Taking The Second Amendment To Court

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

(CBS)  For the first time in 70 years, the Supreme Court will examine the right to bear arms, centering on a Washington, DC ban on handguns. But DC is not alone. Dozens of other jurisdictions also have restrictions on handguns - including the city of Chicago.

CBS Weekend News anchor Thalia Assuras reports that the Windy City has been shocked by a recent jump in gun violence - a ten year old shot in the head; a pregnant mother gunned down on Halloween; a college student killed in front of his dorm - all committed with handguns in a city that bans them.

"Last year we had 34 high school students in Chicago killed because of gun violence," community activist Reverend Michael Pfleger tells Assuras, "that is a classroom. That is bigger than a classroom."

Reverend Pfleger has been working to end gun violence for 30 years, funding billboards and pressuring law makers to pass stricter rules. He admits the handgun ban in Chicago has not eliminated gun deaths, but without it he says, "I think you would see an already bad problem become worse."

Since 1982, Assuras reports, Chicago has labeled handguns as items which cannot be registered. At least twelve other nearby suburbs have similar policies. The only other major city to have such a wide-ranging ban is Washington, D.C., although municipalities like New York do limit ownership through a permit system.

If the Supreme Court rules against the D.C. ban, all of those other policies may have to be thrown out as well. The implications of that have many anti-gun advocates worried.

Josh Horowitz, the director of the Coalition Against Gun Violence, tells CBS, "It's really unpredictable right now. We're going to write the best briefs we can and hope for the best outcome we can, but its really an unknown at this point."

Critics of the bans argue that they infringe on individuals rights, are ineffective at preventing violence and are unnecessary because of existing laws aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

They don't comply with handgun bans or with all the other gun laws, says NRA executive vice-president, Wayne LaPierre. "That is why they are called criminals. The thing that works is, confront them directly and take them off the street - prosecute them 100 percent of the time."

The National Rifle Association is concerned because a Supreme Court decision in Washington's favor will strike at the heart of its position but, says LaPierre, that is an outcome that his organization would challenge.

"Regardless what happens, the NRA, we're going to defend this freedom. The American public will not see the ruling political class take away their basic freedom."

[aznyron-2009]

the legal team can write all the briefs they want the bare truth is were guns are out lawed out laws are in control taking away a gun from a resposible honest citizen is a crime because he now can not protect him self or his family remember this I would rather have a gun in my hand then a cop on the phone guns have two enemies rust & politicions also I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6 these saying do not belong to me author is unknown to me but they are 100% true to stop gun violence is to enforce old gun laws and make gun safety a rule before a person can buy one you will still have gun violence wether legal or illegal so why punish the the good citizens of the USA knowing it will not accomplish any thing except give the criminal more strenth

[nottellin1]

What a great idea! While we%u2019re at it, why don%u2019t we get rid of the first amendment too. Our news is mostly propaganda now anyway and there are so many things that shouldn%u2019t be printed after all. Also, if we only allowed approved religions to live here, there would be a lot less problems. Oh wait%u2026..this is the USA. Right to bear arms is an American%u2019s inalienable constitutional right, just like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It is a very bad idea to start messing around with the Bill of Rights. The land of the free must remain of the free.

[libsluvsuvs]

who really is abusing our constitution..lets ask a liberal

[jetranger7]

I''LL NEVER EVER GIVE UP MY GUNS NEVER ! THEY''LL HAVE TO PRY MY COLD DEAD HANDS FROM THE TRIGGER !! LET THE REVOLUTION - BEGIN - NOW !!

[michellem99-2009]

Good. This is 07.They have to end the gun violance. They whine it is a right to bear arms. It is but they don''t need combat people killing guns. I am NOT talking about the gent who hunt to put food on table to feed his family. But punks to that thrill kill. They about nation and shoot to kill. Bear in mind the period in which it was wrirren. We were a young nation and men were were in service to nation. They needed a military of citizens to put together army and navy. That they did. The public does not need guns. A cop told me yer can''t shoot a crimmel as the cops will haul yer asre off to jail. I have alway lived in gun free homes

[gunownerdan]

"Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government."
- Congressman Ron Paul, June 26, 2006
ronpaul2008.com

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one
designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances
where all other rights have failed -- where the
government refuses to stand for reelection and
silences those who protest; where courts have lost the
courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their
decrees. However improbable these contingencies may
seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free
people get to make only once."
- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003


"Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.
The cause of liberty, the cause of American, cannot succeed with any lesser effort."
- President John F. Kennedy, January 29, 1961

[gunownerdan]

"Tyrants mistrust the people, hence they deprive them of arms."
-- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

"Those who beat swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who don''t."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"To disarm the people is the most effective way to enslave them."
-- George Mason

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at
large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone
who is able might have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- President Thomas Jefferson

Self Defense
A-HUMAN-RIGHT.com

"Americans have the right and advantage of being
armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison

[gunownerdan]

Who wants to ban civilian gun ownership?????

