Anybody hear anything about the supreme court going into session today to determine weather or not the second amendment is an individual or a collective right. Evidently there was a lawsuit in Washington DC because of the handgun ban (which btw has the highest rate of handgun related deaths in the US, even though they are illegal). A group of people say that it is against the second amendment because the right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right. If they rule it a collective right, I garuntee a revolution in this country.
if you outlaw the guns, only the outlaws will have guns
the perception from the hearing was that they were going to strike down the ban. several justices made it clear that was how they felt. no official ruling yet. Let’s hope they do.
most truthful statement on the whole damn site. period.
FALSE ill still keep my guns.Its like taking away something you love and can kill,like cars?
then youd be an outlaw. and the statement would be true.
THEYLL TAKE MY GUNS FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!!!
That’s great. They’ve had a ban on handguns for 32 years and probably the strictest gun control laws in the nation and yet gun crimes are still a major problem. How much more proof do they need that gun laws only take the guns away from law abiding citizens and do nothing to stop criminals?
Gun lovers, even if you hate him, say a thank you tonight to Bush for getting Roberts and Alito on the court.
yeah, this is one issue that i think the republicans are definitely right on. :eek:
legalizing things keeps them under control.
sighhhhh
I am all for handgun bans…
rifle/long barrel guns not so much, mostly because they have an actual use in hunting/sport (yes I know I know…there are handgun shooting comps.)
Just look at the rest of the world and see the difference in handgun ownership to violent acts using handguns…
Just look at the statistics on what percentage of non-self defense handgun shootings are done with registered handguns, by their owners. Pistol permits are pretty much impossible to get once you’re a criminal. When your victim might be able to shoot you back, you think twice about pulling it on him.
If every man in this country owned a handgun and carried it regularly I would bet there would be a massive decrease in petty crime/rape/etc because you would not know who had a gun and who didn’t. The only people that are hurt by gun legislation are the responsible people who own the guns legally, not the criminals. They are criminals, they don’t follow rules so what the hell makes these people think that they would follow a ban on handguns? If they made it harder to get handguns, they would just use rifles and shotguns more.
Look at any country, england australia, banned guns and had crime rates increase dramatically.
And a helluva lot more stabbings
Plain and simple- these bullshit laws DO NOT STOP THE CRIMINALS! All they do is make it SAFER for the CRIMINALS to do their thing. Why do you think DC has so much crime? No criminals are afraid of getting shot for doing anything to its people!
These politicians live an fantasyland, and all of these laws are just another form of control- that doesnt work, as usual.
I cannot wait until my pistol permit shows up, better get it now before I wont be able to get it after these morons slice up the constitution a little bit more…
Banning assault weapons is a close second to these BULLSHIT handgun restrictions. Banning a weapon based on the way it looks? Give me a fucking break. You arent any less dead being shot with a an AR-15 that has a collapsible stock than you are being shot with one that has a regular stock! knee-jerk “scary looking gun” bans, and nothing more.
Here is just another example of our politicians at work:
“Every year the New York State Assembly passes many “gun control” bills including ones that would change the definition of ‘assault weapons,’ storage and trigger lock laws and require ballistic fingerprinting of all firearms. These bills, however, never pass in the Senate. New York’s ballistic fingerprinting program called CoBIS is required for all new handguns sold in New York State. The CoBIS program started on 3/2/2001 and after 6 years almost 150,000 handguns have been registered in the program but with only 2 “hits” and neither one lead to any arrest or conviction. The program has cost between $13 and $28 million dollars and used more than 450,000 New York State police man hours.”
Some of todays arguments:
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.
Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington’s ban on handguns goes too far.
The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution’s most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. “Guns kill,” responded the other.
Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a “right to keep and bear arms” that goes beyond the amendment’s reference to service in a militia.
Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution.
“What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.
Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home.
“What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it’s a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that’s considered especially dangerous,” Dellinger said.
Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials.
Is it “unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate … to say no handguns here?” Breyer asked.
Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said, “It’s unreasonable and it fails any standard of review.”
The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives “a general right to bear arms.” He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — a majority of the nine-member court.
Gun rights proponents were encouraged.
“What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm … to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional,” National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court.
Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he hoped the court would leave the ban in place and not vote for a compromise that would, for example, allow handguns in homes but not in public places. “More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban,” the mayor said after attending the arguments.
A decision that defines the amendment’s meaning would be significant by itself. But the court also has to decide whether Washington’s ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.
The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons.
Clement wants the justices to order the appeals court to re-evaluate the Washington law. He did not take a position on it.
This issue has caused division within the administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the official position at the court.
In addition to the handgun ban, Washington also has a trigger lock requirement for other guns that raised some concerns Tuesday.
“When you hear somebody crawling in your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?” Justice Antonin Scalia said.
Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that trigger locks might be reasonable.
“There is always a risk that the children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect,” he said.
On the other hand, he, too, wondered about the practical effect of removing a lock in an emergency. “So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses,” Roberts said to laughter.
Dellinger said he opened the lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in daylight.
While the arguments raged inside, dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying “Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns” or “The NRA helps criminals and terrorists buy guns.”
Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted “guns kill” as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted “more guns, less crime.”
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because “handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia.”
Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights. Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was “still very much an open issue.”
Un. Be. Fucking. Lieveable.
Some of the arguments for gun control/gun bans in that article are absolutely laugeable.
“Guns kill,”
Well, no fucking shit genius! That is the point. Have you tried to protect yourself with a Super-Soaker lately? It doesnt work very well, I promise.
Is it “unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate … to say no handguns here?” Breyer asked.
HEY! FUCKHEAD! They have been banned there for 32 years- DID IT FUCKING HELP YOU IDIOT? You just proved the other sides point by opening your mouth!
“What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it’s a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that’s considered especially dangerous,”
Especially dangerous? Oh, you mean especially USEFUL? Is that not the POINT of a weapon used for PROTECTION? Sorry, we cant fit hunting rifles under our shirts too easily.
“More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban,”
You are a moron. Do you really think someone is going to LEGALLY REGISTER a handgun, or buy one from joe-blow with filed serial numbers if they intend to commit a crime? Guess what, they are TWO DIFFERENT GUN TRADES, and are NOT associated. All you did was just remove the legal protection application from the equation, and left the felons with their arms.
Fucking idiots. I am begining to think what it really boils down to is that these moron politicians are begining to realize that they are SO FAR OUT in fantasyland, that someone may just try to plug one of them for being to fucking stupid- so they ban handguns in or around their areas.
Guns make it far easier to kill.
The intent is in the person, if they have a knife they will kill, if they have a fork they will kill. A gun makes it easier for that person to with the intent to kill.
Hand gun bans please, I don’t see a point in them
edit: This debate again :rollseyes:
the U.S. government is trying to disarm the U.S. people, end of story