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.
Let’s try that again…
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 in existance, regulated or not, that is similarly deadly, is a very silly scenario to begin with.
Smith, you need not have expiry dates for your rights. They just need to be updated so that they are pragmatic for present day society.
#95
Yes, freedom of speech is much too dangerous for the common man to have. 200 years ago you could talk to maybe 100 people in a day, with the internet you can “scream fire” to millions of people in a crowded theater.
Rights are “pragmatic”?
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 in existance, regulated or not, that is similarly deadly, is a very silly scenario to begin with.
As I explained in my first post about the pill… there is nothing to the equal of your right to carry arms in Canada, because we have more sense than that. The fictitious pill meets that equal. You wouldn’t like it, you would be offended… and I agree.
But unfortunately it seems that it would be the only way to convince you.
Steve
Really? what other purpose do they serve that doesn’t involve damage or death? Target shooting is damage. JFTR As a matter of fact anytime a gun if fired there is damage. So please tell me for what other purpose where they created
Les
“Perhaps cars are worse then guns?”
You totally missed the point of my post. But I would expect that from someone who defends the 2nd amendment not because it is part of the constitution but simply because their manhood feels better about it.
I support the second amendment. I just think like the first amendment there is responsibility and consiquences. You cant scream fire in a crowded theater.
Yes Frank, pragmatic… rights that deal with issues in a sensible and realistically in a way.
Oops, again…
Yes Frank, pragmatic… rights that deal with issues in a sensible and realistic way.
The gun-control nuts often use phallic imagery when they talk about guns. I think it is actually they who have freudian issues.
I think VX nerve gas would approximate his pill. 10 micrograms is lethal through skin contact, and guess what, we can’t own such a chemical in the US.
Nevertheless, I still think it is a bad comparason because it does not appear dangerous.
#99,
I suppose in the same way that a paper pucnh damages paper, and my car damages the road, yes they do damage everytime used.
J, good posts. Frank, Les, thanks for the sharing of viewpoints. I have to go now, but it was certainly interesting. 😉
And while on the subject of Sigmund Freud
” Freud in his General Introduction to Psychoanalysis that, “a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.””
JimR
Thank you also. Enjoy the weather up there.
#23, Frank IBC;
Actually, most states have open carry laws which allow you to carry in public as long as it is visible.
Same applies to vehicles, generally.
This really throws the logic of the “concealed carry” advocates out the window. If guns deter crime, why weren’t advocates carrying weapons in the first place? Most states allow it, so they must not believe even their own argument!
#108
One of the local police explained this to me. Some guy decides that he is going to open carry. He walks into the grocery store and some customer freaks out and calls the cops. All the cops show up and waste 30 minutes of their time, and the guys time. After this has happened about 5 times, the guy decides that its not really worth the hassle.
There is some question as of the legality of a person with a ccw permit open carrying. The law talks about carrying a gun in a manner meant the threaten. If you can legally carry concealed, is open carry intentionaly threatening?
#108,
also if everyone was open carrying, that would deter crime. If one guy is open carrying, he gets shot when the crime begings. If the bad guy doesn’t know who or how many are carrying, that also deters crime.
#86, Les;
If it was that simple, why did the writers make it so complex?
No, the first part of the 2nd Amendment quantifies the second part. That is how the courts have ruled on the issue, and if anything else was intended, that is how the founding fathers would have written it.
#109/110, Les;
Explain to me how concealed carry is any different? If someone catches a glimpse of another’s gun while that person is grabbing their wallet, adjusting their coat, or whatever; is the outcome any different? Cops are still called and people are still inconvenienced.
Hey, it’s not my fault you gun nuts didn’t assert your rights before hand and guns aren’t common any more so legally carrying people seem like law-breakers.
#99 J – I left it up to you to figure out what they can be used for. My use is purely aesthetic for over half of my collection. I don’t even know how many I have for sure but I collect them to look at. I have a few I fire and BTW I have fired them quite a few times WITHOUT causing damage. Water backstop or steel plates but I am sure that you will nitpick and say it damages the bullet. You got me there.
Some people collect cars just to look at. Me, I like to collect firearms but only modern ones.
#112,
this happens to people, but not if they are doing on good job of concealment.
When someone bumps into mine and gives me a funny look I allways tell them its my colostomy bag. 🙂
That usualy ends the conversation.
Here some quotes from the Federalists
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
* “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
— Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
“The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
— James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
— Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
The reason for the Militia clause in my opinion, is that this was the most importand ammendment, and needed extra clarification so it would never be removed
#112 – natefrog
Concealed carry permits are just that. When you get one, it is very clearly spelled out to you that it is your responsibility to make certain that it stays concealed – and that not doing so can result in your permit being revoked and you may even be, if the circumstances warrant, charged with the crime of ‘reckless display of a firearm’.
The only people who will obey such a law are your average law abiding citizens. Criminals don’t obey laws. I’m sure this will do wonders for DC’s already lucrative underground gun trade. Doubt the law will deter crime in the slightest and instead virtually guarantee the victims are unarmed.
For #90
Lets try this again with the data you requested.
Gun – Homicide – Suicide – Inintentional (per 100,000 inhabitants)
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)-
Homicide Total (per 100,000 inhabitants)
USA – 5.7
England/Wales – 1.45
Scotland – Not Available
Any other myths that you want to throw out there.
Yeh, that 200 year old document doesn’t mean that much any more.
No need to have free speach anymore, someone might be offended by what you say. Much better to have only state approved speach….
Remember that the author of the frist 12, yes, there were 12, ammendments meant them to be a limitation on the powers of the federal government. In using the word “people” in a number of the ammendments and then also using the word “states” it seems fairly obvious what the authors intent was.
I would also note that there was a court ruling in DC that there is no obligation for the police to protect any particular individual. The ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought by a DC resident after the police failed to resond to her 911 call.
81
If someone is firing indiscrimately into a crowd, I would call that premeditated.
95
Yeah, it should read somethng like,
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the _responsibility_ of the People to keep and bear arms, shall be encouraged.”
Steve
Collecting is not the “purpose” for a firearm. Can you collect them? Sure. Just like you can collect coins. But a coins intended purpose is to serve as legal tender. Just as a guns is to damage or kill. the key word is “PURPOSE”
Again, I support the 2nd amendment but just as with the 1st amendment. There are limits. I don’t think you should be able to have a Bazooka or a Nuke. There needs to be a line drawn but where that line ought to be is up for debate.
I think there are allot of people out there that use false arguments as to why they “need” or should be allowed to have any gun they want. They are ignoring the “well regulated” and “security of a free State”, portion of the amendment. I think these same people with their weapons pose a threat to the security of a free state and they express that with their tendency toward imposing their beliefs onto others. No one needs an M16 or AK47 to protect their home or family. And with the state of military technology no M16 or AK47 is going to protect them if this government decides to become a dictatorship.
We have a culture of free speech rooted in the history of our nation. I guess a Supreme Court case reviewing a new Alien and Sedition Act would pit
Those with an iron-clad resolution, a mandate to speak freely vs. Those willing to confront the legal and social complexity of changing part of a culture rooted in the history of this nation.
#118,
sounds like a nice place to live, but lets look at Switzerland with .96 homicides per 100,000 population. Thats 1/3 lower than England / Wales. How do you justify that with your guns = homicide position. Almost every home in Switzerland has a military weapon. Obviously some societal parameter other than the availability of guns is at work here.