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms."
-- Lenin

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn%u2019t let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"
-- Joseph Stalin

"Every Communist must grasp the truth, Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our Principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party."
-- Mao Zedong

"On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results."
-- Benito Mussolini

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolf Hitler

a-human-right.com

[tom_gwynn]

The second amendment does TWO things; it both protects the individual''s right to bear arms and also the government''s power to regulate the possession of those arms. You can''t look at just one part of the amendment, you have to read the whole thing;

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 supreme court has repeatedly held that the 2nd amendment is not a blanket right to keep whatever "arm" (weapon) you might please to... otherwise it would be legal for private citizens to own atomic weapons! In the 232 years, technology has improved firearms to the point that a single person with an assualt rifle has more firepower than the 77 militiamen who faced the British at the battle of Lexington. Our laws for regulating arms have to evolve along with the technology of the weapons themselves.

[vampire1288]

ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS HITLER DID WAS TO DISARM THE PUBLIC FROM HAVING WEAPONS... ALL OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRIES FIRST THING DRUG DEALERS AND OTHER POWER MAD POLITICANS DO IS TAKE AWAY THE GUNS. SO THAT THEIR ARMY AND POLICE AND CRIMINALS HAVE VERY LIMITED TROUBLE WITH DISENTERS...WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS...

[gunownerdan]

The term "Assault Rifle" refers to fully-automatic machine guns. Ownership of a machine gun has been severely restricted since the 1930''s. Semi-automatic rifles are often called accault weapons even though they only shoot one bullet for each pull of the trigger. Semi automatic rifles have been legal for over 100 years and are very popular today for hunting, collecting, and target shooting. Criminals rarely use rifles to commit crimes and they almost always prefer handguns. If you ban handguns, nothing will make a criminal more happy than to know their potential victims will be unarmed and defenseless.

[red1530]

tom_gwynn, the weapons that that the local militia used at Lexington were equivalent to those of the British Army and the British Army were trying to disarm them when they arrived.

[gunownerdan]

"Tyrants mistrust the people, hence they deprive them of arms."
-- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

"Those who beat swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who don''t."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"To disarm the people is the most effective way to enslave them."
-- George Mason

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at
large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone
who is able might have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- President Thomas Jefferson

"Americans have the right and advantage of being
armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison

Self Defense
A-HUMAN-RIGHT.com

[gunownerdan]

20th century:

Germany and Occupied Europe - 15-20 million murdered.

"Licences to obtain or carry firearms shall be issued only to persons whose reliability is not in doubt, and only after prooving a need for them."
- German Law, 1928

"Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons.
Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew''s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions...will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.
Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick"
- German Law, 1938
http://www.jpfo.org/NaziLawGerman.htm

Soviet Union - 20 million murdered.

"All permits for the carrying or keeping of arms...are invalid and must be exchanged for new certificates..."
Soviet Resolution, 1918

"Any violation of laws concerning...firearms are punishable by forced labor."
- Soviet Law, 1926

China - 30-45 million murdered.

"Whoever, without authority or good cause...is found in possession of guns...shall be punished with imprisonment."
- Chinese Law, 1935

"Buying or possessing firearms or ammunition for use in athletic activities or for hunting...[shall be punished with detention]"
- Chinese Law, 1957

Self Defense
A-HUMAN-RIGHT.com

[slim1h2o]

If you ban handguns, nothing will make a criminal more happy than to know their potential victims will be unarmed and defenseless.

Posted by gunownerdan at 08:22 AM : Nov 25, 2007

I agree!

[gunownerdan]

"Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government."
-- Congressman Ron Paul, June 26, 2006

DR. RON PAUL 2008!
* Constitutional Government *
* Lower Taxes *
* Free Markets *
* Civil Liberties *
ronpaul2008.com

[godin6]

ban guns??? Hmmmmm....

last time i checked
criminals don''t obey laws

[jon2012-2009]

If you ban handguns, nothing will make a criminal more happy than to know their potential victims will be unarmed and defenseless.

