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 a process for modifying the constitution and amendments. If the gun grabbers think they have the votes, then go for it. This endrun around the 2nd amendment by going to the courts is just lame. It’s not like this amendment was passed yesterday. It says what it says so either change it or shut up.
My prediction is that the SCOTUS sends this back on a technical legal point that has nothing to do with what people want them to rule on.
This could be the case that makes or breaks the 2nd Amendment, but I doubt it.
And yes, I’m a full fledged RTKBA supporter. I probably should joing both the NRA and the ACLU for my views. 🙂
why stop here? ban all guns/bombs/knives for everyone. Military forces sure kill a lot of people, just imagine how many lives would be saved if they were all unarmed. We would all live in peace and be completely happy with no problems at all…hell we could even sit in a circle and pass around the newly legalized drugs.
Anyway, if the current administration continues on its apparent path to war with Iran they will bankrupt the country…what will stop an invasion? Pissed off angry rednecks with guns.
Please, PLEASE – I beseech you, someone, anyone – please explain how the DC gun laws have prevented ONE SINGLE CRIME, or saved ONE LIFE
It hasn’t, but it make the liberal feel good about themselves. Just another step in the pussification of America. It just a ahead of banning meat, driving gas guzzlers and children’s stories with fire breathing dragons.
Ummm… Eidard, I hate to be a pedant, but your Supreme Court pic is 2 years out of date.
#34,
sure the goverment in Iraq fell quickly, but the militants are doing enough damage to make the people in the US scream for us to give up and go home. “Pissed off angry rednecks with guns” in Iraq are doing quite well.
Frank IBC, “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.
Wrong Frank. If a 5 year old has access to rat poison, you don’t work on just teaching the child that rat poison can kill them. You FIRST remove the FKN rat poison. Being “civilized” is everyones responsibility. The USA is responsible for the guns in our cities. Which brings be to Cheese’s post.
Cheese, “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. …So, WHY is there so much gun crime where YOU live?
Well bully for you Cheese. You happen to live in a middle or upper class low density town with your guns, and you don’t give a shit about anyone else eh? Doesn’t it bother you when a gun is stolen or purchased in your “small town USA” and exported to a Canadian city where there would otherwise be no guns, and that gun kills a mother of 2 who was unfortunate enough to be buying coffee during a drive by shooting?
The guns used here can be, and ARE, traced back to the USA, I hold those who condone their free availability ultimately responsible.
#7 – 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!
So, the right of all able bodied men under 45 shall not be infringed?
—-
Welcome to America’s dumb issue. Guns are not a safeguard against tyranny in the modern age and most pro-gun anecdotes about 75 year old Granny Jones who gunned down 12 gang members trying to rape her granddaughter are either aberrations or just bullshit. On the other hand, reports of 5 year old Timmy killing his mother, dog, and the postman accidentally when he finds daddy’s gun are also overstated.
The gun nut lobby wants to make it seem like we’d all be better off if we all packed heat 24/7 because they are rabid gun fetishists and paranoids.
The anti-gun lobby is under the false impression that stripping away all guns will make us safe and make rainbows appear and butterflies dance because they are all idealists who mistakenly think humans are good.
The truth is that thye vast majority of cops will go a whole career without firing a shot in the line of duty, the vast majority of citizens will go a lifetime without ever being so much as a witness, let alone victim of a violent crime, and over half of the far too many citizens we’ve locked up in prison are non-violent offenders who committed victimless crimes.
So… I support gun ownership because it is the law. When we all change the Constitution, I will support a gun ban because it will be the law. Why? Because guns are not a factor. We are a violent, hateful, paranoid, bunch of pricks… and it isn’t because we have guns. Guns are not the cause or solution to our collective issues. They are just there.
The idiot politicos in D.C. picked a very poor case to appeal to the Supreme Court, by the way. This particular ruling will leave the commie/leftie pansies and their puppeteers crying like babies.
#25 J – “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.”
I know I have trouble reading with these here glasses but were you being serious? Steal someone’s gun (car, knife, baseball bat, hammer …) and kill someone and it’s the owners fault and they go to jail for it.
I’m getting rid of everything I own and becoming a monk. I just hope no one steals my robe and strangles someone with it.
NRA Life Member
CCW Holder
This is my Glock. There are many like it but this one is MINE.
Ok, so I’m out as a gun nut. Like you people couldn’t tell.
JimR,
If a 5 year old has access to rat poison,…
So Canadians are like 5 year olds? Not the ones I have known. The rules are different for toddlers than for adults.
If you have a rat infestation, you tell your teenagers to not eat the rat poison. Then you use the poison to kill the rats.
“A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.” I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms.
— Bruce Tiemann
#39 OFTLO – I agree with the post except for that part about not owning a gun if they make them illegal.
JimR –
Sorry, the supply didn’t just create itself. If there was no demand, there would be no supply. And the demand is from your fellow Canadians.
