the arm legally has the right to bear. Whether it is a shot gun or a pistol, if it is legally owned, unmodified, and safe to operate, it should be protected under this amendment. Any infringement on a personal right to protection under the amendment is one against the constitution and the ideas of the Framers.

]]> By: Suzy McCafferty http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16147 Suzy McCafferty Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:15:38 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16147 The problem isn’t within the Second Amendment, the problem lies within human nature. Citizens make choices everyday that affect society and the individuals around us. Some people have a larger affect on others and some want to affect more people. If not having guns in a crime ridden city is going to help keep crime down then I wouldn’t want to live in that city when someone breaks into my house. The solution is that the informed citizenry becomes the ultimate pathway to justice. I mean that each of us should be educated on not only the proper use and storage of guns but the severe punishment of the crimes committed with firearms and other weapons must be increased to deter the unwanted behavior. People make choices guns don’t. Punish the people not the inanimate object. I understand how it affects children physically and mentally with what has been happening in some schools, but how safe is a family’s home without one? By the way when a desperate person’s will is strong enough and he doesn’t have a firearm available to steal from a corner convenient store I am sure they will find a knife. If they can not find a knife they will use a brick . No brick, how about a pole, get the picture (were there is a will there is another way). Education should be our number one goal and as it changes with the times so should our society adapt; teachings of the consequences and alternatives to violence. Better social welfare and education will allow more freedom in what our founding fathers intended to be a free society. Education and proper storage of firearms coupled with proper usage should be paramount. People make choices guns don’t . Don’t punish the inanimate object; rather punish the person who is using it wrongfully. Perhaps if the punishments were more sever people would not be so readily willing to use them. The problem isn’t within the Second Amendment, the problem lies within human nature. Citizens make choices everyday that affect society and the individuals around us. Some people have a larger affect on others and some want to affect more people. If not having guns in a crime ridden city is going to help keep crime down then I wouldn’t want to live in that city when someone breaks into my house.

The solution is that the informed citizenry becomes the ultimate pathway to justice. I mean that each of us should be educated on not only the proper use and storage of guns but the severe punishment of the crimes committed with firearms and other weapons must be increased to deter the unwanted behavior.

People make choices guns don’t. Punish the people not the inanimate object. I understand how it affects children physically and mentally with what has been happening in some schools, but how safe is a family’s home without one? By the way when a desperate person’s will is strong enough and he doesn’t have a firearm available to steal from a corner convenient store I am sure they will find a knife. If they can not find a knife they will use a brick . No brick, how about a pole, get the picture (were there is a will there is another way).

Education should be our number one goal and as it changes with the times so should our society adapt; teachings of the consequences and alternatives to violence. Better social welfare and education will allow more freedom in what our founding fathers intended to be a free society.

Education and proper storage of firearms coupled with proper usage should be paramount. People make choices guns don’t . Don’t punish the inanimate object; rather punish the person who is using it wrongfully.
Perhaps if the punishments were more sever people would not be so readily willing to use them.

]]> By: Priscila Jager http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16146 Priscila Jager Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:58:37 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16146 The one factor that distinguishes the United States from the rest of the world is that law obeying citizens have the right to own guns under the second Amendment, and perhaps it’s a coincidence that two of the oldest democracy the United States and Switzerland have the right to own guns. Another point of view of individuals’ right to own guns is seen in a dictatorship. In a dictatorship the first right that is taken away is the right to own arms from the law obeying citizens for example in the case of Hitler, Stalin, and Fidel Castro among others. In recent years in the United States we have seen an outcry by organizations and small groups to ban or limit the right to bear arms instead of enforcing the many laws that the United States has for the unlawful use of guns. Finally local governments should not band or remove this right from the law obeying citizens instead they should focus on enforcing the current laws to punish those who use guns for delinquent acts. By enforcing the current laws, law obeying citizens still have ‘individual’ right to bear arms protected under the Second Amendment. The one factor that distinguishes the United States from the rest of the world is that law obeying citizens have the right to own guns under the second Amendment, and perhaps it’s a coincidence that two of the oldest democracy the United States and Switzerland have the right to own guns. Another point of view of individuals’ right to own guns is seen in a dictatorship. In a dictatorship the first right that is taken away is the right to own arms from the law obeying citizens for example in the case of Hitler, Stalin, and Fidel Castro among others.
In recent years in the United States we have seen an outcry by organizations and small groups to ban or limit the right to bear arms instead of enforcing the many laws that the United States has for the unlawful use of guns.

Finally local governments should not band or remove this right from the law obeying citizens instead they should focus on enforcing the current laws to punish those who use guns for delinquent acts. By enforcing the current laws, law obeying citizens still have ‘individual’ right to bear arms protected under the Second Amendment.

