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.
#59, Les, I just like to have them around. I use them in a pea shooter for target practice sometimes. Sometimes I hunt flies. I just like the comfort in knowing that if i need one (although the possibility is remote) I’ll have one right away. Tough that it has wrecked thousands and thousands of families over the years down there.
#61,
I care about everyone (except criminals). I dont like it when the good peoples right to protect themselves from criminals is removed by good meaning people who dont understand that there are bad people who will use any tool at their disposal to hurt others.
I think that means that my tomato analogy struck a chord with you.
63
You are making the assumption that your gov would let you have that many. By the sounds of it, you would only be allowed one and while not in use keep it locked away in its basic elemental forms.
Frank, That’s lamest excuse of all. it’s like punishing a 8 year old by taking away the matches. Some may be responsible enough, but some would be careless. The neighbours next door who’s mother got burned alive when she slept think you’re an ass for letting your kids play with matches.
#63,
If someone saw one of these pills, would they know that it was dangerous? If someone a gun, would they know that it was dangerous?
We dont allow toy guns in my house. The kids know if they see a gun in our house, its a real gun.
If someone saw these pills on your coffee table, might they think it was a tic-tac? There could be some liability there….
Your tomato analogy was idiotic… at best.
#68,
I will accept that as high praise from a lefty. 🙂
mwinsown, I’m making no assumptions at all. It’s an analogy. if you can own 300 bullets I can own 300 pills. Answer the real question here. Would you care that Canada allowed such a thing, and that those pills found their way into the USA where they were used almost exclusively for crime? What if a cousin or friend were accidently murdered with one? Oops.
I note that once again, JimR resorts to using children in his analogy.
And how can someone be “accidentally murdered”?
70
Of course I would be upset. But at Canada? At it’s People? Of course not. I would want the guy who is responsible for murdering him.
I am upset at my brother-in-law for ruining my sister’s life by being a heroin addict. I am not upset at the country that allowed its production.
BTW . . . there are no accidental murders. Either someone did it on purpose or they didn’t.
I have 2 AK’s and haven’t killed anyone yet. hmmm.
#70,
I can leagly use 300 bullets for their intended purpose, not so with 300 pills.
Lets see. An uncle killed himself with a gun, your pill would have been neater, but ok, his choice.
Cousins fiance killed by a falling bullet new years eve in New Orleans. They never found out who did it. The person probably doesn’t even know that he/she killed someone.
Shooting a rifle or pistol into the air is idiotic, especialy in a city. That is criminal behaviour, and the perp should be put in prision for a long time.
This doesn’t change my opinion on guns, sorry.
#74,
according to JimR your guns are defective. Immediatly return them to the manufacturer.
JimR –
Your analogy fails, because no one here has called for banning your hypothetical suicide pills, as you have called for banning guns.
#76, I would just point out that your pills ARE different than guns or cars, because they dont appear to be dangerous.
Psst! Don’t look now, but it’s 63 posts later, and not one man jack of the would-be gun banners reading these comments has stepped up and offered a defense of the dain-bramaged DC gun ban.
If only the morans who put this POS law on the books could have their feet held to the fire and be compelled to provide a logical explanation of what the law would accomplish – and be compelled to withdraw it when no rationale for it’s existence can be provided…
Come to think of it, what a fabulously better country we’d live in if EVERY proposed law had to be backed by an objective, logically valid argument, or 86ed. Think about it…
“BTW . . . there are no accidental murders. Either someone did it on purpose or they didn’t.”
Oh man, mwinsown, what universe are You living in. It happens ALL – THE -TIME. That’s why I’m so pissed about it. The little fukers try and take down someone on New Years eve on a crowded street. Guess who got killed? Guess what mother and father, brothers sisters, grandmother and grandfather, and close friends is are this day devastated? I could make a current list that would choke this blog with victims. Google it.
Les, Lucky you that bullet didn’t fall on the person you most love.
#5, Les;
…it STILL says the right of the PEOPLE!
And your point is? It also STILL says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
Or is there a hidden, secret clause that says we should ignore the first part?
#7, DaveW;
If the first part doesn’t matter, then why is it there?
The writers specifically went out of their way to add “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”, so why can you just arbitrarily decide it doesn’t matter? If the authors had intended it to be as simple as “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” why didn’t they just write it that way?
Did you miss the comments which spelled out what “well-regulated militia” meant in the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written?
Hint: It DOESN’T mean “State National Guards administered by pointy-headed bureaucrats”.
#16, Uncle Ben;
Actually, you can walk around Omaha with a non-concealed AK-47. Perfectly legal, as long as the gun is legal. And I believe AK-47s are legal now.
It’s called an “open carry” law.
natefrog,
Yes, the first part explains WHY they PEOPLE have the RIGHT. It doesn’t give the right to someone else.
Frank, if you were in fact the recipient of such insanity as death pills from Canada, you wouldn’t be happy about the stupidity of our government to allow such a thing. No sane person would. The US government would be all over the Canadian government because they are bigger and they can. Canada, being the skinny weakling by comparison, just has to take your selfish and unnecessary “right” and live with the fallout. And that’s the fact Jack.
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
– Homicide – Suicide – Inintentional
USA – 4.08 (1999) – 6.08 (1999) – 0.42 (1999)
England/Wales – 0.12 (1999/00) – 0.22 (1999) – 0.01 (1999)
Scotland – 0.12 (1999) – 0.27 (1999)-
Enough said.
Well, it is obvious why DC (and gun control advocates) pleaded for the US Supreme Court to take the case. Had the Supreme Court refused, then the lower court’s ruling banning bans on gun ownership would have become the law of the land.
But how can the Supreme Court rule that gun ownership only applies to memebers of a “well regulated militia”? We no longer have militias, so if they rule in favor of this interpretation, then they are essentially saying that the 2nd Ammendment has no validity in present day.
I seriously doubt that the US Supreme Court will rule that our rights under the Constitution come with expiration dates.
#88,
look at total homicide and suicide rates for various countries (not just guns), and you will learn that the tool doesn’t mater. Dead is dead.
Homicide rates for
Washington, DC – 30-80
Montgomery County, Maryland – 2.0
Fairfax County, Virginia – 2.0
‘Nuff said, indeed.
JimR –
Actually the whole scenario that there is some pill that is not yet in existence that will kill people instantly, and that there is no substance, regulated or not, is a very silly scenario to begin with.
Lest we forget the studies showing from 800,000 to 2,500,000 defensive gun uses per year where the good guys stop crimes and save lifes. Do we give those up to try and take guns away from the bad guys?