RE: The 2nd Amendment

RE: The 2nd Amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MadRabbit -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 7:36:16 PM)
-FR- As usual, I am down the middle on this one. I mostly swing to the conservative side and fully support the 2nd amendment and believe people should be allowed to possess and own firearms, but I don't agree that a literal and absolute approach is best. When the Constitution was written, there was a huge variance in their firearms and the firearms that are available today. There is plenty of guns that practically serve the purpose of hunting and self defense, but I don't believe that there is any practical reason for a civilian to own an anti-tank rifle.

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 7:42:49 PM)
Mike - no offence intended, but I did clean up a bit of the punctuation and spacing of your original in my quotes, to make it a bit easier for me to read. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u When the hammer smashes my finger, I will simply put ice on it,and all will be well. IMO, if one trumpets his right to own Guns, why can I not assert my right to be safe from those guns? Whether they are easy or difficult to steal will not comfort the greiving family of a victim. You can assert your right to be safe from those guns - by not doing something which Necessitates the gunowner's use of his/her weapon, and by taking part in assuring the neighborhood where you live/work/play is a low crime area. All of which go a long way towards Not becoming a victim of things such as random drive by shootings with stolen weapons in the hands of gang members, drug dealers, etc. We who are responcible owners take every Reasonable precaution to keep them from being stolen, etc. Do you propose to hold Non criminals responcible for the actions of criminals? As long as I, as a gun owner, show due responcibility with my weapons, and take all Reasonable precautions to keep the same out of the hands of criminals, I need feel neither guilt nor responcibility towards a "family of a victim" of some crime. While I can empathize with their grief in loosing a loved one, that empathy of grief does not equate to me in any way feeling guilt or responcibliity for someone else's poor actions. quote: Gun ownership is a right, an inalienable right, as enumerated in the Constitution. Is it too much to ask that the right is attended with responsibility and jealous protection of others' right to life? Would the technology be available now if it wern't for the opposition of the gun lobby in the first place? Surely there is a middle ground where Your rights to ownership remain and the rest of society is made a little safer. (anyone else notice I made a paragraph) What would you personally propose as Reasonable Responcibility, Mike? Registration? Already legally required. Obviously not a deterant when faced with those who already intend to break the law, such as gang members and drug dealers - they'll simply buy off the black market like they already do. Carry permits? Also already required. Hmmm... while I don't have any Evidence, I'd be strongly willing to make a Huge bet that those of a criminal mind could really give a flyin fuck about whether it's Legal for them to carry the weapon in their possession. Things such as Home Safes that have combination locks/keys but no glass? Not a requirement, but owned by many avid gun owners (myself included) - they are, however, extremely Expensive. Making such a legal requirement for gun ownership would effectively place class/social status limits on who could exercise that Inalienable Right. Are you willing to see only the wealthy able to exercise that right? I'm betting that such would raise a Different hue and cry, this time that the law wasn't "fair" to minorities or the financially disadvantaged - shades of the old property laws concerning voting. Safety courses? Required for the issue of such things as Carry Permits, and in many states also required for the issue of things like Hunting Licences. Do you honestly think that's going to deter someone who is already intent on breaking the law and committing murder? Since the Carry Permits don't stop them, and legally required Registration doesn't stop them - required safety courses aren't going to stop them Either. Would the technology for "smart" guns be available if not for the gun lobby? There's no way to know for certain, but my guess is the answer is No - it would still not be feasible, and for the same reasons that requiring the purchase of a gunsafe isn't feasible. Such technology - in the form of palm scanners, etc - is available in limited form, but it is prohibitively expensive and still in the very early stages, relatively speaking.