]]> By: Janetta Joseph http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16145 Janetta Joseph Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:21:11 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16145 Okay, so you have the right to bear arms... now what? Are you gonna sit and wait for the "intruder" to come in to get him before he gets you? Oh, maybe you need your gun incase you spot Osama Bin Laden taking a stroll on Ocean drive? Whatever your reason, shouldn't our government be taking care of that for us? Why the need for police officers if we can do it our selves? Why the need for a militia if we can all get rifles and guns and do it ourselves? even if the second ammendment is upholding individual rights it still does not mean that the government should not be able to regulate guns. does the government not regulate our housing and propery situations? Does it not regulate how much and where our money goes? So why not guns? I have the individual right to safety. i want to know that Joe Shmo down the street is not gonna be having a bad day and decide he wants to go shooting random people. We all want to scream that we should have our rights as stated in the constitution. Tell that to the parents who lost their children in the countless and senseless school shootings. dont they have a right to happiness. The regulation of guns should be allowed so long as it is achieving a legit government purpose. I wonder, do the gun rights advocates have any faith at all in their government and in their country? Okay, so you have the right to bear arms… now what? Are you gonna sit and wait for the “intruder” to come in to get him before he gets you? Oh, maybe you need your gun incase you spot Osama Bin Laden taking a stroll on Ocean drive? Whatever your reason, shouldn’t our government be taking care of that for us? Why the need for police officers if we can do it our selves? Why the need for a militia if we can all get rifles and guns and do it ourselves? even if the second ammendment is upholding individual rights it still does not mean that the government should not be able to regulate guns. does the government not regulate our housing and propery situations? Does it not regulate how much and where our money goes? So why not guns? I have the individual right to safety. i want to know that Joe Shmo down the street is not gonna be having a bad day and decide he wants to go shooting random people. We all want to scream that we should have our rights as stated in the constitution. Tell that to the parents who lost their children in the countless and senseless school shootings. dont they have a right to happiness. The regulation of guns should be allowed so long as it is achieving a legit government purpose. I wonder, do the gun rights advocates have any faith at all in their government and in their country?

]]> By: Thomas S. Ford http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16144 Thomas S. Ford Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:19:23 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16144 In reviewing the analysis of the Heller case, it appears that the District of Columbia is sometimes considered a state and other times considered a Federal District. So, in this instance the Second Amendment may, or may not apply to the ban on handguns in that "territory". It is no wonder that this issue has been debated for so many years there. How can a court decision be rendered in this case if the basic question of whether or not the ban falls under the Second Amendment or not is unclear? It seems to me that the debate of the Second Amendment to mean "people" as either individual or collective, will never be resolved. It would better serve the people of this great country to interpret the meaning by today's standard of use and conduct in regards to "arms" than to a standard relative to a time over two hundred years ago. In reviewing the analysis of the Heller case, it appears that the District of Columbia is sometimes considered a state and other times considered a Federal District. So, in this instance the Second Amendment may, or may not apply to the ban on handguns in that “territory”. It is no wonder that this issue has been debated for so many years there. How can a court decision be rendered in this case if the basic question of whether or not the ban falls under the Second Amendment or not is unclear?
It seems to me that the debate of the Second Amendment to mean “people” as either individual or collective, will never be resolved. It would better serve the people of this great country to interpret the meaning by today’s standard of use and conduct in regards to “arms” than to a standard relative to a time over two hundred years ago.

]]> By: Ron Pawlak http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16142 Ron Pawlak Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:09:07 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/preview-the-second-amendment-case/#comment-16142 It seems rather obvious that "the right to keep and bear arms" is not a reference to a collective right but rather to an individual right to bear arms. Is it really believable that the founding fathers had intended for the American people to live in a police-state with no means to protect ourselves from a state militia? This is obviously not what was intended. An attempt to convince the court that the Constition does not acknowledge an individual right to bear arms is an attempt to take power from the individual and give it to the government. History has shown us that one effective method of gaining control over the people is to take away their ability to defend themselves. If it is decided that the second amendment refers to a collective right to bear arms the decision will not be made with the good of the people in mind, but rather with the desire to obtain control of the people in mind. It seems rather obvious that “the right to keep and bear arms” is not a reference to a collective right but rather to an individual right to bear arms. Is it really believable that the founding fathers had intended for the American people to live in a police-state with no means to protect ourselves from a state militia? This is obviously not what was intended. An attempt to convince the court that the Constition does not acknowledge an individual right to bear arms is an attempt to take power from the individual and give it to the government. History has shown us that one effective method of gaining control over the people is to take away their ability to defend themselves. If it is decided that the second amendment refers to a collective right to bear arms the decision will not be made with the good of the people in mind, but rather with the desire to obtain control of the people in mind.

]]>