High Noon For The 2nd Amendment?

Andrew Cohen: Expect A Showdown During U.S. Supreme Court's Landmark Gun Case

(CBS)  Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

---

The Parade of Horribles, otherwise known as the battle over the Second Amendment, begins anew Tuesday when the Justices of the United States Supreme Court hear oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller, the first major gun case to come along since the month Hitler seized Czechoslovakia before World War II.

We find ourselves at this poignant moment - a gun rights showdown during an election year - thanks to a fellow named Richard Heller, who so far has successfully challenged the District of Columbia’s broad gun control regulations. Heller, a security guard, wants the right to take his firearm home with him after a long day at the office. DC currently bans the possession of firearms-as well as other restrictions upon gun possession - as part of an effort to curtail the District’s high gun violence rate.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that DC’s ban is an unconstitutional infringement upon an individual (not collective, militia-y) right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. So, for gun rights advocates, the Parade of Horribles unfolds this way: the Justices find a way uphold and thus strengthen DC’s ban, which prompts gun control advocates to push for similar ordinances and legislation across the nation. Pretty soon, the fear goes, every jurisdiction prohibits the possession of firearms in the home.

Gun control advocates offer their own dire forecast. In their worst fears, the Supreme Court strikes down the DC ban using a legal standard that opens the door to subsequent challenges to gun control regulations all over the country. Pretty soon, there are no federal gun restrictions and those on the state level are legally dubious. Pretty soon, this fear goes, everyone is packing everywhere. This is the drama the Supreme Court gets-and deserves-for not addressing the merits of the Second Amendment since 1939.

The chance that either of these parades will unfold is remarkably low, however, even given the hype that surrounds this case. Given the Court’s strong conservative makeup, it is likely that both a right to own, possess and use a firearm and the government’s right to restrict that ownership, possession will survive the Heller case. The only thing that remains reasonably unpredictable and mysterious is the language the Court’s majority - hello there, Mr. Swing Vote Justice Vote Anthony Kennedy, get your pen ready - will use in conjuring up the legal standard that will govern review of gun control legislation.

It is true that if the Supreme Court - for the first time - ever affirms an individual gun right in the Second Amendment it will be a huge deal and lawyers and professors and gun activists (on both sides of the fight) will write trillions of words about it. But, depending upon the standard used, the nation’s gun laws may not materially and universally change as a result of the ruling. The sky won’t fall, you might say, on either camp even if the Justices deliver a decisive and clear interpretation of the Second Amendment.

There are several reasons for this. First, as even Team Heller concedes in its opening brief: “However else Petitioners might regulate the possession and use of arms, their complete ban on the home possession of all functional firearms, and their prohibition against home possession and movement of handguns, are unconstitutional” (emphasis added). There are plenty of “individual” rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights that are subject to regulation. For example, we all have the right to speak but none of us have the right to threaten someone with murder.

If there is an individual right under the Second Amendment is the right to possess a firearm in your home - or anywhere else - a right so “fundamental” under the Constitution and Bill of Rights that it requires the government to offer the highest legal level of justification for restrictions placed it? Or is a lower level of review suitable, in which case more gun control ordinances and laws would withstand legal challenge? And, if the Justices go with the former and not the latter, what sorts of restrictions would survive judicial review? If the Court answers those questions, at least we’ll all know more than we do now about where we are supposed to go next in this old battle.

There is another important reason why a victory for gun rights activists won’t automatically shatter gun control legislation across the nation. All sides also seem to agree that the Second Amendment applies only to federal gun restrictions and that its protections may not necessarily (or immediately) be transferred in a way that voids state gun control laws. So even if - or when - Heller wins his challenge against the District other litigants will have to challenge state regulations on their own merits using the standard the Court announces.

The case drew an extraordinary 67 amicus briefs from groups of virtually every possible persuasion, from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence to the “Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty” (they support Heller). The clear majority of “friends” briefs support Heller’s quest. They want him to be for the Second Amendment what Clarence Earl Gideon was to the right to counsel, what Ernesto Miranda was to the right to remain silent, and what the New York Times was to the right to free speech.

But even the Bush administration can’t completely decide which side it is on. The Justice Department argues there an individual right to “bear arms” but also that “reasonable regulations” may limit their use. The feds want the Justices to send the case back down for further review. But the Vice President of the United States? In his role as President of the Senate, Dick Cheney signed onto a brief sent by dozens of senators and hundreds of representatives seeking an end to the case and a victory for Heller.

Look Tuesday morning for a dramatic, tense and serious showdown inside and out of court. Outside there will be plenty of shouting. Inside the Justices will hear the details of each Parade before they choose, as they ultimately will, some sort of different route.