Alumbrado -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 7:48:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight I find it amazing that the fault stated for the school massacres was the 2nd amendment to some, not the lunatic pulling the trigger. Had there been access at Viginia Tech to weapons by the other students, that Psycho might have been dropped in a speedy manner. Columbine was committed by 2 wackos who had illegal weapons. Those kids were not even old enough to legally own the guns they used. Not the fault of the 2nd Amendment but of the parents. The Jonesboro school shooting gets brought up often by those supporting gun control. The little dirtball stole the guns by breaking and entering. Then he committed a sniper style attack on unarmed teachers and kids. Had the people under fire at any of these three events been able to return fire, things would most likely have been different. It would be like trying to rob a donut shop full of cops. BAD idea (but it was hilarious when done in the movies). Hot button debates thrive on hot buttons and 'schoolyard shootings' are powerfully hot, because who wouldn't be swayed by the thought of innocent children being torn to shreds in a hail of lunatic spewed bullets? That makes them irresistible for buttressing appeals to emotion. The horror of the concept produces an impact many times proportional to any objective quantitative measurement of such incidents... Numerically, the times that a child has taken a gun to school and killed another child, much less massacred multiple people, has been so low, that in reports per 100,000 children, the count was recorded for years as zero, because it was such a low percent of even 1 percent. With the numbers dropping even closer to a real zero, Bill Clinton declared an 'epidemic' of schoolyard killings, and held an emergency summit to 'do something about the children'...the media promptly recycled every possible actual occurence into a mind numbing stream of agit prop, dredged up spun numbers that included at one point 24 year old soldiers dying in African rebel armies as 'child gun deaths', and manufactured a crisis out of an infinitesimal number of horrific tragedies. 'If it bleeds, it leads... if it doesn't bleed, squirt ketchup on it'... So after enough 'concern for the children', the actual numbers started rising... suicides inspired by media attention to go out in a blaze of glory, and copycats that wouldn't have gotten their 15 minutes were it not for a cold blooded agenda of disinformation. Throw into that mix (in a world that is never so black and white as people would like), ignorant yahoos who let their kids play with loaded guns, like the one near Tallahassee who set a loaded black powder rifle out for a yard sale and when it didn't sell, let his young child take it next door to play..with predictably tragic results. Or some sellers of weapons who see getting firearms into as many hands as possible as their duty to defy government oppression.... And the not insignificant amount of gun crime... And the discourse over what is a reasonable means of keeping both the letter and the intent of the 2nd amendment intact, while protecting as much of society as possible from its abuses, is quickly skewed into polar extremes... Which in my opinion, is the worst way to address problems.... but it seems to be exactly the way some people like it.

MmeGigs -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 8:09:07 PM)
I want to start by saying that I am not anti-gun. I enjoy target shooting, have no problem with hunting (if I liked the taste of game meat I'd be a hunter), and have no issue with people who have a demonstrable need for a gun getting a permit to carry one. My sister worked as a baker and had to go to a crappy, scary part of a big city in the middle of the night, so I completely understood her getting a permit and a gun. However, since guns are lethal devices, society has a legitimate interest in keeping an eye on who has them and how they're used. quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I'm surprised. My understanding was that the 2dn amendment clearly was set up so that individuals could protect themselves from government power. Nope. It was set up so that states could protect themselves and their citizens from federal government run amok. There is no individual right to gun ownership laid out in the second amendment. The 2nd Amendment specifically says "a well regulated militia" and "the people", not "individual citizens". quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven My interpretation is that the amendment protects the populace in ways that guns were used for back then. Why? If we were to interpret the Constitution according to the realities of "back then", the only folks with rights under it would be white men. The Constitution is an amazing document specifically crafted to adjust to the realities of life as it is lived in any age. The framers and negotiators were wise folks who understood that times change and that a Constitution narrowly written to address only the immediate challenges of society as they knew it wouldn't stand the test of time. quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven 2. As a means of livelihood. Back then, guns were used to supply the larder. My interpretation thus is that the government should not infringe upon someone's right to provide for themselves. This is probably the weakest argument for gun ownership there is. Back then people may have relied on their guns for sustenance. Today, hunting is a hobby. Exceedingly few people - only those in remote areas of the country far away from urban centers where guns are a real problem - rely on hunting for sustenance. The guns used for hunting aren't handguns or semi-automatic weapons. It's entirely possible to allow people to own hunting guns without allowing people to carry concealed handguns or to own semi-automatic weapons.

