Research: 1/22- found, read, and annotated 2 sources- 45min. 1/24- found, read, and annotated 3 sources- 1hr 15min. 1/25- made 1 notecard- 15min.
Prized by Caragh O'Brien: 1/23- 15min. 1/26- 2hrs. (10%-50%)
Total: 4hrs 30min. 5 sources, 1 notecard, 40%(kindle)
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Research Conversation
So Charles (my little brother), I'm doing this research project for English, and can you guess what I'm doing it on? The Second Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms. I wanted to know what had started the argument over gun control, so I had to come up with a question to write my paper on. So I fiddled with wording and all of that until I came to "what were the original intentions of the Second Amendment and have we strayed from them?"So far, the primary sources have been the most helpful because they answer the first part of my research question directly. I've found tons of information including quotes, papers, and earlier interpretations to show the original intentions. However, the second part of my question is harder to answer straight from sources. I have to analyze modern opinions and actions to reach a conclusion. All that being said, I think that the original intentions were for the people to be able to stand up to their government and to have the tools equal to those in power in the possession of every citizen. I also find that we have strayed form that quite a bit, as many people today believe in strict gun control, and some would have us believe that the amendment applies to collective groups such as the National Guard or Police Departments, not the the individual citizens.
The debate over the Second Amendment has been heated and drawn out since shortly after its ratification. I was curious to find out what had spurred such a debate, and after reading through varied interpretations of the right to keep and bear arms, I composed a question: "What were the original intentions of the Second Amendment, and have we strayed from them?" In order to answer the first part of my question, I turned to primary sources, such as the Federalist Papers and the Militia Act of 1792. From them, I found those original intentions. According to James Madison (the author of the Amendment itself) the advantage of being trusted with firearms is one the American people hold over those of most every other nation. According to Thomas Jefferson, your firearm should be your most constant companion. According to George Washington, guns are of import near that of the Constitution itself. From there I moved on to secondary sources. People argue many points on this prominent issue, but the one most opposed to the original intentions is the wish for stricter gun control and the idea that the Second Amendment would not apply to individuals, but to collective groups such as the National Guard, Police Department, or a government organized militia. Therefore, I believe that the Framers intended every citizen to have access to arms, and we have veered dangerously away from their vision.
The debate over the Second Amendment has been heated and drawn out since shortly after its ratification. I was curious to find out what had spurred such a debate, and after reading through varied interpretations of the right to keep and bear arms, I composed a question: "What were the original intentions of the Second Amendment, and have we strayed from them?" In order to answer the first part of my question, I turned to primary sources, such as the Federalist Papers and the Militia Act of 1792. From them, I found those original intentions. According to James Madison (the author of the Amendment itself) the advantage of being trusted with firearms is one the American people hold over those of most every other nation. According to Thomas Jefferson, your firearm should be your most constant companion. According to George Washington, guns are of import near that of the Constitution itself. From there I moved on to secondary sources. People argue many points on this prominent issue, but the one most opposed to the original intentions is the wish for stricter gun control and the idea that the Second Amendment would not apply to individuals, but to collective groups such as the National Guard, Police Department, or a government organized militia. Therefore, I believe that the Framers intended every citizen to have access to arms, and we have veered dangerously away from their vision.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Reading Times
Reached by Allie Condie- 1/14- 15min 1/15-10min 1/16-15min 1/17- 15min 1/18- 10min 1/19- 45min (70%- 100%)
Prized by Caragh O'Brien- 1/20- 1hr (0%-10%)
Research- 1/14- found, read and annotated one source- 20min 1/17- found, read, and annotated three sources- 1hr
total: 4hrs 10min- 4 sources, 30%, 10% (kindle)
Prized by Caragh O'Brien- 1/20- 1hr (0%-10%)
Research- 1/14- found, read and annotated one source- 20min 1/17- found, read, and annotated three sources- 1hr
total: 4hrs 10min- 4 sources, 30%, 10% (kindle)
Free Post 2
Well... this idea ties in nicely with my research project, but I think I will use this to get some thought and conclusions I've gathered from sources and interpretations into sentences.