Posted by gunownerdan at 08:22 AM : Nov 25, 2007

I agree!

Posted by slim1h2o at 08:33 AM : Nov 25, 2007


Actually, gunownerdan gave a lot of interesting quotes in his numerous posts and this is not his best argument, slim1h2o. I don''t care about making a criminal happy or unhappy. I just want safe streets. Why don''t we talk about data. Isn''t there a way to compare cities and countries with different gun control laws in effect and see which is a better system as far as achieving low crime and avoiding gun violence. Without data, we can all talk till we''re blue in the face but that''s all we''re doing.

[likeitis5050]

I can see it now. Terrorists and criminals will immediately turn in weapons just to stay in compliance with federal law. Yes...that will happen when monkeys fly out the hindends of people who really believe this. Crime will drop into single digits in big cities and people will, once again, be able to leave their doors unlocked at all times. Women will be able to walk from the grocery store to their cars without worry one that addicts will hold a guns to their heads while they steal cars and anything else of value. Drug addicts, after all, obey the law when it comes to needing more drugs. Gangs will comply because they hate the idea of going to jail to be with the rest of their homies. Police will be able to actually enjoy their shifts because they know, finally, the streets are safe again since hand guns are no longer legal. What world do these people live in who come up with this c.rap? Why not just make people who choose not to protect themselves wear a big red dot on their foreheads to make it easier for the criminals who couldn''t care less about laws in the first place? Let''s really make it easy on the criminals.

[slim1h2o]

Actually, gunownerdan gave a lot of interesting quotes in his numerous posts and this is not his best argument, slim1h2o. I don''''t care about making a criminal happy or unhappy. I just want safe streets. Why don''''t we talk about data. Isn''''t there a way to compare cities and countries with different gun control laws in effect and see which is a better system as far as achieving low crime and avoiding gun violence. Without data, we can all talk till we''''re blue in the face but that''''s all we''''re doing.

Posted by jon2012 at 11:43 AM : Nov 25, 2007

I agree with all his posts, this one, and all others he has written about gun control laws. I just happened to pick this one to comment on. Because, it was his last one.

But too, if anyone thinks restricting guns is a good idea, well guess what, a club, or a knife, or anything else you can pick up, can, and will be used as a weapon. So gun laws are for the law abiding, not the crooks, thugs and murderers, they will use something else, or risk it , and keep their guns.

So whats the point?

[libsluvsuvs]

the bleeding heart liberals will choke us with so many laws and regulations that in the long run we WILL BE A POLICE STATE..
we already have sufficient laws for gun control..we have sufficient laws for criminals ITS JUST THE MATTER OF ACTING AND ENFORCING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THESE IDIOTIC LIBERALs'' intention are in the right place but thier MORONIC LIBERAL PRECEPTION OF REALITY IF WAY OFF AND CAN COST US DEARLY...

they want more laws on top of the laws we already have now..and will ask for more laws then laws on top of that..

do you really think LAW BREAKING criminals actually care about THE LAW?????????????

maybe instead of turning them into noble prize winners that they would actually call for strict ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW......

[myidoncbs]

Everything the gun owners say is cr@p. They don''t understand the constitution, they don''t understand history, they don''t understand that their odds of dying by gunshot INCREASE if they own a gun, and they don''t understand that when everyone is armed all the time, more people will be killed by the "law abiding" paranoids who feel "threatenend" all the time.

Those who think they need "proof", it''s already out there, so look it up! The country that has the most guns per capita of any of the "civilized" countries in the world (the USA) and the so-called "right to bear arms" is the country that has the MOST gun violence and deaths every day. Guns do NOT make you safer. More guns means MORE unnecessary deaths. So, you gun owners are pushing for more murders!

Even in the "wild west", most towns restricted guns within town. Those places where everyone carried a loaded gun were wild, hellish places that sane people avoided. You gun lovers want the whole country to be like those badlands. The truth is, even the "wild west" was never as violent as our current society, except for the massacre of the natives.

There is no solution for the in/sanity of the "gun rights" bunch. All we can do is give them what they want, and hide in our bomb shelters until after they have all killed each other.

Good luck, America, the end is near.

