For the first time in 70 years, the U.S. Supreme Court is entering the controversy over whether individuals have the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
That question, which the justices heard argued Tuesday, is at the heart of a debate about how much power the government has to regulate gun ownership. The high court will likely decide by June whether Washington D.C.'s strict, three-decade old ban on handguns is constitutional. A lower court tossed out the ban last year.
Should the justices affirm the individual right to own guns? Or should cities have the power to ban guns in order to fight crime? Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis, the moderators of RedBlueAmerica.com, weigh in.
Ben Boychuk
The Bill of Rights is a beautiful document. But how odd is it that out of 10 amendments enumerating individual rights, one amendment should be an exception. The First Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to assemble, speak and worship he chooses. The Fourth Amendment bars government from searching an individual’s home without a warrant. The Fifth Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to a fair trial.
But the Second Amendment is a “collective right” that has nothing whatsoever to do with an individual’s right to protect himself, his property or his community? Strange.
That’s not to say government cannot place reasonable limits on who can own a gun or what kind of weapons an individual should own. But the framers of the Constitution well understood that gun ownership wasn’t simply about plinking cans or hunting for sport.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," Samuel Adams said.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia?” George Mason asked. His answer: “It is the whole people... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
“The great object is that every man be armed,” Patrick Henry said. “Every one who is able may have a gun.”
Wise men, those framers. Here’s hoping five Supreme Court justices are as wise.
Joel Mathis
There probably are five votes on the U.S. Supreme Court to declare an individual right to gun ownership. That's hardly surprising: Even liberal legal scholars such as Lawrence Tribe concede -- reluctantly, to be sure -- that the Second Amendment guarantees such a right.
But that doesn't end the discussion. There is no such thing as an unfettered freedom; Oliver Wendell Holmes famously observed the First Amendment doesn't give Americans the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded movie theater. It is well understood that individual rights must be balanced against public safety, even if we often battle over where those lines must be drawn. Guns -- which have no other function other than to kill or injure -- shouldn't be an exception to this rule.
The D.C. ban, in fact, does try to strike a balance along these lines. It prohibits possession of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and handguns. That leaves rifles and regular shotguns, which are useful in hunting and home-defense -- but which aren't exactly the weapons of choice on the streets of our nation's crime-ravaged capital. This seems reasonable.
Conservatives argue that the Second Amendment shouldn't be interpreted more restrictively than others in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps. But neither should it be interpreted less restrictively. The D.C. handgun ban should stand.
Thoughts
2nd Amendment
Submitted on March 24th, 2008 by ZenWhen did people become such pussified versions of their previous selves? Are ya'll really willing to sacrifice your God Given rights to make yourself feel better? Look, the numbers don't lie. Guns bring crime down. The more armed people walking around, the less crime there is. That's just the plain truth. So all it comes down to is that your crusade against guns is something that makes you feel better. You've convinced yourself that those evil guns, BOO HISS GUNS!!! EVIL!!!! are the reason that people break the law. It's not. Sure, I can call the cops and when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. To hell with you, when someone is in my house at 2:00 a.m. I am shooting them and the only question is whether to reload. Even that though is aside from the point. The ENTIRE reason the 2nd Amendment was written, which has been stated over and over and over - is to prevent the Federal Government from having a Monopoly on force which is EXACTLY what they're striving for right now. An unarmed populace is FAR easier to control than one that possesses the ability to fight back. Be a man - have some sand in your sack and learn how to fire a gun. They're not evil - where's the one place you never hear the words "Mass Murder"? At a shooting range. And why is that exactly? EVERYBODY'S ARMED TO THE TEETH. If guns were so evil then why aren't all those evil dirty guns jumping up and killing everyone? This is unbelievable that CITIZENS of the United States are actually FIGHTING for the Government to take away their rights. They're literally BEGGING the Government to abolish one of their primary rights. Ever wonder why it's #2 in the Bill of Rights? The First Amendment ensures the Freedom of the Mind, the 2nd ensures the Freedom of the Body, and the 3rd ensures the Freedom of their Home. Only people who have the freedom of their own mind can be expected to enjoy the freedom of body for if their minds are controlled then what in the hell would they fight for? I'm tired of all this whining I keep hearing. Oh, criminals, crime, viiiiiolence!!!! Well, guess what. I am armed, I am always armed and if someone cares to take away my life or my families then I will go down fighting. That is the spirit that used to be contained in Americans - that's the spirit that allowed Patriots to keep fighting in the snow when their shoes were torn to shreds, to take a f***ing wagon across the plains just to search out a new home, to uproot their entire families and come to a new country because it offered the Freedom and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY that every grown and mature human being desires. Remember that word - Freedom? How does allowing the Government to regulate and regulate and regulate equal a Free Country? I have fought and killed to uphold what is written in that Constitution. Why are you fighting to get rid of that?