[bobs1066]

" DC currently bans the possession of firearms-as well as other restrictions upon gun possession - as part of an effort to curtail the District%u2019s high gun violence rate."
That is incorrect. DC only bans the possession of handguns. There are restrictions on the storage of rifles and shotguns, but their possession is legal.

[lochlan-2009]

I am really tired of these people trying to "interpret" our constitution. The right to bear arms, is the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. One of the few things good that will come of this horrible Bush slanted Supreme Court.

[bwessels]

Mr. Cheney just wants to preserve his right to shoot his hunting buddies.

[gunownerdan]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-- Thomas Jefferson, quoting criminologist Cesare Beccaria from "On Crimes and Punishment"(1764)

[militiaofone]

Mr. Cohen I find the tone of your article to be mocking and condescending regarding what may be the most important 2D Amendment case in our nation''s history. While many have made the arguement that the 2D is a collective right, I think that the evidence is pretty clear that it is an individual right. Now it is up to the Supreme Court to begin establishing what, if any, restrictions there should be on this right. Up to now I have always been eager to read and listen to your opinions on legal issues. But it looks like I will have to skip your articles and change channels when you come on the TV.

Bobs1066: The bottomline is that DC effectively strips lawful gun owners of their right to use their firearms in their own defense of life and property. That restriction needs to lifted.

[borderraven]

2nd Ammendment provides for the people to be armed , therefore providing skilled shooters, and the states a body of persons from which to form an organized militia, but nothing stops people (unorganized militia) from responding to local situation, i.e., civil unrest or invasion until properly relieved.

[bobs1066]

My point was that the writer made a factual error before he got through two complete paragraphs.

[classicdoc]

"DC only bans the possession of handguns. There are restrictions on the storage of rifles and shotguns, but their possession is legal."

Possession of a functional rifle or shotgun is illegal. The moment you load it or remove the trigger lock, you''re breaking the law. Not that you''ll have time to do so if an intruder is in your bedroom.

[random_radar]

The intent of the second amendment was to ensure that state militias and armed citizens were always available to fight the federal government to prevent a national dictatorship from taking over. The threat of armed insurrection by the people and the states is one of the checks and balances to reign in the power of the federal government.

The reason that the Federal government is opposed to 2nd amendment rights is--surprise!--they don''t want the possibility of armed opposition to their rule. Gun control is not about crime or accidental deaths in the home; it is about maintaining our ability to fight a civil war to defend our freedom.

You should support gun control if you are in favor of an authoritarian dictatorship. You should support the right to keep and bear arms if you want to be free. That is the true question about the 2nd amendment.

[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 27, 2006

[wogerwabbit]

If we required all adults over 18 to carry firearms, the crime rate would plummet to near zero, the prisons would be near empty and people would be a lot more polite to each other. I''ll vote for that.

[rukiddinme3]

My prayers are for the Justices in this decision. Please make a clear decision that affirms the Founders intent, namely, that ALL of the Bill of Rights were to protect individuals from the government. Not to grant powers to the government. They already have wwwaaayyy too much of that.


And that is what I find so confusing about this debate. On the one hand, the Left seems to scream and yell if ANY type of government power is applied against the individual, but when the ultimate power is proposed, they seem to run shreaking into the streets in fear.

Either you want ALL of the Bill of Rights or you want none in my opinion. Which type of person are you?

[guysdigdirt]

The gun-control ( and guns have nothing to do with it) group will predict the world will result in chaos if their side loses. They are fear-mongers and will pick the scab of fear anytime they can to get what they want.

[tburzio]

"Well Regulated" means "proficient, likely to cause a good outcome". It does NOT mean that there are laws restricting militias.

[downsteamjim]

They make enough guns for me to live in most of D.C., although an Abrams tank might be effective.

[gkc99]

If the Supremes are true to form, we''ll have some spineless, mealy mouthed bit of foam that settles nothing and is based in the personal political views of the "justices"--otherwise known as "the 9 dwarves".

[cfin5]

If the Supreme Court sides with Washington DC in this, then they will be GUILTY of breaking the 9th. Amendment which says,......[The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.] Folks, this means that it is unconstitutional for ANYONE to twist the intended meaning of the words wrote down and ratified in order to confiscate or restrain any of the other rights that a citizen owns in certainty.....If you want to argue what the Founding Fathers meant, then just read what they said before and after the Bill of Rights made into LAW. They created it,....there are no others for us best refer to is there?

[roger3815]

How is it that the implicit "right to bear arms" can''t have exceptions? Yet the explicit "congress shall make no law" has exceptions? These gun zealots are idiots.