[libsluvsuvs]

Posted by MyIDonCBS at 03:42 PM : Nov 25, 2007
+ report abuse

actually there is....we should just stop listening to bleeding heart liberals AND DEAL WITH THE CRIMINAL AT THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW..

[thgdriver]

Nine armed police in the city of Philadelphia were put in the hospital with gunshot wounds in less then three weeks this month, one was killed and buried.

If the "armed uniformed police" are being shot what chance do the honest citizens have?

Gun laws are a joke that politicians talk about for the lame brainwashed liberals to believe will have some effect.

If the court makes it a crime to have a gun then only criminals will have them. God help the honest citizen then.

[thgdriver]

The politicians in my state want to change the law where every local government can make their own gun laws.

OK, lets say that passes, I live in a township 8 miles square, I have a right to carry in my state. Problem would be, if I drive out of my township I could become a criminal for braking a new law 4 miles from my home. It''s absurd what they propose!!

[a8151947]

With all the people that know the Law out there I would not think we would need a Supreme Court. Joke, Thank God you people are not on the Court. My dog knows more about Law than any of you do. Go away please. We don''t need your bull in the U.S.A. As for having a gun. Only a man that is a coward and can''t face people needs a gun.

[jbaker314]

MyIDonCBS, it is you who does not understand the Constitution, who does not understand history, and who does not understand legal gun ownership.

The founding fathers wrote the second amendment for the express purpose of keeping in check a central government that they feared could become too powerful, trample upon the rights of the individual, and become a European-style dictatorship (i.e., monarch).

In a related matter involving crime statistics, when I recently took a look a deaths resulting from firearms used in the commission of a crime, South Carolina had a higher murder rate per capita than New Jersey. However, a more detailed study demonstrated that a far greater percentage of South Carolinians possess firearms. What I was able to conclude was that a resident of South Carolinian is far more likely to have a firearm, but that a resident of New Jersey who has a firearm is much more likely to use it in the commission of a crime.

Since many of us in South Carolina are raised with firearms from a very early age, one has to wonder about the statistics. Perhaps it is because we are taught both how to use firearms and that the use of a firearm entails a degree of responsibility.

As Charlton Heston stated, "From my cold, dead hand."

[a8151947]

thgdriver You need to get a hold of your self. You are a little on the mad side. You Do Not Nedd a Gun. I think you might shoot your self. Which might not be a bad idle.

[jbaker314]

A8151947, if you can cite facts to back up your assertions, feel free to do so. Hurling unsupported insults is the signature of the uninformed.

[thgdriver]

didntinhale

I sure hope so, DC is only 10 miles square, the crime rate by criminals with guns there is astounding for the size of the area.

My right to carry license in my state came with a book of regulations. I follow those regulations. I can not list them, I would have to write a book. LOL, But they are common sense as far as I am concerned.

The politicians want to pass a-- one gun a month law. Ok, lets say that passes. I buy a gun first week of April, then at a gun show 3 weeks later I see a gun I have been looking for for my collection. I cant legally buy it. Stupid, like criminals buy guns in the first place.

[miketwo345]

I am a bleeding heart liberal, but I support the right of an individual citizen to own guns. Why? Because it''s in the Constitution, which is smarter than all of you people put together.

Would banning handguns reduce the violence in our streets? Yes. Over time it would. Everyone crowing about "criminals don''t obey laws" doesn''t understand where criminals get their guns from. If no one has a gun, no one has a gun you can steal, and over time the population (criminals included) become disarmed, except for some sparse organized crime.

That being said, I think the price we pay in blood each year is the unfortunate cost of freedom. The purpose of the right to bear arms is to protect oneself, not from criminals or other misfits, but from the government. This is the same way free speech, free press, and the freedom to assemble are all protections from the government, not from your neighbors.

Will more children and cops be unnecessarily shot each year by having an armed populace? Yes. It is extremely regrettable, but it is the price of freedom. Like many things in life, there are no perfect answers. The blood of those innocents each year ensures that we can never have an atrocity of millions dying at the hands of the gov''t.

I hope my liberal friends can see the parallels. We can''t pick and choose which Constitutional rights to defend. It''s all or nothing.

[jbaker314]

didntinhale, I hope that you are correct and that the Supreme Court upholds the Appeals Court decision.

[hissteps4u]

Sadly crime is at an all time high. I went and purchased my second 9 millimeter Pistol for self protection. I have a permit to carry it concealed as I carry lots of Money at different times in the course of my business.

