| DC vs. the 2nd Amendment
Posted: 11/20/2007 8:01:06 PM | Looks like it's going to the top folks:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312338,00.html
I'm sure everyone will be watching this like a hawk. And with all common sense applied, I fully support the residents for suing the District in the first place, although from what I've read all but 1 of the suits was thrown out; only the security guard was allowed to move forward.
-Jesse | |
|
| DC vs. the 2nd Amendment
Posted: 11/20/2007 8:52:42 PM | I'm looking forward to that stupid no gun law in DC being tossed out. Unconstitutional is an understatement. Libs are nuts. They trample all over our Constitution at every chance (i.e.: legalized baby killing, taking away guns, welfare, taxation of interstate commerce, taxation of specific industries, not allowing Illegal Immigration Laws to be enforced... I could go on) then blame President Bush for phone tapping that the first adulterer (JFK) started 46 years ago.
Any time the Constitution is stood up for is a good thing.
I carry a handgun. I defy anybody to pry it from my hands. and yes, I do have a Federal Permit to carry. DC Police don't seem to understand that I am their superior when it comes to pecking order and I'm tired of them freaking out just because I carry an unconcealed weapon.
The Right to Bear Arms. I think that says it all. I defy anybody to try and make a logical point that says the Constitution says we can't bear arms. | |
|
| DC vs. the 2nd Amendment
Posted: 11/20/2007 9:26:25 PM | Loath though I am to lend any support to the ludicrous poster to whom I am responding (whose understanding of the Constitution appears to have been derived from reading the legal equivalent of Jack Chick pamphlets), I must concur with his basic reading of the Second Amendment, i.e., that it does indeed guarantee some personal right to keep and bear guns, and that this is really the only reasonable position one can take on this legal issue (how far this personal right extends is another story). Mind y'all, I hate guns, at least handguns.
"Right-thinking people" like to take refuge in that business about the well-regulated militia, but that is just precatory language -- the substance of the Second Amendment clearly states that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Every other place in the Constitution that uses comparable language has been construed to grant a personal right, and there is no principled reason to read the Second Amendment more grudgingly. With respect to that militia business, of course, in the time of the framers the militia consisted of all the able-bodied men in the community, who naturally would have the guns they would use therefor in their homes. I wish I'd said it first, but it bears repeating -- if the Second Amendment was interpreted the way the First Amendment is you'd have law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory.
You can make a reasonable argument that in these very different times the Second Amendment is a dangerous anachronism. I dunno if I completely buy it, but it's reasonable --please, though, recognize that if you want to enact things like blanket gun bans you will have to amend the Constitution | |
|
| DC vs. the 2nd Amendment
Posted: 11/20/2007 9:57:49 PM | Arguements won't be made until mid next year. WooWoo. But we can argue more about it now if you like.
There are more threads here to post such opinions. | |
|
| DC vs. the 2nd Amendment
Posted: 11/20/2007 10:03:41 PM | You are right. There have been more than a handful of challenges brought upon the 2nd amendment since the early 1800s and most all have been decided as it being an INDIVIDUAL , or citizens right versus a collective, or states right.
Concerning a "well regulated militia", the militia clause is just that - a COLLECTIVE, or state militia being ultimately formed from these ever-perpetually armed PRIVATE citizens IF EVER NEEDED.
UNLESS NEEDED, no militia needs to be formed, and PRIVATE citizens maintain the perpetual INDIVIDUAL right, and that right is " the right of the people to keep and bear arms", which shall not be infringed. | |
|
| DC vs. the 2nd Amendment
Posted: 11/21/2007 12:33:55 AM |
I'm looking forward to that stupid no gun law in DC being tossed out. Unconstitutional is an understatement. Libs are nuts. They trample all over our Constitution at every chance (i.e.: legalized baby killing, taking away guns, welfare, taxation of interstate commerce, taxation of specific industries, not allowing Illegal Immigration Laws to be enforced... I could go on) then blame President Bush for phone tapping that the first adulterer (JFK) started 46 years ago.
LOL, don't forget universal sufferage, the interstate system and the end of segregation.