If you read my previous blog, you know that my research project is defining the intention of the second amendment (the right to keep and bear arms), and determining if and how we have strayed from it. For many, firearms provide a means for the widely enjoyed avocation of hunting. Those who have become erudite with their arms, and are adroit in the handling of such weapons, are often affronted by the idea that these possessions could just be whipped away on a whim. They have every right to be angry. That right is guaranteed in a document that was NEVER meant to be seen as a "living document." The Constitution of the United States of America grants the possession and use of firearms to the American people, both as individuals and as a full bodied militia.
Militia is a key word in the phrasing of the Second Amendment. The fear of an overly powerful federal government drove the Framers to write into law the understanding that if ever the people would become dissatisfied and militant, they may fight- they may crusade- against that which they originally rebelled. Our government would now have us believe that this is not the case: that the Framers could never have imagined the weapons of today. However, the wording both in the amendment itself and in related documents is definitive. Arms. Not hunting rifles. Not six-shot revolvers. Arms. The people are the check on the government, as can be interpreted from the Federalist Papers. Anything the soldier can have, a member of the militia (that is: any man (or now citizen) between the ages of 18 and 45 as defined by the Militia Act of 1792) can also have. So, through my research thus far, I have realized that the American people no longer have the luxury of sitting tacitly by as our government twists our rights into indecipherable knots. With every right that is taken away, a new threat to the freedom and liberty of this country rises.
If you read my previous blog, you know that my research project is defining the intention of the second amendment (the right to keep and bear arms), and determining if and how we have strayed from it. For many, firearms provide a means for the widely enjoyed avocation of hunting. Those who have become erudite with their arms, and are adroit in the handling of such weapons, are often affronted by the idea that these possessions could just be whipped away on a whim. They have every right to be angry. That right is guaranteed in a document that was NEVER meant to be seen as a "living document." The Constitution of the United States of America grants the possession and use of firearms to the American people, both as individuals and as a full bodied militia.
Militia is a key word in the phrasing of the Second Amendment. The fear of an overly powerful federal government drove the Framers to write into law the understanding that if ever the people would become dissatisfied and militant, they may fight- they may crusade- against that which they originally rebelled. Our government would now have us believe that this is not the case: that the Framers could never have imagined the weapons of today. However, the wording both in the amendment itself and in related documents is definitive. Arms. Not hunting rifles. Not six-shot revolvers. Arms. The people are the check on the government, as can be interpreted from the Federalist Papers. Anything the soldier can have, a member of the militia (that is: any man (or now citizen) between the ages of 18 and 45 as defined by the Militia Act of 1792) can also have. So, through my research thus far, I have realized that the American people no longer have the luxury of sitting tacitly by as our government twists our rights into indecipherable knots. With every right that is taken away, a new threat to the freedom and liberty of this country rises.
Research Update
So far, my research has gone pretty well. I don't think I have as many sources as some people do already, but several of the sources I've found are extremely promising. For those of you who don't know my topic, my slightly revised research question is "what were the original intentions of the second amendment, and have we gotten away from what the Framers envisioned for that right?"Primary sources such as The Federalist Papers and the Militia Act of 1792 have been the most helpful so far, clearly and blatantly stating the intentions of Framers such as John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. One issue I have run into is finding reliable secondary sources. Because my topic is one of such controversy (though from reading documents like The Federalist Papers it probably shouldn't even be in question), almost every secondary source is bias. People on this issue seem to be on one side or the other, with no in-between. To combat this issue, I am considering using sources that contradict my opinion to display how we as a nation have strayed from the path laid out for us, therefore answering the second half of my research question.
One source I found is a list of quotes from people such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. It has citations for most of the quotations, but lacks any specific credentials for itself. I was disappointed by this last fact, for the actual information on the site is valuable. I'm thinking the best way to use sources like this is to use them as leads. I went ahead and cited it in my bibliography, making note that it was not considered a reliable source, but I won't be citing it in my paper. I have run across several sites such as this, and while it is frustrating to not be able to directly use the information, they could turn out to be useful in the end. Surprisingly, the databases have not been particularly helpful, giving me only a few relevant documents that often are just repetitions of each other. So far, the internet has been more helpful, presenting me with leads and sources both. As a whole, my research on the second amendment and the rights it gives to the American people, who, as James Madison said, hold the advantage of being armed over the citizens of countries whose leadership does not entrust them with the means to defend themselves, is going well.