Point by point responses
Submitted on March 24th, 2008 by RonH1.) Can you please cite which statistics you are referring to? England and Australia, which I think we can agree are civilized, both have experienced dramatic increases in crime since they adopted gun bans. Since Massachusetts adopted "the strictest hand guns laws in the nation"in 1998, firearm related assaults have continually trended up to the point they have returned to 1995 levels. From 1994-1998 firearms related assaults were steadily trending downward. (source: WRISS Weapons Related Injury Surveillance System in Massachusetts)
2.) Agreed n o machine guns in 1787. Although I believe there were some flintlock short barrel long guns which were similar to sawed off shotguns. "Expedited access to law enforcement?". Unless you live next to the police station, I fail to see how this statement can be true. How many times do you here of police thwarting a crime in progress?
3.) Define "where law enforcement is not close enough to call" And also please define "absolute emergency", If someone is standing in your hallway at 2am how do I determine if the police are close enough and if this is an absolute emergency?
4.) When was the last time you saw a SWAT team using less than lethal weapons? The SWAT guys around here (MAss) show up with the same stuff they using in Iraq.
5.) Wrong. You are talking about taking away my guns. When you say I don't need semi automatic pistols, or rifles, etc you are doing exactly that. How is it different than saying because people in large SUV's could cause greater damage/harm than smaller cars, you can now only buy mini coopers or cars weighing less than 2,000 pounds? You don't need that Navigator. If you can't fit your kids in the cooper, just make more trips. WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? Oh and because speed kills, the cars will be throttled to go up to 40 miles per hour. What? Will make your commute longer? Leave earlier. Don't you realize we're trying to save people here?
what well regulated means in the context of the time
Submitted on March 24th, 2008 by RonHThe phrase "well regulated" in the time of the framers meant well-trained.
First and Second Amendments
Submitted on March 24th, 2008 by Anonymous"neither should [the Second Amendment] be interpreted less restrictively."
If the First Amendment had the same number of restrictions as the Second, cities would be able to ban newspapers, book stores, movie theaters,...
Where people could buy a book, they'd be have to go through a waiting period and a background check before they could purchase something from Dr. Seuss. But Steinbeck would be strictly outlawed. Books would be limited to having no more than six chapters -- no high-capacity 22-chapter books allowed, and people would be limited to one book a month.
High speed printing presses would be forbidden, and it would violate federal law to transport newspapers across state lines.
Shall not be infinged
Submitted on March 23rd, 2008 by AnonymousWhy is such a simple statement so hard for progressives to wrap their minds around. If this was in front of their right to assemble or their right to a speedy trial there would be no doubt what it meant. What they have trouble understanding is that the second makes the other right secure and guaranteed, regardless of the administration in office.
Several comments: (after
Submitted on March 21st, 2008 by BlahSeveral comments: (after all, it is a complex issue)
1) Statistics do show that civilized countries where guns are illegal have dramatically reduced gun related injuries and deaths. How would continuing to allow weapons help keep the crime rate lower? I fail to agree with that logic.