Banning Handguns is not the answer. I do not support the NRA in any shape or form but I do support the right to carry arms for self protection paticularly in todays sick world.

In my area alone the past Month 5 home invasions where the residents were killed, 29 shootings in the last two weeks, Robberies, Car jacking''s the list is long.

Any who would come my way are subject to retribution and death should they attempt to harm me or my family

[jbaker314]

miketwo345, you suprise me. You understand the intent of the Constitution better than most. It is a shame that we don''t have more people with that level of understanding.

All of those protections afforded citizens in the Bill of Rights are not to protect you from your neighbor or from the criminal element, but to protect you from the government.

[ac5e]

It seems most commentators want to ignore the history of gun laws, in particular that of gun control laws.

Briefly, there are 11,919 laws that restrict citizens right to own, possess, transport, store, or to use firearms in force now. Every jurisdiction with such laws had an increase in violent and gun related crime after enactment.

On the other hand, 324 jurisdictions require, encourage, or permit private firearms possession. Of those, 324 had a decrease in violent crime after enactment.

It is easy to show that the increase in violent crime after the imposition of restrictive gun laws in in direct proportion to the severity of the law. It is equally easy to show the decrease in violent crime after gun laws were relaxed is also proportional to the amount of relaxation.

Computer modeling suggests the repeal of most federal, state, and local restrictive gun laws would result in a U.S. national homicide rate of less than 0.8 (8 homicides per million population per year, 2400 total U.S. homicides per year) within three years.

Modeling also suggests that a severely restrictive federal gun law would result in a U.S. national homicide rate of 15.5 (155 homicides per million population per year, 46,500 U.S. homicides per year.

One only needs look at the explosion in violent crime after imposition the Gun Control Act of 1968 to see the computer models probably reflect reality.

Bottom line: Gun control activists are really pro-crime activists

Searcher909

[jbaker314]

searcher909, although I agree with your presentation of the statistics relating to gun control laws, I believe that your characterization of gun control advocates as pro-crime activists is false and non-constructive.

People can agree to disagree.

Making the issue personal by such clearly defamatory statements does nothing to advance reasoned consideration of the subject.

We will not persuade gun control advocates to our point-of-view by engaging in such attacks.

[krazykat2525]

The same Supreme Court Justices that voted that developers could take anyone''s land they wanted as long as they stated it was 4 developement; anyone,anywhere,anytime;these same folks r going to vote on if the average citizen can have a "handgun"or any kind of gun; argument is "only state militia" had the right to bear arms;In Ohio, developers tried to take peoples home; they had the constitutional right to bear arms & pursuit of happiness as anyone else which meant keeping their homes;they were armed & ready & the State Supreme Court seeing Civil War about to break out stated NOT IN MY STATE YOU AREN''T. The developers then said they "would not try again even if it was against Supreme Court of USA. Now, looky looky, USA Supreme Court wants (they choose which cases they hear) to disarm the American people.If I were living in America, i would run, not walk, to the nearest place to buy as many guns as i could.I would buy survival books & make my kids play survival games.Anyone not seeing the handwriting on the wall has got to be blind or a blithering idiot. The vets are used as cannon fodder & tossed away like rubbish. Follow the money (same as in VietNam) war back to the fat cats on capitol hill. Oil companies, Haliburton, & all of Congress making $ hand over fist off the blood of our young men & women.

[jbaker314]

krazykat2525, I think that you are jumping to a conclusion.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. We don''t know which justices (it takes four (4)) voted to hear it, nor their reasons for doing so.

The Kelo decision was clearly one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court, but we have two new justices, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly proven itself to be somewhat unpredictable.

Also, the liberal wing may be hesitant to issue a ruling that would most certainly result in violence should the Congress or any of the various States try to ban gun ownership.

"From my cold, dead hand."

[thgdriver]

I am a bleeding heart liberal, but I support the right of an individual citizen to own guns. Why? Because it''''s in the Constitution, which is smarter than all of you people put together.

Well, I am a stanch conservative, "The right of the people shell not"-----Three of the first 4 amendments to the Constitution have that very statement as part of the wording.
Seems simple enough to me, but maybe the Supreme court will turn out to be smarter then the Constitution.

[miketwo345]

Thank you for the kind words, jbaker314.