One source I found is a list of quotes from people such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. It has citations for most of the quotations, but lacks any specific credentials for itself. I was disappointed by this last fact, for the actual information on the site is valuable. I'm thinking the best way to use sources like this is to use them as leads. I went ahead and cited it in my bibliography, making note that it was not considered a reliable source, but I won't be citing it in my paper. I have run across several sites such as this, and while it is frustrating to not be able to directly use the information, they could turn out to be useful in the end. Surprisingly, the databases have not been particularly helpful, giving me only a few relevant documents that often are just repetitions of each other. So far, the internet has been more helpful, presenting me with leads and sources both. As a whole, my research on the second amendment and the rights it gives to the American people, who, as James Madison said, hold the advantage of being armed over the citizens of countries whose leadership does not entrust them with the means to defend themselves, is going well.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Reading Response 1
This week I read the latest addition of the Matched trilogy, Reached. It continues off the story with what seems to be a few weeks between the last chapters of the other books and the first of this one. It flips back and forth between three characters, spending a chapter at a time on the thoughts, actions, and challenges of each one, even when they are reunited.
While Reached follows the same plot, the main conflict of the other two books is shifted slightly to encompass a plague that has brought the Society to its knees. The challenge for main characters Cassia, Xander, and Ky is to find the elusive cure to the mutated virus.
One thing that author Ally Condie does extremely well is set up the talents and relationships of the characters to balance each other. Cassia is smart, logical, determined, and, generally, a good girl. Ky is quiet and mysterious, but kind and devoted. He expects nothing because of his obstacle riddled past. Xander loves people, and his talents lead him into a medical field, where he helps to work out a cure. The three have their differences and their issues, but in the end they seem to make up the perfect team of protagonists.
So for reading times:
Reached by Ally Condie: 1/6- 45min. 1/7- 15min. 1/8- 10min. 1.9-20min. 1/12- 1hr. 1/13- 30min. 0%-70% (on kindle)
Total: 3hrs. 70%
While Reached follows the same plot, the main conflict of the other two books is shifted slightly to encompass a plague that has brought the Society to its knees. The challenge for main characters Cassia, Xander, and Ky is to find the elusive cure to the mutated virus.
One thing that author Ally Condie does extremely well is set up the talents and relationships of the characters to balance each other. Cassia is smart, logical, determined, and, generally, a good girl. Ky is quiet and mysterious, but kind and devoted. He expects nothing because of his obstacle riddled past. Xander loves people, and his talents lead him into a medical field, where he helps to work out a cure. The three have their differences and their issues, but in the end they seem to make up the perfect team of protagonists.
So for reading times:
Reached by Ally Condie: 1/6- 45min. 1/7- 15min. 1/8- 10min. 1.9-20min. 1/12- 1hr. 1/13- 30min. 0%-70% (on kindle)
Total: 3hrs. 70%
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Free Post
The game of the season. Number 11 vs. Number 10. University Lab High School vs. Episcopal High School. Two teams, each undefeated in district play and on a roll. We, the significant underdog, look at this game as a test of everything we have worked for this season. Can we pull the upset? I certainly believe we can.
While people point fingers at scores like 87-20 in favor of U-High, I turn the attention to the psychology of the situation. We have every advantage. We are defending our home court. We have the memory of last year's wins. We have overcome every obstacle. We have the preparation and the information. They, they are angry, but cocky. They have that little voice telling them we shouldn't have won last year, but we did. It should be a dogfight.
This game means the world to both teams. Our key will be defense. If we can score our average, and keep them contained, we can definitely pull it out. It might not be pretty- probably won't be. But I guarantee you, it will be a game played with passion and emotion and pride. Varsity basketball at its finest.
While people point fingers at scores like 87-20 in favor of U-High, I turn the attention to the psychology of the situation. We have every advantage. We are defending our home court. We have the memory of last year's wins. We have overcome every obstacle. We have the preparation and the information. They, they are angry, but cocky. They have that little voice telling them we shouldn't have won last year, but we did. It should be a dogfight.
This game means the world to both teams. Our key will be defense. If we can score our average, and keep them contained, we can definitely pull it out. It might not be pretty- probably won't be. But I guarantee you, it will be a game played with passion and emotion and pride. Varsity basketball at its finest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)