Damn those liberals, for elliminating slavery. | |
|
| DC vs. the 2nd Amendment
Posted: 11/21/2007 12:58:46 AM | | I have found that many librals are starting to come around. This is becoming less of a left vs right issue as time goes on. | |
|
| DC vs. the 2nd Amendment
Posted: 11/21/2007 1:34:16 AM | I have found that many librals are starting to come around. This is becoming less of a left vs right issue as time goes on.
The only reason the libs have "come around" is because it is such a losing issue for them. After 911 the sale of guns skyrocketed.
The failure of Al Gore to carry his home state (Tennessee) and his presidents home state (Arkansas) in 2000 was directly attributed to his anti-gun positions.
Remember in the '04 race and Kerry had that ridiculous photo op of him and his shotgun out hunting? That was a weak attempt to convice middle America he was pro-gun. He even went to great lengths to have someone else carrying the bird so he had some wiggle room with the anti-hunting crowd.
The right to bear arms is going nowhere and the left realizes that, and that is why it isnt much of an issue anymore. Even after the Va Tech tragedy, very few Dems were out calling for stricter gun laws. People dont want to hear it anymore. | |
|
| DC vs. the 2nd Amendment
Posted: 11/21/2007 1:48:14 AM | When they put in amendment #2, we had British invaders to worry about and the "best" guns at the time took 30 seconds PER SHOT to load, aim and fire.
The common handgun has 15-round magazines with auto-chambering technologies and "old" guns like revolvers carry six shots.
Further research leads one to the conclusion that "bear arms" meant "wage war" more than it meant "own guns", but that's neither here nor there. When it was put in we were at war with a country much stronger than us, better trained, better armed, more financially secure (they were HIRING their Hessian mercenaries; we got lucky that the French basically volunteered their help to us).
The way I break down the second amendment is this:
"We need an army to have any chance at all at this whole revolution. However, even WITH an army they've got a bigger army that has more training and better weapons. Now we're not going to flat-out MAKE you join this revolution; doing something like that would be exactly like the thing we left the country in the first place to avoid, as well as exactly like the things they've been doing to us that led to the revolution in the first place...but let's just say I'm going to allow you to have a gun. If the British just happen to try to take your farm/house away from you, well, we won't think any less of you for doing what you think is best." To me, it doesn't seem like it was a long-term everybody-gets-guns-forever deal, it was just a stopgap fix because the Continental army needed all the help they could get.
In any case, the second amendment has been being buried step by step since Prohibition. First it was automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, guns-hidden-in-canes-and-umbrellas...then they eliminated the mentally challenged and convicted felons from being able to buy firearms...and while technically unconstitutional can you really argue that those steps were a bad idea? | |
|
| DC vs. the 2nd Amendment
Posted: 11/21/2007 1:57:22 AM | This is one of those subjects that can be talked about for hours and hours.
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, I'm sure most would agree that it is good that higher courts are taking another look at such a complete ban. | |
|
| DC vs. the 2nd Amendment
Posted: 11/21/2007 8:08:39 AM | I just wish it wasn't this court that's looking at it.
The 2nd amendment is very clear in its wording - the right to bear arms is for the purpose of a "Well regulated militia." Can't get much clearer than that. | |
|
| DC vs. the 2nd Amendment
Posted: 11/21/2007 8:42:05 AM | It doesn't bother me if someone has a gun as long as they have sense enough to know when and where to use it..
Without guns we are sitting targets ready for invasion and slaughter..
But I would like to know where all these gun advocates are while our freedoms are being threatened in so many other ways..
Not a word is said by them while freedom to peacabley assemble is threatened and attacted at every turn..
And what about freedom of religion?
The most useful plant on earth is illegal so that Big buisness can make more profits.
The medical benefits are denighed people that need this plant because The doctors can't even legaly prescribe this to their patients...
And that is just the tip of the iceburg..
God said. Behold, Even unto all the green herb bearing seed have I given you all things.
So where are our rights for freedom of religion?
The constitution and the Bill of Rights were meant to protect us from this kind of oppression..
We need to fire our government and start over... | |
|
| |
Home
login 