Alumbrado -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 8:16:23 PM)
Why do you think that repeating those thoroughly debunked myths will suddenly make them true, or add anything to solving problems?

Kirata -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 8:25:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u if one trumpets his right to own Guns ,why can I not assert my right to be safe from those guns While circumstances at the time doubtless focused concern on the maintenance of a free state against outside invaders, in my opinion that is merely a historical detail. If you can't take a walk in your city's park at night or send your daughter to the corner store after dark without exposure to probable harm or death, you're living in a war zone not a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is predicated on maintaining their free state, both individually and collectively. So in my view, the Second Amendment is about everybody's right to life and safety, and nobody should have to give up the means to protect theirs effectively so that you can feel secure in yours. Most likely you are alive today only because somewhere back among your generations, whether in his own hands or someone else's, a firearm saved the ass of one of your progenitors. Your mom pushed you out of that snug warm world you're dreaming of a long time ago. Learn to live with it. K.

slvemike4u -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 8:37:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou I am not making a comparison between the Soviets and the U.S. military. We actually care if we kill civilians. The Soviets didn't care. The point I was making is that armed civilians can resist modern militaries that use ruthless tactics. Technology is great and it gives you an edge over those that have less. But, technology does not give us omnipotent power over people. Out matched people have prevailed throughout history, and it's the fool that presumes technology will make him all powerful. Mike, since you seem to find the 70s/80s Soviet-Afgan conflict to be an ill conceived example, how about we use one from Our Own History - say.. oh... Viet Nam? In case you hadn't noticed, we LOST. We were better equipped, better trained, Thought (albeit mistakenly) we had a moral high ground - and yet, in the end, we got our asses kicked by a supposedly inferior force without much centralized leadership, and lacking any sort of significant technological advantage. As for your assertion that an "informed electorate" is a better choice than an armed citizenry - we've Had that. It obviously hasn't stopped the governmental excesses so far. I see no reason to believe (or even assume) that such is going to change. Just as an FYI - as far as I'm concerned, Gun Control is a 5 inch group at 500 yards using a rifle with a good scope - or a .5 inch group at 50 yards - either one takes some Serious Control. Yes I'm a gun owner. Yes, I have a concealed carry permit (which no doubt seriously scares the hell out of a few people!) - though if you were ever to meet me, you'd never know whether I was armed or not. The whole point in Concealed carry is just that - it's concealed, hidden - the only one who knows for certain it's there is ME unless something arrises that I have no other choice but to use it. Thing is - since I've had that concealed carry permit, the people who know me that gave me grief in the past have Stopped doing so, simply because they Aren't sure whether I'm packin or not! It may sound Cliched, but it's also true - an Armed society is a Polite society. Peach no disrespect but Your analogy misses the target completely,no 5in.group here.Vietnam was not lost solely due to the actions of the Viet Cong.If it were ,there might be a tenuous link here,we were fighting an actual Nation State .With the resources of a Nation state ,not simply an armed populace(not even going to bring up the opposition at home ,which constituted a political front)a regular Army in addition to the Viet Cong caused a Political Solution to the war,a negotiated peace that recognised the legitamacy and soverniegnty of South Vietnam...how is that a LOSS... A lack of political will to reenter the conflict and a failure to live up to our obligations as laid out in the Paris Accords led to the downfall of Saigon ,not the defeat of the U.S. forces by a rag tag fighting force...The U.S army did not lose one engagement with the viet cong or the NVA.We failed to win the hearts and minds....we did not fail on the field of strife ...we failed in the battle of ideas and the political will to prosecute the war to it's fullest..

CraZYWiLLiE -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 8:51:35 PM)
Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.

