The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the District of Columbia’s sweeping ban on handgun ownership violates the Constitution’s fundamental right to “keep and bear arms“…
The justices accepted the case for review, with oral arguments likely next February or March. A ruling could come by late June, smack in the middle of the 2008 presidential election campaign.
At issue is one that has polarized judges and politicians for decades: Do the Second Amendment’s 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right, or do they bestow a collective one — aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias — making it therefore subject to strict government regulation.
It’s easy to post this with a joke. The current Supreme Court will not be remembered for advances in jurisprudence.
Still, the question is essential to a significant portion of our population. Those with an iron-clad resolution, a mandate to keep and bear arms. Those willing to confront the legal and social complexity of changing part of a culture rooted in the history of this nation.
There is no escaping it there is obviously a gun problem in America, more people are murdered by them there than a good chunk of the rest of the western world combined.
Now this is not necessarly because of the presence of guns (see Canada), but obviously something needs to be done. Whether that is the attempted removal of the weapons from the populous or something else, how can anyone say sticking to the current course is the right way to go when so many people loose there lives this way.
Just a rhetorical question…
doesn’t ANYBODY know how to READ!?!
The Amendment states SPECIFICALLY, “the Right of the PEOPLE etc., etc.”.
Notice, NOT the right of the states.
NOT the right of the militia.
NOT the right of the government.
NOT the right of the army, navy, air-force, marines, s.e.a.l.s., etc. etc.
The PEOPLE, plain and simple.
And one thing we REALLY TRULY NEED, right now, is a “government” {cops, national guard, feds., cia, anybody who feels they know how to control your life better than you do} is to be scared shitless of the average person.
Ahh well… if ONLY there was more turn-over of congress/senate critters… remind them they are public servants, not masters…
There is a problem, it’s liberal/communist, letting out their agents of change, what everyone else calls a criminal, with only a third or less of their jail time completed. It’s letting the invasion of illegal immigrants, the trash that couldn’t make it in their own country, sweep over our nation raping and killing as they go, over a third of the inmates are illegals.
It blind gated community liberals/communist that want to disarm those of us that use firearms in self-defense. Guns save far more lives than they ever take. Look at Britain, they banned guns and crime took off like a rocket, same with Australia. But no some feel good blind little coward rabbit liberal wants to disarm the part of society that uses and carries firearms responsibly.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”.
—Benjamin Franklin
#2, Tod;
I won’t listen to any of you gun nuts until you can actually quote the 2nd Amendment properly:
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.
Until you and the NRA can learn there’s more to it than “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” there can be no debate because it indicates your prejudicial stance on the subject.
natefrog,
great, now that you have quoted the entire passage, you will notice that it STILL says the right of the PEOPLE!
Yeah, the severe gun laws in DC are proof positive that this sort of legislation deters crime.
Idiots.
Hey natefrog,
You will also notice that it really doesn’t matter much what the first part says. It could read:
“Roses are red, violets are blue, George Washington has wooden teeth, and the right of the People to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.”
As it stands, the militia is clearly defined elsewhere in the Constitution, and it consists of pretty much all able bodied adult males under 45 years of age. In order to be well regulated, the implication is that they should get out and practice!
And one thing we REALLY TRULY NEED, right now, is a “government” ….to be scared shitless of the average person.
Yeah, I’d prefer that they shoot first and ask questions later, too. But, it isn’t very practical. Thankfully.
….this sort of legislation deters crime.
Actually, it’s supposed to deter rapid death, not crime so much. But if you put yourself in the mind of one of these idiots, having a gun handy makes it a lot easier to commit a holdup.
FWIW, I’m a gun owner and a hunter, and IMO the gun laws need some freekin common sense, instead of the NRA knee-jerk.
Unfortunately we should all know exactly what is going to happen. They will manage to rule on the DC gun ban issue without making a decisive finding about the meaning of the second amendment. This is exactly what happened in 1939 with the Miller ruling. The court said
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
Pro second amendment proponents say “see, we have the right to own military weapons, the court ruled that a sawed off shotgun is not military equipment, and as such is not protected by the second amendment.” Anti second amendment people say that if you are not in the militia (definitions of militia aside), the second amendment does not apply to you.
Look for more of the same.
My opinion is that when the founders talked about the “people” in the first, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments, they were talking about individual rights. Why then in the second would “people” mean something different?
Needless to say, reading the “The Federalist Papers” explains exactly what they meant, all doubt removed.
Yep, the gun laws in DC have certainly made it a Paradise on Earth.
Every day, all over DC, carjackers, murderers, rapists and armed robbers get up and prepare for the day – and slap themselves upside the head, saying, “Dang! Here I wuz, gonna go do some gangsta stuff, but I can’t, cuz on accounta it’s against the LAW to have a gun. Guess I gotta go get me a honest job now.”
• • • • •
Please, PLEASE – I beseech you, someone, anyone – please explain how the DC gun laws have prevented ONE SINGLE CRIME, or saved ONE LIFE – instead of depriving, as they do, innocent, law-abiding citizens of the means to defend themselves from armed predators.
The silence from the knee-jerk liberal gun-banners, you might notice, is deafening. They can’t defend it, they can’t show one positive effect, can’t deny the negative effects – but just like the right-wing Drug Warriors confronted with the total failure of their “War”, they won’t stop clinging to insane partisan sheeple ideology and admit they were, and are, WRONG…
Article 2, section 10 of the US constitution prohibits States keeping armies without the consent of Congress.
That conflicts with the interpretation of the 2ndA that only State Militias are protected.
Akyan, why do you limit the “gun problem” to the Western World? What is the “Western World” anyhow? “Not Mexico”? “Not South America”? Just the wealthier part of the planet? The humanity of different ethnic groups is based on how much money they have?
Is this more of the “soft bigotry of low expectations”?
Why is it that the people most in favor of gun control are also most forgiving of crime committed by the high crime demographic groups and most critical of police (and try to sneak absentee ballots into prisons for criminals to vote)?
Hey, Olo, we’ve had decades of “common sense gun control”. Crime kept going up and gun laws got far beyond what we would have regarded as “common sense” back before 1968.
You being a gun owner means squat. Some of the most ardent gun grabbers own guns, have CCW permits, armed bodyguards, and/or get special treatment from the police.
Ever hear the “Turn them all in, America” quote?
The DC law in question has banned ALL PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of firearms since 1976.
And yet, in many years since that law was passed, the homicide rate of Washington DC has equalled or exceeded that of Colombia or South Africa.
But in adjacent Montgomery County, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia, which have minimal restrictions on guns, the homicide rate equals that of Singapore.
It’s clear to anyone with an ounce of objectivity, that the mere availability of guns does not cause Washington DC’s appallingly high homicide rates.
What does it matter what a 200 year old document says, surely what matters is what the majority of Americans want right now, isnt that what democracy means ?
Perhaps you should have a referendum on the issue, then each side could make its case and then you all vote ?
Hmmmm… I thought it was Dick Cheney that thought the Constution was a mere piece of paper.
Haven’t you ever heard of the Amendment process, BigNoo? It’s been used 27 times in the past 220 years.
The lack of foresight we have in this country today is startling. Where we are heading is illustrated by air travel. Until we figure out WHY we have violence instead of banning guns, shampoo bottles, finger nail clippers, pocket knives, letter openers, toothpaste, and most of all privacy and personal freedom then we are very much heading for living in a police state. I’m sorry to see that; even if I don’t own a hand gun I still like to think that I could if I wanted to and my children will be able to enjoy what’s left of freedom as I knew it.
Every day I gain more and more respect for our Forefathers. Sometimes it is only the words of the Constitution that saves us from the “removal of personal rights and freedom fad of the month” crowd who though their shortsightedness will eventually find a way to hand us all over to the police someday in the name of “save the children” or whatever public safety nonsense. We wouldn’t have gas stoves or water heaters if these idiots were to ban every right that also has risk.
Bignoo, this is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic.
I would like to see a public referendum on the subject, though.
take away our guns? no thanks.
Gawd, some of you are so delusional. Violent crime goes up when guns are available, just as surely as there are more fat people when fast food is available. You don’t need statistics to tell you the obvious. Statistics can be abused by the gun addict self righteous pinheads.
You so called right to bear arms is KILLING Canadians at an alarming rate. ALL the fuking crime guns come over the border, thank you very much. And don’t tell me that they’ll use something else to do their killing. A gun makes it EASY. Try killing someone with a knife at 50 feet.
If guns are ever outlawed in the US, I will be dancing in the street!
Bignoo
That 200 year old document is the basis of our country, yes it matters what is says.
Yes, were are a republic, not a democracy.
Remember, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. Freedom is the armed sheep contesting the vote.
Our worst school violence in this country (45 killed, 58 injured) did not involve any guns.
Guns in the hands of good people decrease violence and crime. Guns in the hands of bad people increase violence and crime. If you ban guns, you only take the guns from law abiding people, the criminals will still have them (war on drugs or prohibition anyone).
Uncle Ben –
Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the USA for seven decades.
It’s illegal to carry a gun openly on public property in most cities.
Most states have restrictions on carrying loaded guns outside of the homes, whether it be in a car, on a person concealed, or on a person openly.
And at any rate, AK47s account for an infintesimally small number of the homicides in the USA.
JimR –
Sorry, but it’s your supposedly civilized fellow Canadians who are killing each other. You need to deal with that first before you start blaming other parties.
And your comparison of guns and fat people is interesting, to say the least.
I am all for people owning guns.
Although, there are provisos. If someone gets shot or killed with your gun YOU!! are responsible. If it is self defense. No problem. If not your ass goes to jail whether or not it is you or someone that stole your gun that does the shooting. With great power comes great responsibility. Also, I don’t believe you should be able to shoot someone because they stole something. It should be reserved for self defense. By “self” I mean self not self and property.
I hate it when people attribute crime with guns. Not all crimes are committed with a gun. Allot are but usually people like Frank IBC in #13 say things like “And yet, in many years since that law was passed, the homicide rate of Washington DC has equalled or exceeded that of Colombia or South Africa.”
This infers that all homicide is gun related. I can think of hundreds of ways people are killed that don’t involve guns. It doesn’t help those of us who support the 2nd amendment to miss quote statistics on crime and guns. The NRA does this all the time and they are wrong to do it.
Whether you support it or not we all have to admit there is a problem and something needs to be done.
I need to dissagree with the statment about fully automatic weapons being illegal. Since the 1930s, the sale of such weapons has been taxed. The transfer tax is $200.00. That was a lot of money in the 1930s, more than the gun cost. Now the $200.00 is a lot less than you will pay for a full auto gun ($2500 – $50000). You fill out a BATF form 4, have you local sheriff sign the form, and send it to the BATF with your fingerprints and $200.00. Several months later, your approved form 4 comes back with a tax stamp attached, then you can go to the dealer and pick up the full auto gun.
If you form a coperation, the corporation can purchuse the gun without a sheriff’s signature.
In 1986, the so called “Firmarm Owners Protection Act” banned the sale of new full auto guns to private individuals, but there are still hundreds of thousands of pre 1986 guns available.
Over the last 70 years, with hundreds of thousands of privatly owned full auto weapons, only one murder has been commited in the US with a leagly privatly owned full auto weapon, and the owner was a police officer.
here is the relevant information from the BATFE
4.1.2 Transfer tax. Transfer of a serviceable NFA firearm is subject to the transfer tax.58 The tax must be paid prior to the transfer. Payment of the tax is submitted with the Application to Transfer and Register a Firearm (ATF Form 4). See Appendix C for a copy of Form 4. ATF will accept payment of the tax from either the transferor or transferee. The tax on the transfer of short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, machineguns, silencers and destructive devices is $200. The transfer tax for firearms classified as “any other weapon” is $5. See the exemptions from tax discussed in Section 4.2.2.
J Said,
if someone steals you car, drives drunk and kills someone, do you go to jail? Its the same thing.
#20. Which is better – an ounce of prevention or a pound of cure?
You may think an ounce of prevention is the removal of guns. The problem is, I see that as the pound of cure. Gun crime is the final result of a greater source of failure and frustration.
I think I’ll stay in my delusional part of the world where there are (and always have been) far more guns than people yet has nearly the lowest crime rate in the country. We don’t even lock cars or houses here. It shocks me to think many people believe that if you leave you car unlocked that it is your fault for it being stolen. That’s insane. If you wear a dress above you ankles or forgot to wear your Burka then you deserve to be raped? That’s insane, too. That line of thinking is all connected.
So, WHY is there so much gun crime where YOU live? Figure that out and you will solve your problem. I challenge you to dig deeper than the headlines or whatever they tell you to think when you watch 60 minutes.
The Soviet Union twice tried to invade the US. Stopping them twice was the realization that everyone in the US was possibly armed and could form fluid citizen militias in a moment’s notice.
I agree with #2 who said: “And one thing we REALLY TRULY NEED, right now, is a “government” … to be scared shitless of the average person.”
J –
I’m not sure what your point is in the 2nd paragraph of #25. Maybe you read my #13 a little too fast? Nowhere did I suggest or imply that the horrendous homicide rate of Washington DC was due to guns alone.
What on earth are you babbling about, #29 Balbas? That’s the craziest thing I’ve heard since… oh well, this morning, at any rate.