T Rex Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1121/p25s09-usju.html I was going to post this in the kitchen but.... we'll see how it goes. I love you all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Outcome #1 - D.C's gun ban is lifted Outcome #2 - Civil War v.2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Yeah, I can't see people giving up guns. /me Pets his 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Banning guns for normal people who are not criminals is insane. You think criminals are going to not get a gun because it is illegal? They don't give a fuck. Yay for making everything worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morabu Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 OUR Gov't is going to try and do us like England's Parliament did our cousins across the pond!...? i gotta go sign up on the NRA website.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey2721 Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Banning guns for normal people who are not criminals is insane. You think criminals are going to not get a gun because it is illegal? They don't give a fuck. Yay for making everything worse. bingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRed Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 They can have my guns when I am completely out of ammo and can pry my cold dead fingers off the triggers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I am amazed that they even took the case. It still wouldn't surprise me if they did everything possible to duck out of making a ruling that means anything. Besides, I thought the point of all of this was whether or not DC has to follow the same laws and guidelines as the states. When DC enacted the ban, they did so acting as if the constitution was optional for them, since they aren't actually a state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 They get mine out of my cold dead fingers. The NRA and too many other citizens wouldn't allow it to happen, or atleast I pray to God it will never happen in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Rex Posted November 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Besides, I thought the point of all of this was whether or not DC has to follow the same laws and guidelines as the states. When DC enacted the ban, they did so acting as if the constitution was optional for them, since they aren't actually a state. True to a point. The Supreme Court of Washington DC deemed the ban on HANDGUNS constitutional, under the grounds that handguns were not even around in the time the constitution was made. The Circuit Courts deemed the law unconstitutional. So now the appeal has reached the supreme court. Im with you Mike, I doubt they will come to a desicion that means jack shit. They will probably say something to the affect "Its the States job to regulate firearms however they feel nec." Which if that happens look for some new gun control laws to vote for or against next year! Its interesting though, this is the only amendment in the constitution that has NOT been poked, proded and disassembled to find out the true meaning of the amendment. I do hope the Supreme Court makes a decent desicion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Rex Posted November 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 They get mine out of my cold dead fingers. The NRA and too many other citizens wouldn't allow it to happen, or atleast I pray to God it will never happen in this country. You would like to think that the tenticles of any organization cant reach the Supreme Court to sway their desicion. Not just the NRA but people for gun bans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted November 22, 2007 Report Share Posted November 22, 2007 I thought this was an interesting read: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/a-liberals-lame.html A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all By Jonathan Turley This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups. Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington. The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech. The Framers' intent Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "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." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual. Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence. Another individual right More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace. Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment. None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.