MissSCD -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 8:51:58 PM)
This is how I see this problem. First of all I am all for the origional second ammendment where we have the right to bear arms; however, I don't think our ancestors where speaking of assualt weapons. I think they were simply meaning that we had the right to defend ourselves. I reread the Brady law, and have to agree with the amendments added such as back ground checks when you purchase a weapon. I also think when one purchases a weapon, they should learn how to use it properly and become certifided in gun safety. *Too much violence is too much. We need change.* *I hope this amendment is forth coming.* *Regards, MissSCD* quote: ORIGINAL: pinkieplum quote: 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. U.S. Constit., 2nd Amendment. quote: In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.3839 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state4243 or private4647 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ The homepage of the National Rifle Association is here: http://www.nra.org/home.aspx The homepage of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is here: http://www.bradycampaign.org/ Both sites have information on relevant judical decisions and legislative initiatives. What do you think the U.S. Constitution permits -- or prohibits -- in the mileu of the 2nd Amendment? What -- if any -- legislative initiatves should be passed? The purpose of the Op is to elicit a discussion of on the 2nd Amendment and the legislation affected by it. It is not the purpose of the Op to inspire members' to post their own personal POVs on gun control and related issues. pinkieplum

slvemike4u -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 8:53:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CraZYWiLLiE Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6. Your ability to a reduce,what to many is a complex issue,to a bumpersticker qualifys You for work at the White House

CraZYWiLLiE -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 9:10:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: CraZYWiLLiE Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6. Your ability to a reduce,what to many is a complex issue,to a bumpersticker qualifys You for work at the White House I would start with no income tax, no sales tax, and nuke a few oil fields. Sometimes minimal words sums it up. Without the use of arms, we would live in a communist country, where only certain individuals have weapons, and civilians are unarmed. Hence the saying an armed society is a polite society.

slvemike4u -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 9:40:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CraZYWiLLiE quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: CraZYWiLLiE Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6. Your ability to a reduce,what to many is a complex issue,to a bumpersticker qualifys You for work at the White House I would start with no income tax, no sales tax, and nuke a few oil fields. Sometimes minimal words sums it up. Without the use of arms, we would live in a communist country, where only certain individuals have weapons, and civilians are unarmed. Hence the saying an armed society is a polite society. So Your asserting the only thing stopping us from following the Communist Path( one being rejected the from one end of the world to the other)is the armed populace of the United States.Take away the 2nd amendment and all else will be rejected to travel the one true path of the International Communist Party(Comintern? do they even exist anymore)Somehow I'm hoping it all comes down to more than simply Your firearms

slaveboyforyou -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 10:34:34 PM)
quote: I want to start by saying that I am not anti-gun. I enjoy target shooting, have no problem with hunting (if I liked the taste of game meat I'd be a hunter), and have no issue with people who have a demonstrable need for a gun getting a permit to carry one. My sister worked as a baker and had to go to a crappy, scary part of a big city in the middle of the night, so I completely understood her getting a permit and a gun. However, since guns are lethal devices, society has a legitimate interest in keeping an eye on who has them and how they're used. I have a permit to own a gun; it's the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. I don't need to demonstrate my need for it. I have and always will refuse to get a permit to carry a firearm. I have a right to carry one, and I will argue that until the day I die. Concealed carry permits are bullshit, and I won't participate in bullshit laws. I will add that I am qualified to get a concealed carry permit in my state. I am not a convicted felon, a nut, or a drug addict. But I won't do it. I have a friend that is a police officer and he's tried to talk me into going through the training course. I refuse to let the government treat me like an infant. I don't care if I get picked up on a misdemeanor weapons charge. I have the right to carry a gun, and I will not pay the government money for that right. I wish people would have some backbone and understand they don't have to let the government baby them through life. Fuck the government and fuck their permits. Guns are lethal devices? So are knives, axes, matches, gasoline, alcohol, etc, etc. I guess we should all have to get permits before we go buy a box of matches, huh? quote: Nope. It was set up so that states could protect themselves and their citizens from federal government run amok. There is no individual right to gun ownership laid out in the second amendment. The 2nd Amendment specifically says "a well regulated militia" and "the people", not "individual citizens Who are the "People" if they're not individual citizens? The 2nd Amendment most certainly gives individuals the right to own weapons. The fact that the Federal government didn't proceed to round up all the firearms after the Constitution was written verifies that. As I said before, a militia in 1787 was the "people." Well regulated did not mean well legislated.