2) One of the things that makes our constitution the longest standing, is its being subject to interpretation as times change. When the Bill of Rights was created, there were no machine guns and sawed-off shotguns in the hands of street gangs. Rather, they had to ensure that individuals had the ability to protect themselves against other dangers. Now that our society has changed, and we have expedited access to law enforcement officers, there should not be a need for hand guns, sawed-offs and automatics.
3) Hunting rifles still have their place, which should never be in the city. In rural areas, it is still an issue of protection and "survival". This is a place where hunting is a way for people to feed their families, and where law enforcement is not close enough to call in case of absolute emergency.
4) Law enforcement has started utilizing non-lethal weapons in large numbers these days. Just as effective and not deadly.
5) We're not talking about taking away your right to own guns, just to adjust the extent, based on the circumstances. I am a law-obiding citizen, own two hunting rifles and a shot gun. They stay unloaded and under the bed unless I am hunting. The way it should be. I have the right to consume alcohol as an adult, but do I feel that my rights have been taken away because they don't allow me to drink while driving? NO! Will that guarantee that less-responsible people won't adhere to the rules? No! Does me drinking and driving because criminals are doing it help the situiation? No. More fire begets more fire.
Possession of Machine guns,
Submitted on March 21st, 2008 by AnonymousPossession of Machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and handguns are the weapons of choice on the crime-ravaged streets of our country. Is this the reason you think that taking away the lawful citizens rights to own one of these guns will get rid of the crime on the streets that the lawful citizen has had no part of? If Guns-which have no other function than to kill or injure- why do we permit our Police or Army to have them? What you are saying is that if we did away with all the guns the war and crime would go away. Oh and by the way Chicken Little "The Sky Is Falling"
Get Real.
2nd Amendment
Submitted on March 20th, 2008 by politicallybogusI can't imagine that our founding fathers ever even conceived that we should not have the right to individually own guns.
2nd amendment
Submitted on March 20th, 2008 by RJThe first three words----"A well regulated". Obviously, not "no regulation".
2nd Amendment
Submitted on March 20th, 2008 by ZenWe have all agreed that there are certain lines to freedoms - just as the "yelling fire in a movie theater" example is always used by pro-gun control advocates. However, those lines that we are all supposed to agree on have to be based on legitimate reasons. If a reason given can be debated and not proven clearly - then you have to err on the side of liberty or else you end up giving your liberties away piece by piece. "Machine Guns" are illegal. It is very hard, almost impossible, to obtain a Class 3 License which is required for a private citizen to own an automatic weapon i.e. "Machine Gun". Now, the problem I have with that law is that there is plenty of debate to be given in regards to it. Possibly the most obvious is that ANY restriction on weapons is Un-Constitutional. "...The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed". That doesn't say "...except machine guns." Now, as I said, we have all agreed on certain things. Explosives should be highly regulated because not nearly enough people have experience handling, storing or implementing even the simplest of explosives. So this goes on to include Grenade Launchers etc. I think we can all agree that Nuclear Weapons don't need to be in the hands of the average citizen. Now, the honest and law abiding citizen poses no more threat to the general populace by owning a "Machine Gun" than they do owning it's semi-automatic brother. If you're not going to murder someone then it doesn't matter what weapon you have. Just because I happen to have a Class 3 License doesn't mean that I'm more likely to commit mass murder does it? Please answer that honestly. So the question comes, where does the threat from these Automatic Weapons come from? Criminals obviously, despite the fact that automatic vs. semi-automatic - you can still kill a lot of people either way. So the Gun Control only effects those people who are willing to abide by it - for instance, the people who weren't breaking any laws to begin with. The Criminals are criminals because they break the law - Gun Laws are no different - they don't give a damn. Tyrone in the van down the street will sell them a Mac-10 illegally and that bastard will buy it and carry it illegally. The law has thus been passed to make the honest law abiding people in more danger.
I've heard all the arguments against this type of gun and that type of gun - the worst argument is that a specific weapon has no "sporting purpose". Wow. That is amazing. Where in the 2nd Amendment does that phrase appear? Whether a weapon is "sporting" or not has no bearing on whether I should be allowed to own it. You obviously don't care about guns - you said so yourself - sure, you say you want the right to own one if you want but then you advocate eliminating just a little bit of that liberty because it makes you feel better and those weapons aren't "sporting". Well, handguns could be considered "unsporting". So let's get rid of them. Small and Large caliber rifles? Well, you don't HAVE to have them to hunt so they're gone too. Magazine fed - don't need 'em. Pistol Grip - don't need 'em. How about - everyone can have a single shot 30.06? Just one though. It's called a slippery slope in legal terms - the tendency for a Governing Body to continue the eradication of liberties once the initial, usually small, action was taken.
The main point here is that if there is EVER a question that can be honestly, logically and intelligently raised regarding whether something should or should not be made illegal - you ALWAYS err on the side of liberty. It is not about whether it is "sporting" or whether I "need" it. I can't stress that enough.
2nd Amendment
Submitted on March 20th, 2008 by ZenWe have all agreed that there are certain lines to freedoms - just as the "yelling fire in a movie theater" example is always used by pro-gun control advocates. However, those lines that we are all supposed to agree on have to be based on legitimate reasons. If a reason given can be debated and not proven clearly - then you have to err on the side of liberty or else you end up giving your liberties away piece by piece. "Machine Guns" are illegal. It is very hard, almost impossible, to obtain a Class 3 License which is required for a private citizen to own an automatic weapon i.e. "Machine Gun". Now, the problem I have with that law is that there is plenty of debate to be given in regards to it. Possibly the most obvious is that ANY restriction on weapons is Un-Constitutional. "...The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed". That doesn't say "...except machine guns." Now, as I said, we have all agreed on certain things. Explosives should be highly regulated because not nearly enough people have experience handling, storing or implementing even the simplest of explosives. So this goes on to include Grenade Launchers etc. I think we can all agree that Nuclear Weapons don't need to be in the hands of the average citizen. Now, the honest and law abiding citizen poses no more threat to the general populace by owning a "Machine Gun" than they do owning it's semi-automatic brother. If you're not going to murder someone then it doesn't matter what weapon you have. Just because I happen to have a Class 3 License doesn't mean that I'm more likely to commit mass murder does it? Please answer that honestly. So the question comes, where does the threat from these Automatic Weapons come from? Criminals obviously, despite the fact that automatic vs. semi-automatic - you can still kill a lot of people either way. So the Gun Control only effects those people who are willing to abide by it - for instance, the people who weren't breaking any laws to begin with. The Criminals are criminals because they break the law - Gun Laws are no different - they don't give a damn. Tyrone in the van down the street will sell them a Mac-10 illegally and that guy will buy it and carry it illegally. The law has thus been passed to make the honest law abiding people in more danger.
I've heard all the arguments against this type of gun and that type of gun - the worst argument is that a specific weapon has no "sporting purpose". Wow. That is amazing. Where in the 2nd Amendment does that phrase appear? Whether a weapon is "sporting" or not has no bearing on whether I should be allowed to own it. You obviously don't care about guns - you said so yourself - sure, you say you want the right to own one if you want but then you advocate eliminating just a little bit of that liberty because it makes you feel better and those weapons aren't "sporting". Well, handguns could be considered "unsporting". So let's get rid of them. Small and Large caliber rifles? Well, you don't HAVE to have them to hunt so they're gone too. Magazine fed - don't need 'em. Pistol Grip - don't need 'em. How about - everyone can have a single shot 30.06? Just one though. It's called a slippery slope in legal terms - the tendency for a Governing Body to continue the eradication of liberties once the initial, usually small, action was taken.
The main point here is that if there is EVER a question that can be honestly, logically and intelligently raised regarding whether something should or should not be made illegal - you ALWAYS err on the side of liberty. I can't stress that enough.
"automatic guns"
Submitted on March 20th, 2008 by AnonymousWhile it is true that individuals can own machine guns they have been strictly regulated since 1934. The background check is so stringent that there has been only one crime committed with a legal machine gun since that time. 74 years! And that was by a police officer. Do you have a problem with that?
Reagan signed the act in 1986 banning further manufacture of machine guns for civilian use. (Unconstitutional on the face of it.) So every one out there is at least 22 years old. Except for illegal ones; criminals can have whatever they want.
In any event I do not need some ignorant person or corrupt government deciding what I "need"
Why does this "need" idea keep coming up? It is no ones damn business what I decide I need.
2nd Amendment
Submitted on March 20th, 2008 by AnonymousIt's odd that people would read the 2nd Amendment and think that it says only the Government controlled "Militia" should own a gun. First off, why do commas mean different things in the 1st Amendment vs. the 2nd Amendment? In the 1st Amendment the commas simply separate things, however, in the 2nd I'm told that it makes the "people's right" only part of the collective whole. Odd.
Secondly, if the 2nd Amendment right does forbid the individual possession of guns, why were all the guns NOT taken away in 1787? Odd how that little line of the Bill of Rights would have taken 231 years to finally have some action taken on it. We have owned and carried arms since this nations' inception. This is not because of a "Sporting Purpose" but because a firearm is the ultimate equalizer. No man or Government can reign supreme simply because of its size when the populace is armed. I hear people talking about how other Countries have banned guns and their shooting deaths went down. Yes, it's true. Stabbings went up though, surprising. Then consider the almost infinite list of Despots and Dictators who's first action upon seizing power was to outlaw weapons. Not just firearms either people - look at the Japanese occupation of Okinawa. They forbade any training with knives, swords, war hammers - any type of weapon seen to that day. This is exactly why Okinawan Martial Arts were the original developers of weapons like the Sai and Nunchucks. These were farm implements that the People trained themselves with.
The fact of the matter is that there are always going to be bad people who do bad things. That's just the world we live in. This myopic and delusional idea that if only we could get rid of those evil guns then everything would be sunshine and lollipops scares the hell out of me. It is not the rational and logical adult understanding of the world. We live in what is supposed to be a FREE country yet many people do not have the capacity to understand what that means. Freedom guarantees bad things will happen sometimes. That's another fact of life. Unless you want the Government to have a team of agents live with you and follow you around, along with every other person in this country, then there are going to be times when you are in danger. Benjamin Franklin said it plain with "The man who gives up liberty for safety deserves neither." Perhaps it would be a good idea to have some sort of tool that could help you protect YOURSELF. Now, what could you carry that is small yet powerful enough to stop not just one but several large angry aggressors. Hmmmm, gotta think about that one.
Gun Control vs Constitutional Rights
Submitted on March 20th, 2008 by dwighthomer47First, let me say that I do not own, nor want to own, a gun of any kind. However, I do believe that I should have that right guaranteed.
Where I think the laws go wrong involve the "automatic" guns. The machine guns, as you call them, are NOT needed in our society at all. Gun rights should not protect individuals rights to own a machine gun. There is no legitimate, nonlife threatening reason any one needs these guns. It sure would not be used for sports.
yes, gun ownership is needed in U.S.A.
Submitted on March 20th, 2008 by AnonymousThe second amendment was put in place so that we the people do not end up as slaves of a bad government.
There are about 4 to 5 weapons per person in this country. That's what stops the government from really running your lives and taking what ever it wants from you.
Really hard to fight a tank with rocks.
If you don't believe the above? Just take a little time and check back into history and every country in the world that has ever banned it's people from having weapons.
The people ended up in deep ####.
Ron Blake
Gun Ownership
Submitted on March 20th, 2008 by AnonymousAll rights have to be individual rights. If one right is viewed as a "collective" right, then how long will other rights remain individual rights? Secondly, under the DC gun ban, you can't have a loaded gun in your own house. A rifle or shotgun must be unloaded and locked up. The right of self defense must be upheld!