Let me condition my previous post by saying that although I do not support a ban on guns, I very much support gun regulation, such as background checks and waiting periods. We should try, as best as we can, to mitigate the consequences of an armed populace by keeping guns out of the hands of those who are too stupid or too criminal to use them properly. (That''s the bleeding heart side of me, for anyone who was wondering). ;)

[fizzal-2009]

This is the same group that came up with the idea of eminete domain that don,t want too put retention on top of a hill an manage to manage flooding an destroy property down stream and cause the loss of life , just what would we use too protect ourselves?

[jbaker314]

miketwo345, I don''t have a problem with background checks. Criminals, mental defectives (sorry, but I can''t some up with a "politically correct" term at the moment), etc., should not be permitted to purchase firearms.

On the other hand, I oppose waiting periods. We have the technology to perform "instant background checks", so let''s use them.

What can we say to the family of an individual who receives a threat, and while waiting for the requisite 3 days, or whatever it may be, is murdered by the person making the threat.

This also raises the question as to whether the government should become liable in a civil proceeding if they deny an individual the means to defend himself.

[jbaker314]

In reviewing the Supreme Court order granting a writ of certiorari, which reads

"07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. V. HELLER, *** A.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code '' 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

I suggest that the Supreme Court has already given us a glimpse into their thinking.

The Supreme Court has framed the question such that they effectively admit to the "Second Amendment rights of individuals".

This is a first, and gives me great hope that the ruling will solidify the meaning of the Second Amendment that has been well-understood by the people for more than two (2) centuries.

[mattcbsmatt]

Which presidential candidate can answer this very difficult question? Is illegal immigration, illegal?
And of course the courts do not know and I guess even the Supreme Court
Excuse me I am about to have uncontrollable explosive diarrhea verbally : )
An I a presidential candidate a politician a judge even a member of the Supreme Court or a suicide bomber

[vmanks]

Its a persons right that they are trying to take away.

[krazykat2525]

i don''t think i am jumping to conclusions at all. Here in Oregon developers targeted all mobile home parks & are in the process now of taking over the ones they have not yet gotten. There are so many vacant homes, high priced condos, bare property all ready made up to build on, that realtors are getting part time jobs. And the big fallout is still to come. And the developers are still going ahead, and the tragedy is the banks are still loaning them money to do so. They have talk show hosts (lars larsen) saying we can''t make a living in this country growing food so let the developers have all the farmlands. We should just import all of our food (like our oil even tho we have more than enough oil in the states we don''t need to import any); seems to me they are going to bring down the banks, and want us to be no longer able to raise our own food.(#1 policy in war, cut off supply). what r u waiting 4? Another twin towers? forget it;they capitalize on greed & apathy cuz the average american doesn''t care 4 his neighbor.Consider this:a laptop 4 no good reason other than there was a military list compiled in it is taken home; a burglar "robs" the home conveniently as not at home; not 4 id theft; now knowing where military personnel 4 who would constitute the biggest threat; & suddenly over 120 vets a week "committing suicide?" you r right;i will go put in a movie & forget the news.

[gunownerdan]

"Those who beat swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who don''t."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Self Defense
A-HUMAN-RIGHT.com

[gunownerdan]

"Let me make a point here, in case this isn''t becoming
extremely clear. My state has gun control laws.
It did not keep Hennard from coming in and killing everybody!
What it did do, was keep me from protecting my family!"
-- Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, Killeen Texas Luby''s massacre survivor

[jbaker314]

krazykat2525,

My point is that I don''t believe, as you apparently do, that the members of the Supreme Court have already decided how they will rule in this case.

I think that it remains very much up in the air.

I suppose you could say that I am somewhat less cynical.

Certainly, the other issues you raise are of interest, and each should be carefully evaluated.

I would be interested in seeing much more detail on each of these issues. With the limited information provided, I don''t feel that I can give an intelligent answer at this time.

[a_p_eppink]

I think it pretty obvious that the supreme libs will say, "No, we won''t allow the masses to have guns", with the other four saying the opposite, while Kennedy will mull over what he''ll allow the Nation to do (as nearly always he does), and if people are dumb enough to listen to him, as leftist as he so often is, kiss off private gun ownership rights. If the supreme court lawyers pull off this sort of diktat, as they did with abortion, it''s going to give rise to catastrophic difficulty.
This lawyer/''judge'' lawmaking debauch is a cataclysmic debacle, long since out of hand, and it''s remarkable stupidity that people are dumb enough to so sheepishly put up with it, and for so long.