slvemike4u -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/25/2008 10:43:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: I want to start by saying that I am not anti-gun. I enjoy target shooting, have no problem with hunting (if I liked the taste of game meat I'd be a hunter), and have no issue with people who have a demonstrable need for a gun getting a permit to carry one. My sister worked as a baker and had to go to a crappy, scary part of a big city in the middle of the night, so I completely understood her getting a permit and a gun. However, since guns are lethal devices, society has a legitimate interest in keeping an eye on who has them and how they're used. I have a permit to own a gun; it's the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. I don't need to demonstrate my need for it. I have and always will refuse to get a permit to carry a firearm. I have a right to carry one, and I will argue that until the day I die. Concealed carry permits are bullshit, and I won't participate in bullshit laws. Guns are lethal devices? So are knives, axes, matches, gasoline, alcohol, etc, etc. I guess we should all have to get permits before we go buy a box of matches, huh? quote: Nope. It was set up so that states could protect themselves and their citizens from federal government run amok. There is no individual right to gun ownership laid out in the second amendment. The 2nd Amendment specifically says "a well regulated militia" and "the people", not "individual citizens Who are the "People" if they're not individual citizens? The 2nd Amendment most certainly gives individuals the right to own weapons. The fact that the Federal government didn't proceed to round up all the firearms after the Constitution was written verifies that. As I said before, a militia in 1787 was the "people." Well regulated did not mean well legislated. The fact that the Federal Government did not disarm an agrarian society after the Constitution verifies nothing as an absolute,all it speaks to is the reality of their times...Jefferson claimed all laws should have a shelf life of 19 years anything longer is oppression of the new generation.Shall we take him at his word and tear up the Document every 19 years and start over..or since life spans are longer now we could stretch it to 40 or 50 years

MadRabbit -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/26/2008 12:13:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CraZYWiLLiE quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: CraZYWiLLiE Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6. Your ability to a reduce,what to many is a complex issue,to a bumpersticker qualifys You for work at the White House I would start with no income tax, no sales tax, and nuke a few oil fields. Sometimes minimal words sums it up. Without the use of arms, we would live in a communist country, where only certain individuals have weapons, and civilians are unarmed. Hence the saying an armed society is a polite society. Well, an armed society certainly isn't an educated society, but hey...I guess if you have a lot of guns, who really gives a fuck if you know the definition of communism or not?

DomAviator -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/26/2008 2:58:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit When the Constitution was written, there was a huge variance in their firearms and the firearms that are available today. There is plenty of guns that practically serve the purpose of hunting and self defense, but I don't believe that there is any practical reason for a civilian to own an anti-tank rifle. Yeah my now-ex wife said the same thing about my legally owned MP-5, M-16, and M-60, then Hurricane Katrina hit. We now have the functional equivalant of 200,000 rouge Somali pirates in Houston. When, not if but when, a storm comes ashore in the Houston area they arent going to take my preparedness supplies, or loot my house, or harm anyone in it.... In fact, they are going to have a hell of a time advacing onto this block because I am not the only Class 3 gun owner here, and every neigbor I have owns conventional firearms. Remember, the only threat to civilization and the order of society isnt that which comes from abroad. Civil disorder is a real threat and we saw it during the LA Riots, Hurricane Katrina etc. That shit wont fly here! The enemy isnt going to invade in an amphibious landing - its already here in the form of street gangs, thugs, and racial tensions that need only a tiny spark to erupt into a conflagration. Two very simple examples - When Obama is soundly thumped in November, suppose Wright, Sharpton, Quanell X , Farrakhan et al start saying he was robbed of the election because he was black , blah blah blah, yada yada yada... and widespread rioting breaks out? Dont laugh it could happen - look at the riots the erupted in LA after some cops tuned up Rodney King, a little wise ass felon punk who failed to stop during a pursuit... Scenario # 2, suppose we actually start enforcing immigration laws as everyone is demanding - do you think the illegal aliens will go quietly and say "Si Senor, I go home now. Muchos Gracias" I mean really do you think MS-13, The Mexican Mafia, the Padana Homies, Los Meurtos, etc are going to leave quietly if immigration laws are enforced? Either situation creates the immediate potential fo widespread civil disorder. That would leave the police undergunned and outnumbered leaving it up to the individual citizens, ie the militia, to surpress the insurrection and restore order. The anti-gun people can try to get the rioters to hold hands and sing We Are The World, b ut my house aint gonna burn and my Plasma TV is staying right where it is because the Phillistines arent making it across my front lawn alive... Thats the "militia"...

