The Associated Press
An artist's rendering of Tuesday's oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.
Featured
Topic |
Posted 17 weeks 4 days ago
High noon at the High Court: Is gun ownership an individual right?
If it goes without saying that the nation is divided over gun laws, the Supreme Court certainly seemed to mirror that split during arguments today challenging the District of Columbia's stringent gun control law. Though many justices appeared to lean in favor of an individual right under the Second Amendment, they diverged over whether such a decision would still allow D.C.'s handgun ban to stay in place.
Is gun control constitutional? Should the justices affirm the individual right to own guns? Or should cities have the power to ban guns in order to fight crime?
Thoughts
Is gun ownership an individual right?
Submitted on April 22nd, 2008 by daveAbsolutely. The 2nd amendment gaurantees this basic of all rights! The ability to protect ourselves from any oppressive government that would try to take away what our founding fathers and those who fought in the Revolutionary War stood and died for! this is not a question of governmental control, though.
This right should never even be discussed by the government! Lets review a couple of points..First off, it is much easier for a government to RULE its people if those people have no way to fight back, and PROTECT themselves. This logic is undisputeable! 2nd: lets look at it like the war on drugs, they are illegal, and yet, has that stopped the spread of drugs? No, as a matter of fact drugs and drug related crime have been ever on the rise! The Government would like you to think that they are protecting you, but they arent; They cant. Same goes for guns..take away an individuals right to bear arms (no matter what form, handgun or otherwise) and you weaken those citizens, and then ONLY the criminals and the Government will have them! If the government cant stop the drugs and associated crime, what makes us believe they can stop the Illeagal guns and gun violence?(Criminals=Government)
"people who are willing to trade away liberties for security deserve NIETHER liberty OR security" If memory serves me, this quote is from Thomas Jefferson. Americans are way too eager to trade away liberties for the Illusion of security nowadays! Look at the new powers of the goverment after 9/11! all those lillte things they wanted to be able to do, like invade privacy "In the sake of National Securty." We as a society have become weak, and way too dependant on the government. "Any government that is strong enough to give its citizens everything they want, is strong enough to take it all away! Let us never forget that." quote by my father.
infringed?
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousWhat I little I have read concerning the history of the second amendment does not lead me to believe that it grants me the right to keep and bear arms on an individual basis. IT ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES IT! The wording is explicit. It says the right shall not be INFRINGED. The right is, has always been and should always be an inalienable right not granted by the 2ndA, but guaranteed by it. Persons unable to defend themselves are subjects, not a free people.
Guns
Submitted on April 8th, 2008 by AnonymousLet's look to the fabulous success of the war on drugs...the do gooders decided that drugs were bad and so we should ban them because it's the drugs not the people causing the problem...now the very worst elements of society have and do drugs...now in their infinite wisdom they want to apply the same logic to guns because the people are not to blame..it's the guns..like drugs guns will fall into the hands of the worst elements of society ONLY...it is my sincere desire that the first victims of this insane societal imbalance are those do gooders who victimized society with their imbecilic and infantile nonsense...let them be the first to go down !!!!
;
Submitted on April 3rd, 2008 by AnonymousI think their should be more gun control as to who we are handing these guns to, the fact that women entered politics has nothing to do with the way men have run certain situations over the years. So stop playing the blame game and do something about it.
Lorra10
Dang! Beat me to it.
Submitted on March 25th, 2008 by AnonymousI couldn't have said it better, anyway. You're absolutely right, of course. That this is even a controversy is testimony to how far we've fallen. That anyone (or group of anyones) believe that they have the right to disarm me is the thing that scares me. Lost in the argument of "crime prevention" is the fact that it is not the police force's job to protect us from criminals, but rather it is their job to solve crimes after the fact. It is left to us to protect OURSELVES from criminals, but government is the biggest crime gang of all.
Not merely for defense against criminals
Submitted on March 25th, 2008 by BenIt's important to recognize that self-defense is one of those natural rights that we modern, sophisticated Americans are supposed to scorn. Self-defense goes hand-in-hand with self-government. So you can say with some legitimacy that gun ownership is not for defense against criminals simply. But criminals come in many shapes and sizes, don't they?
