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.
Les
“Obviously some societal parameter other than the availability of guns is at work here.”
Absolutely! We live in a culture of fear. Why else would certain people feel they need guns to protect themselves. Guns are not the problem but they are also not the solution!
Sometimes fear is appropriate. If we all lived in Myaberry, no one would need to be afraid or armed.
The second amendment is quite clear that our government wanted us to be armed in case our leaders got a little out of control.
I don’t really care what they rule, I’ll still own my guns and I believe there is a saying about “cold dead hands” that would go here. If you asked me to rank the amendments in the constitution by importance, the right to bear arms would be a solid 1 because without it the others have no meaning as they can be stripped away with no threat.
The amount of idiocy that surfaces in gun debates hurts my brain. Some of the things you people have said here are among the dumbest things I have ever read.
Like someone else said, if you want guns banned the ONLY way is to do it the way the constitution allows, with an amendment. If you let courts take away this right then what would stop them from ripping away or castrating any other, morons.
meh…
Approve it or dont approve it – I can get a gun anytime I want – and theres nothing anyone can do about it
you cant stop me, you cant protect you kids, god doesnt exist. get it now?
#123, Les,
It is easy to use Switzerland as an example of gun ownership. Especially if you are uninformed.
Swiss Army gun regulations include:
All Army members are trained.
While their rifles are kept personally, they must be locked and all ammunition accounted for.
Soldiers may not carry their rifles and ammunition in public at the same time.
Home kept weapons and ammunition are inspected for compliance.
Swiss citizens are encouraged to use shooting ranges.
Ammunition sold at shooting ranges must only be used there.
The Swiss Army does prosecute soldiers who don’t obey strict Army Regulations.
***
Swiss civilians must pass a test and justify the use before they may privately purchase a firearm. The licenses are restrictive about how the firearm may be carried. Single shot rifles are excepted.
Even with these strict regulations, over 300 people are killed with Army issued guns each year.
***
Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world. It does not have huge disparities between the richest and poorest, poor people are taken care of, there is universal health care, drugs are not a big problem, and the people are relatively homogeneous even if they speak several languages. From an early age, Swiss citizens are taught that gun use equates to protecting Swiss nationality and defense.
***
A closer society to compare would be Canada’s. There, gun ownership is much more regulated with handguns virtually impossible to get legally. Most of the gun violence is from guns smuggled in from the US.
The Homicide rate for guns per 100,000 people was
Ireland 0.9 (2000)
Germany 1.1 (2000)
Canada 1.9 (2004)
US, 5.6 (2004)
Who cares whether crime goes up or down because of guns? The Second Amendment wasn’t written to lower the crime rate.
Here, at post #132 or thereabouts, I would again like to extend my sincere thanks for the clear, cogent, and highly sensible reasoning offered by the gun banners in support of the DC gun ban, which some may recall as the topic of this thread…
An additional ‘thank you’ is in order for the posters who were intellectually honest enough, who had sufficient backbone to admit that the law in question is useless, idiotic, and does nothing to help anyone – except to make sure gun-toting criminals won’t be inconvenienced by their victims’ ability to shoot back.
You gun banners sure do have the moral high ground on this one! 🙂