Comments on: Taking The Second Amendment To Court

The Supreme Court Prepares To Examine DC's Right To Ban Handguns In The Context Of The Constitution

[thgdriver]

USBrit

I pointed out here last night that in three weeks in Philadelphia, this month, nine armed uniformed cops were put in the hospital with gunshot wounds and one was killed and buried.
The criminals know the cops have guns and still don''t give a rats aiss. What chance does an honest citizen have these days?
Do you think a foolish law like "one gun a month purchase" would make a difference? That law is being touted by the Mayor of Phila. and the governor of Pennsylvania. Duh!!! Criminals can''t buy guns and when they try they are not prosecuted.

[bombadil4]

Many of the NRA "ideas" are half baked at best. The criminal justice system can keep only a small proportion of criminals "off the street." Some of our more dangerous cities are barely able to solve half of the murders on their streets, for example. This is the "real" world with a population far greater than two hundred years ago, with drugs, mental illness, and random violence that would no doubt cause some of our founding fathers to dump in their pants. In fact Thomas Jefferson actually expressed concern over whether the Constitution might eventually become so out of touch with future generational needs, that he thought there possibly should be easier ways to enact changes as time passed. Thoreau wrote how puzzling it seemed that the living are so meekly willing to be ruled by the dead. Instead--considering no one (and certainly not our blithering Supreme Court clowns) knows what all that incomprehensible blather in the Second Amendment means anyway--let''s use OUR short moment in the sun to make sound decisions based on common sense and the most good for the most people.

[usbrit-2009]

jbaker - I certainly differentiate between violent drug dealers and the "casual" user. I still get the impression from "tough on crime" proponents that, in general they mean "tough on drugs" but not on guns. If I am totally wrong then maybe I''m being led by the "liberal" media. For the most part, however, I get news from www.bbc.co.uk which seems to keep up some semblance of balance. I have to say that I find a civilized conversation on these subjects without all the name calling usually found on these pages quite enlightening. Thanks.

[jbaker314]

USBrit,

Despite the portrayals in the liberal media, most conservatives would prefer violent offenders to be jailed as opposed to drug users.

However, let me also say that I don''t distinguish between violent drug users and other violent offenders.

[jbaker314]

USBrit,

Actually, I use my firearms for target shooting.

This is not to say that I am not both willing and capable of using them for self defense.

I just have not yet been placed into that position.

[usbrit-2009]

jbaker - I think we need a little more explanation than "liberals .... refuse to enforce them." What are the sentencing terms? Jails, I think we would all agree, are overcrowded at best. Do we let out all the junior level drug users that conservative administrations have insisted that judges put away for 20 years in favor of thousands of gun law breakers? Hmmm. Sounds fine to me but let''s see how quickly that gets your friendly neighbourhood conservative lawmaker re-elected.

[thgdriver]

USBrit

My humble apologies, of course what I posted was tongue in cheek.

I know folks who have large collections of various fire arms and others who refuse to even discuss the matter.

I have been on record as stating the following---"When our government or whoever, can prove to me, all the bad guys have been disarmed I will be the first to either destroy my own or donate them to a museum.

[usbrit-2009]

thgdriver - On the contrary, I''m not suggesting your right to carry/own a gun be revoked. If you read first my post you will see I say that (given) "the presence of 200,000,000 (300,000,000 I''m now told) guns in this country" ..... "I guess it does make sense for one to have the ability to own a gun for defensive purposes".

What doesn''t make sense is that there are there 300,000,000 guns in this country.

[jbaker314]

USBrit,

The NRA and other firearms ownership support groups have long support strong enforcement actions against people who misuse firearms.

For example, in a one year period (a couple of years ago), more than 250,000 people were denied the right to purchase firearms, due to criminal records, etc.

Federal law provides that attempting to purchase a firearm when you are prohibited from doing so is a crime.

How many of these people were prosecuted? Less Than 100.

The liberals pass these laws but then refuse to enforce them.

I would support the ability of private citizens to bring civil actions against federal prosecutors in order to force them to enforce the laws that are on the books.

[thgdriver]

USBrit

I have a permit to carry firearms in my state, I carry my firearm for the reason stated on my permit--self defense--. I ask no one to look out for me, I take care of myself for now.

You seem to want to strip me of my right to defend myself with a firearm So I figure you should be responsible for my well being. I''ll need your full name, address, and phone number so my wife will know who to have our attorney''s get in contact with. Seems fair, those that want to take my right of "self defense" away should then be responsible if anything happens to me.