jlf1961 -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/26/2008 3:54:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Well, an armed society certainly isn't an educated society, but hey...I guess if you have a lot of guns, who really gives a fuck if you know the definition of communism or not? As I said before, why stop at guns, history has shown us what can be done with an ax (lizzie borded) a knife (jack the ripper,) a bow (look at any plains indian) and of course fertilizer and diesel fuel. But then you would also need to ban charcol, any compound with sulfer and of course all nitrates. Gasoline would have to be banned, malatov coctails, as well as any alcohol compound. You see, any person with an average knowledge of chemistry can easily turn household items into explosives. So, just ban everything.

TahoeSadist -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/26/2008 6:32:40 AM)
quote: Nope. It was set up so that states could protect themselves and their citizens from federal government run amok. There is no individual right to gun ownership laid out in the second amendment. The 2nd Amendment specifically says "a well regulated militia" and "the people", not "individual citizens". To hold this belief, one has to have several misconceptions as well as faulty logic, so we'll start with logic, since the misconceptions have been laid out clearly already, and just as clearly ignored. To believe that the "people" in the 2nd Ammendment does not actually mean "the people", either you believe that there are NO individual rights recognized, by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Ammendments which all refer to rights of the people or person, or in an even more warped twist of logic, believe that the "People" mentioned in the1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th apply to the "People", but that the "People" in the 2nd only applies to the state (or as some like to say even, the National Guard which opens up a whole other level of butchered logic and thinking, since the 2nd was written in the 1780's and the NG was founded in 1903) TS

kittinSol -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/26/2008 6:52:58 AM)
Fast reply - it's fascinating to read all the experts' expressing their views on the thread. Today, the Supreme Court is voting on this very issue (DC vs. Heller) : "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns." "Statement of the case: This petition seeks review of an extraordinary decision by a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit that the District of Columbia's longstanding law banning handguns but authorizing private possession of rifles and shotguns violates the Second Amendment. This is the first time in the Nation's history that a federal appellate court has invoked the Second Amendment to strike down any gun-control law. Absent review by this Court, the District of Columbia - a densely populated urban locality were the violence caused by handguns is well-documented- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives. This Court's intervention is required because the court below avowedly created a split with nine other federal courts of appeals and the highest local court of the District of Columbia over the central meaning of the Second Amendment. These other courts have held, contrary to the decision below, that the Amendment does not protect a right to own a gun for purely private uses." http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/07-290_pet.pdf We'll see what they say today :-) .

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: The 2nd Amendment (6/26/2008 7:29:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 You see, any person with an average knowledge of chemistry can easily turn household items into explosives. So, just ban everything. Let's not forget the combination of Ammonia (a common cleaning solution) and Iodine to form a rather nastily unstable form of ersatz dinamite. (Ever read Farnham's Freehold?) With the proper application and training, anything can be turned into, and used as, a weapon. (And I'm actually looking forward to seeing how the USSC responds to the case, kittin - it'll give a clear indication one way or another as to whether the partisan politics that placed our various supreme court judges paid off for the folks that put them there... or if they take the responcibilities inherant in the position with some seriousness.)

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875