[ranger1948]

I am strongly inm favor of being able to own and have firearms. I am also for registering and getting carry permits. I also think anyone selling a firearm should have to get a clearance from the state for the individual buying the firearm whether they are a gun dealer or not. I also think a person should be psychologically tested before being allowed to purchase a handgun. I would also like to see a requirement for gun training classes for gun owners. I do not agree that we should arm all males 18 and over. I have seen plenty of people 21 and up that should not be allowed to have a weapon. I do believe everywhere that has an established policy allowing people to carry , the crime rate has decreased significantly. I know criminals do not care what the law is and will have a weapon no matter the law. I also think being able to have and carry a weapon is a deterrent to crime as the criminal wants a victim who cannot defend themselves.

[ranger1948]

Yes it is legal to own rifles and shotguns in D.C. However if an intruder breaks into your home i supose you are supposed to say, could you wait a minute while i inlock and load my rifle or shotgun. I think their law is to restrictive and deprives us of second amendment rights.

[ranger1948]

If a person chooses not to own or carry a firearm i respect their right to do so. I do not want them trying to take away my right to do so. I am a law abiding citizen, i only wish to be able to protect myself, my family, my property and anyone who i may see being attacked by a criminal. I am retired military and police. I am an expert with my weapons. I have a college degree in crinimology with a minor in psychology. I have no desire to hurt anyone. I have served in combat and seen the horrors of war and the horrors at crime scenes.

[ranger1948]

If a person chooses not to own or carry a firearm i respect their right to do so. I do not want them trying to take away my right to do so. I am a law abiding citizen, i only wish to be able to protect myself, my family, my property and anyone who i may see being attacked by a criminal. I am retired military and police. I am an expert with my weapons. I have a college degree in crinimology with a minor in psychology. I have no desire to hurt anyone. I have served in combat and seen the horrors of war and the horrors at crime scenes.

[ranger1948]

Our constitution states that if anyone tries to infringe upon or take away our rights under the constitution, we not only have the right but also the duty to take up arms to prevent them from doing so.

[ranger1948]

Unfortunately we have a great number of people who refuse to live by the laws established by society. This makes it necessary for the law abiding citizen to be able to protect themselves. I think our police do a tremendous job , however they cannot always be where we need them all the time.

[cfin5]

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

~Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

letter to Judge William Johnson

(from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

[cfin5]

The Solicitor General of the United States, Paul D. Clement, is the chief lawyer for the Justice Department. On January 11, Clement dropped a bomb designed to destroy the Second Amendment.

The bomb was a friend of the court brief that is a marvelous work of Newspeak as described by George Orwell in his novel of a horrifying future where words mean the opposite of their original definitions.

On the one hand, the brief argues that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that predated the creation of the U.S. government by the people. On the other hand, it concludes that any and all guns can be controlled or banned if a federal court finds that to be reasonable.

The brief asserts, with no proof whatsoever, that there is an "unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail...." It is somewhat amazing that a brief in defense of the DC gun ban would say such a preposterous thing. It is the District of Columbia, with its gun ban, that usually has the highest murder rate of all U.S. jurisdictions. In high-gun-ownership jurisdictions such as neighboring Fairfax County, VA (with nearly twice the D.C. population), the murder rates are much lower. Fairfax County has a rate that is more than 100 times lower than the D.C. murder rate......continued

[cfin5]

In some thirty pages of flip-flopping arguments, the Justice Department brief never once considered what the founders of the American republic might have meant by the phrase "shall not be infringed." But the Clement brief did criticize the idea that the Second Amendment was a categorical prohibition on banning guns.

The opinion of the DC Court of Appeals (DCCA) overthrew the DC handgun ban on the grounds that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. But this historical view of the Amendment should be sent back to the Appeals Court for another look, according to Bush''s brief. The Justice Department wants the Appeals Court to look at the District''s gun ban in terms of what is "reasonable."

Nary a thought about what the founders meant, and thus what the Second Amendment requires. The law should be "developed incrementally" according to Clement -- the living Constitution assertion that has been put forth by liberals for years to justify legislation by activist judges.

Clement''s language is the language of tyrants throughout history. He claims for the government the right to change the meaning of the law and the Constitution on a continuing basis -- on a whim. This avoids the messy business of proposing and debating constitutional amendments. It is much tidier to have a small group of rulers emerge from behind closed doors to announce what the law is today... and to declare what was legal a few minutes ago to be illegal now.

[cfin5]

Clement, and most judges, have bought into an illegitimate way of interpreting the Constitution that permits judges to consider whatever level of scrutiny they deem appropriate. Thus, they might decide (for reasons best known to themselves) that a higher level of scrutiny is required for interpreting a particular section of the Constitution. Conversely, they might decide that a lesser standard of scrutiny is all that is needed.