Again, you need to ask yourself why there is minimal homicide (or any other crime, for that matter) in rural American communities which have minimal restrictions on guns, yet there is more crime in certain areas of Canada (and also in the USA) which have stringent restrictions on guns.
If the mere availability of guns were the only issue, Fairfax County, Virginia would have a homicide rate equal to Colombia, and the District of Columbia would have one equal to Singapore. And yet, it’s just the opposite. And yet you can’t bring yourself to ask yourself why.
#43, Les. no, criminals with guns have the mentality of 5 year olds.
“if someone steals you car, drives drunk and kills someone, do you go to jail? Its the same thing.
No it is not the same thing. The sole purpose of a gun is to cause damage or kill. Not so with a car. People don’t by cars to crash them into people and kill them. People don’t buy cars to defend themselves with lethal force. They are different items in their nature.
All you do by allowing such irresponsibility in ownership of a deadly weapon is give opponents to guns an excuse to prevent ownership in the first place.
Own guns. Own lots of guns if you want. But make sure they never get into the wrong hands if so you should be prepared for the consequences. If you are not then you should not own one.
On another issue There has to be limits. We all know about the “right to bear arms” Well where does that end? Should we all be able to own nukes? They are arms? So where do we draw the line? At a certain point someone owning a powerful weapon is no longer a advantage for “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” and becomes a threat to the security of the free state.
#43, that was awesome! It’s an instant send to all my friends. Thanks!
JimR –
In the United States, we would hold the person using the little pill, to commit murder, guilty.
Apparently your criminal justice system is different in Canada.
Frank, yeah, right. the problem with that is you can’t catch them very easily. The pill could be placed hours, days before. The criminal doesn’t give a shit if they get a child instead, they’ll just try again.
#48 J – You almost had me.
“The sole purpose of a gun is to cause damage or kill.”
Actually that isn’t their only purpose. I’ll leave it up to you to figure out where you went wrong.
There are limits already on what can be sold in the USA. Damned if nuclear weapons made the list of what is limited. It is a Destructive Device (no shit).
My firearms are protected by alarm and safe and numerous animals.
BTW if you sell a firearm (the correct way) it can be traced back to you if it found at a crime scene.
How do you feel about that scenario?
I feel criminals who use that pill should be punished (death penalty). I would never consider crying to Canada about our misuse of their legal product. The end result is the same no matter how someone is killed. Blaming the tool is just a case of not taking responsibility for the actions of a person.
No it is not the same thing. The sole purpose of a gun is to cause damage or kill. Not so with a car.
Perhaps cars are worse then guns? 42636 died in the US from cars in 2005, 29569 died from guns in the US in 2004. Based on these numbers, cars are much more dangerous than guns. The penalty should be worse for cars.
Of the approximatly 3000 rounds of ammo I shot this year, I have not killed or damaged anyone. Are my guns defective? Should I sue the manufacturer? My guns havn’t killed anyone, and you would say thats what they are designed to do, are they defective?
You and others assume that a gun will turn a otherwise normal person into a killer. It just isn’t so. A gun is just a tool, like a car.
You could kill more people faster with a car than with a gun, but since you are familiar with cars, you would never consider this.
So what exactly are YOU going to do, Jim? Have the police bust into the homes of suicidal Canadians and make sure that they aren’t leaving their suicide pills out on the coffee table?
Les #43, a tomato is no more equal to a gun than a toy ball is to a book of matches. When you understand that, you’ll understand the problem with guns.
Jim R,
Yeah, we had that problem with people putting cyanide in tylenol bottles about 30 years ago. Guess who was caught and punished? Tylenol? No. The cyanide manufacturer? No. The stores that sold the pills? No. The CRIMINAL!
#38
If you are truly comparing your criminal class to five year olds, then perhaps you start to consider them grown adults and treat them as such.
Five year olds don’t know better.
Adults should.
39
> Guns are not a safeguard against tyranny in
> the modern age
I beg to differ. One well-placed shot can change a person’s whole outlook on life. Change the right person’s outlook . . .
48
> We all know about the “right to bear arms”
> Well where does that end? Should we all be
> able to own nukes?
No. It is clearly stated somewhere (I truly forget) that “arms” are something that can be carried without support. That does leave the suitcase nuke on shady ground, I agree.
Jim #55.
So you are saying how you “feel” about guns changes what the second ammendment says?
Like I said Frank, in that scenario I am going to do NOTHING. Too bad for you. I will enjoy the freedom of having the ability at hand whenever I choose, to kill someone at a distance with little chance of being caught. Of course I won’t use that ability illegally. Like Les, I have 300 pills lying around, but I never hurt anyone with them. If you Americans get killed and the crooks get away with it because of my desire to have death pills, too bad.
#59,
just a dumb question, but why would anyone ever be sold more than one of those pills? If used correctly, no one could ever use more than one.
Les, do you care about anyone else but yourself? I wouldn’t give a shit what the second amendment said, if it were about tomatoes.
Jim –
You’re the one who doesn’t care about anyone but yourself.
You would rather punish the innocent rather than the guilty.