Gun ownership not for defense against criminals
Submitted on March 24th, 2008 by AnonymousPeople continually talk about carrying a gun to protect themselves from criminals. Our founding fathers had just won a fight for their liberty from an oppressive government. They felt every person had the right to carry a firearm (no matter what type) in order to ensure the government could not take away their newly found freedoms. Gun ownership is not a function of protection from the populace. It is protection from the government, and any limitation on that is an infringement on our rights by the very entity the 2nd amendment was meant to protect us from.
"If owning a gun becomes criminal only the government will have guns"
2nd Amendment, Still relevant?
Submitted on March 24th, 2008 by dkd58Both sides attempt to interpret the supposed intentions of the writers of the Second Amendment, a document written so long ago. At this point it is no longer relevant to our modern society. This debate should deal with the realities we face today and arguments both pro and con should stand on their own merits. All the arguments have been made ad nauseum but please, don't cite dogma from the eighteenth century to make your point. They had no idea what society would be like after two centuries. For the record, I am pro gun. I do not love the fact that we are saturated with firearms but I would rather have the right to own them than to be told I can't by the government, i.e., (the rest of you).
gun ownership
Submitted on March 24th, 2008 by AnonymousJoel,
I am sure the crime rate is high in DC due to the legal and registered gun owners who become criminals because of their ownership and not due the actual criminals who will totally disregard this law along with all the others they are now disregarding. Let's make sure that law abiding citizens go unarmed in the most dangerous US city.
Or we could educate them and arm them and see which city then becomes the most dangerous.
PT
,'the right of the people to keep and bear arms...'
Submitted on March 24th, 2008 by AnonymousTo finish the rest of the Second Amendment..'
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.' This is the only Amendment in the Constitution that has this decree. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens creates crime and gives the criminal an
edge. Ever since women got into politics it seems
that this new look at laws is not so well for our
society and is leading us to Socialism. This is not the free America we once knew.
Kazar01
Protect yourself
Submitted on March 23rd, 2008 by AnonymousJust ask the citizens of the hurricane Katrina disaster what happens to those with out guns. The world and your surrounding change in an instant, and without warning. And sometimes, if you are not prepared to protect yourself, no one else is there to protect you either. Do the math, how many police officers are there in a given area. If there is a wide spread incident, you are on your own. I don't carry a gun to commit a crime, I carry one to prevent a crime from be commited on me. If you don't want a gun, that's your choice. I want one, it's my choice. Stop trying to govern my decisions as a free citizen before we decide to govern yours.
Well-Regulated Militia
Submitted on March 19th, 2008 by AnonymousWhile I am not a gun nut, I tend towards originalism when it comes to the Constitution.
It would be nice if the SCOTUS interprets this that I need to purchase a M4 now in case my neighborhood needs to form a militia hold the federal government accountable due to degrading economic and social conditions, resulting in a suspension of the 1st, 2nd, or any other Amendment.
It's not too far-fetched, folks. Watch and read news that's not dependent on U.S. companies sponsorship.
HAVE GUN , ALWAYS WILL
Submitted on March 19th, 2008 by AnonymousI HAVE A GUN, MY WIFE HAS ONE, WE CAN CARRY THEM LEGALLY SOON, TOO BAD THOSE POOR FELLOWS IN CRIME RIDDLED DC CAN'T. WHY IS IT THAT THE ANTI GUN LOBBY CAN'T READ THE PROOF.... EVERYWHERE THAT THERE IS A CONCEALED CARRY LAW AND THE ABILITY TO PROTECT ONES SELF WITH A WEAPON THE CRIME RATE IS LOWER, DO YOU HEAR AND SEE THAT LOWER.....SEE KENNESAW,GEORGIA
Gun ownership is a right for all citizens.
Submitted on March 18th, 2008 by AnonymousIt is Constitutionally protected, and those that try and take it away are un-American. Just because they want to live without the ability to protect their own families, doesn't mean that they can take away my right to protect mine.