When we hear judges talk about which level of scrutiny is appropriate in a particular case, the proper translation of their legal jargon is: "How far from the meaning of the Constitution can we get away with this time?"

It is worth noting that the Second Amendment was written with the level of scrutiny appropriate for its own interpretation, i.e., the words "shall not be infringed." The Bush brief, and all other anti-gun briefs like it, have ignored these important four words in the Amendment. And for all the talk about a "level of scrutiny," the Bush brief is simply engaging in a coded discussion of what''s really happening -- their desire to get away with as much as possible.

[cfin5]

The Bush brief submitted by the Solicitor General was co-authored by Stephen Rubenstein, the head lawyer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Not surprisingly, the brief expresses alarm that federal gun bans, licensing requirements, registration laws, import restrictions and other unconstitutional federal laws and regulations might topple if a literal interpretation of the Amendment becomes the required level of scrutiny.

In the Clement-Bush brief, the phrase "shall not be infringed" is never used -- the game would be over if they did. It is hard to say gun ban or licensing requirement in the same breath with "shall not be infringed."

D.C. v. Heller would not immediately result in such a happy situation. The case was designed to ease weak-kneed judges into a slow walk back to the Constitution. All that would happen if the decision of the DCCA were simply left standing is that DC would return to its pre-1976 law. And that law is about as bad as what one finds in New York City today. Heller does not present the judges with the choice of keeping a gun ban or erasing all the unconstitutional gun laws on the books. Of course, the Court could do that, but such an outcome is unlikely in view of the strong constitutional stance that would be necessary for any kind of a favorable decision.

[cfin5]

Unhappily, the Bush brief makes it more likely than not that the Second Amendment will be gutted (unconstitutionally) by the Supreme Court. No wonder Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) is seeking to get his colleagues to co-sign his letter urging Bush to pull the brief.-------by Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America

[ranger1948]

I think the government knows the only way they are going to disarm this country is when they pry the weapons out of our dead hands.

[commentator8]

I firmly believe that the indisputably learned members of the court can be relied upon to make a reasonable - though not necessarily earthshaking - decision on this matter. It is unlikely that they will try "to settle this once and for all" but rather make an interim decision much like the court has made on this and many similarly unclear issues many times in the past. "High noon"? I think not. Neither extreme will have their fondly held but thoroughly unrealistic dreams come true.

[brianbwb-2009]

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

%u201C 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.%u201D

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

%u201CA 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.%u201D

It is clear that the phrase; "shall not be infringed%u201D is moot, as the meaning is self evident.

More important however, is the phrase no one seems to remember; %u201CA well regulated Militia", whose wording clearly gives the government the power to regulate militias, which is described as the civilian population apart from those serving in the military.

Thus it is clearly constitutional to regulate gun ownership, and there is no specified limit to the scope of regulation, but it is not constitutional to ban it.

[gunownerdan]

"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

A-HUMAN-RIGHT.com

[brianbwb-2009]

Another thought, the definition of the word "arms" has also not been set, thus it is technically legal for a civilian to own a nuclear weapon, or a biological toxin, such as ricin, unless we have all agreed to accept limitations on the type of arms owned.

The word "arms", short for "armaments" is

"A weapon, or a tool employed to gain a tactical advantage over an adversary, usually by injury, defeat, or destruction.[1][2] Weapons may be used to attack and defend, and consequently also to threaten or protect. Metaphorically, anything used to damage (even psychologically) can be referred to as a weapon. A weapon can be as simple as a club or as complex as an intercontinental ballistic missile."

So since we already accept limitations on the right to bear arms, because we accept limitations on the type of arms that are legal for civilians to own, the question of regulation is already moot, the issue is now what types of arms are allowed, and where.

[gunownerdan]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole
people, except for a few public officials."
- George Mason

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

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American."
- Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

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

"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

[cfin5]

Posted by brianbwb at 07:04 AM : Mar 18, 2008-----What was enacted into law "HAS", not "HAD" a comma in the sentence. Therefore it is illegal to infringe in anyway a citizens right to keep and bear arms.

[cfin5]

"Those who beat swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who don''''t."
- Benjamin Franklin............Man if that isn''t the truth. Knowing Neolibs and Neocons how they are with money and never being satisfied with "their" wages and continually covet after "our" wages,......they want us to put away the only thing they/we understand that keeps us FREE indeed.

[cfin5]

Posted by hillaryin08 at 08:36 AM : Mar 18, 2008-----Ain''t high at all, but your asleep in the head. Do you really think I post lies for fun? Go back and read where I started my point and I''ll gladly talk with you.

[gkc99]

While they''re at it, