Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

SCOTUS Affirms 2nd Amendment Rights


Recommended Posts

Today's ruling is welcomed, but way too close for comfort. Still, writing for the majoity, Justice Scalia clearly articulated the meaning of the 2nd Amendment as written, based on the prefatory and operative clauses, state constitutions, and lawful defense.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional. The justices voted 5-4 against the ban. At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling the justices wanted to uphold the ban, but were prevented from doing so by the constitution. D.C. is a pretty violent place from what I've heard but banning handguns won't stop the violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I get the feeling the justices wanted to uphold the ban, but were prevented from doing so by the constitution. D.C. is a pretty violent place from what I've heard but banning handguns won't stop the violence.

Perhaps the violence stems from problems with the 1st Amendment. In any case, constitutions are just things, its what people do with them that counts. Kind of like guns I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
I get the feeling the justices wanted to uphold the ban, but were prevented from doing so by the constitution. D.C. is a pretty violent place from what I've heard but banning handguns won't stop the violence.

You heard right. I didn't even realize that there was a ban against guns in DC, so evidently banning handguns didn't stop the violence. Could be because they weren't banned in the areas all around DC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You heard right. I didn't even realize that there was a ban against guns in DC, so evidently banning handguns didn't stop the violence. Could be because they weren't banned in the areas all around DC.

Uh no.. it's because if criminals want guns they can get them - no matter what kind of prohibition the ptb try to place on them.

Better to have an armed populace IMO.

This was a good ruling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I get the feeling the justices wanted to uphold the ban, but were prevented from doing so by the constitution. D.C. is a pretty violent place from what I've heard but banning handguns won't stop the violence.

Sharkman, we are in agreement.

Banning guns won't stop the violence - though perhaps 'banning' the glorification of gangsta culture by various 'media' groups may decrease it somewhat? (I'm being somewhat sarcastic there wrt gangsta culture ie rap music).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
QUOTE American Woman: Could be because they weren't banned in the areas all around DC.

Uh no.. it's because if criminals want guns they can get them - no matter what kind of prohibition the ptb try to place on them.

Uh yes.. could be. Your "it's because..." scenario is only your opinion. You don't have the answers.

Sure if "criminals" want guns they can [likely] get them, at least some can, but all gun violence isn't done by "criminals," per se. A lot of shootings occur in the heat of the moment, during arguments/fights, and if the people involved weren't armed, they wouldn't be engaging in gun violence.

So if someone wants to rob a bank, if their intent is to commit criminal actions, then they likely can 'get a gun if they want to.' But if someone doesn't plan on killing someone in the heat of the moment, perhaps they wouldn't have made the effort to get a gun, and therefore wouldn't have one.

I wasn't saying there wouldn't be any gun violence/crime if guns were banned around the DC area too rather than just in DC, I was saying that maybe there would be less of it. And there very well could be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't saying there wouldn't be any gun violence/crime if guns were banned around the DC area too rather than just in DC, I was saying that maybe there would be less of it. And there very well could be.

It wouldn't make any difference AW. If crims want guns and ordinary citizens are denied having them for their OWN protection - then violent gun crime will ensue. The police are NOT there to prevent crime - they are there to clean up afterwards.

So - no - banning them around DC wouldn't make an iota of difference.

In fact - in those states and counties that allow concealed carry laws etc - gun crime is VERY low. The crims are not that stupid you know - who would they burgle? The family with NO way to protect itself - or the family who HAS the means to protect themselves??

Also - in the heat of the moment it is just as easy to kill someone with knife, bat or axe (or any other kind of dangerous implement). So the canard of 'in the heat of the moment is MOOT).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
It wouldn't make any difference AW. If crims want guns and ordinary citizens are denied having them for their OWN protection - then violent gun crime will ensue.

I'm not talking about "criminals" obtaining guns to purposely commit a criminal act. I thought that was quite clear in my response. I'm also not suggesting that violent gun crime won't ensue, only that there could be less of it. And there could be. It doesn't matter how many times you claim that you "know" there wouldn't be, because it doesn't change the fact that you don't know.

Also - in the heat of the moment it is just as easy to kill someone with knife, bat or axe (or any other kind of dangerous implement). So the canard of 'in the heat of the moment is MOOT).

Really? It's just as easy to kill someone with a knife? :blink: And a bat? It's just as easy to kill someone with a bat?? And let's not forget that deadly axe that so many bar patrons carry with them. Nothing like a concealed axe to take someone down with ease.

:rolleyes: x infinity.

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh no.. it's because if criminals want guns they can get them - no matter what kind of prohibition the ptb try to place on them.

Better to have an armed populace IMO.

This was a good ruling.

All I can say is, that in the wake of this ruling there will be no excuse for not beefing up our border security in Canada.

Speaking of prohibition...its just plain wierd that the US government will allow a person to possess a thing that's designed to harm another human being but not something that is designed to harm themselves. The irony that most gun violence is caused by the prohibition of the latter is almost enough to drive a person to drink.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The police are NOT there to prevent crime - they are there to clean up afterwards.

That's right - cleaning up afterwards is what they do for a living. A cop that prevents crime would be like a logger that prevents logging.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
QUOTE buffycat:The police are NOT there to prevent crime - they are there to clean up afterwards.

That's right - cleaning up afterwards is what they do for a living. A cop that prevents crime would be like a logger that prevents logging.

They're there to prevent crimes, too. For example, in a domestic dispute call, they certainly are trying to prevent domestic violence from occurring. If a sniper is on the loose, they'll certainly try to prevent more casualties. Ditto a serial killer. Their actions definitely prevent crimes from happening, too-- though I fail to see what that has to do with this issue. It's laws that prevent or allow people to have handguns, not the police.

Link to post
Share on other sites
....Speaking of prohibition...its just plain wierd that the US government will allow a person to possess a thing that's designed to harm another human being but not something that is designed to harm themselves. The irony that most gun violence is caused by the prohibition of the latter is almost enough to drive a person to drink.

Gosh I hope so...it's fun to drive the whining dopers nuts with perfectly legal handguns! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the laws should be changed in the US. People who do kill people with a gun should have to choice of turning themselves in or having a group of former GI`s hunt you down and kill you on the spot! Maybe if the stakes were higher, some people won`t even want a gun. OR how about trading their real guns for paint guns? Is it the power people feel with a real gun in their hands or is it the power to be able to kill someone. Very sick people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the laws should be changed in the US. People who do kill people with a gun should have to choice of turning themselves in or having a group of former GI`s hunt you down and kill you on the spot!

We already have that....is is called gang violence. Just visit Toronto! :lol:

Maybe if the stakes were higher, some people won`t even want a gun.

America wouldn't exist as we know it without guns/firearms. No reason to change it up now.

OR how about trading their real guns for paint guns? Is it the power people feel with a real gun in their hands or is it the power to be able to kill someone. Very sick people.

It is both...it is said that God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps Tasers are the answer although usage creep could pose a problem.

Tasers are a sloution for a different kind of problem. Firearms are designed for a specific task and work very well. Or as John Lennon told us...happiness is a warm gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with guns. I have no problem with people owning guns. I have no problem with people carrying guns. I have never owned one personally, althought I am considering a handgun or small rifle for the shooting range. I don't plan to carry it around on me all the time, if at all.

More education on gun saftey, more criminal background checks, ect ect. Cannot own/carry the gun unless you have all the certificates. I feel better around someone that respects the gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopefully someday we will get good gun laws like the States. B)

Only law abiding people will ever follow it. So these things never take care of the criminal element. My dad stored his firearms with great care. Even before those laws came into place.

Take care of poverty and much of this will go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...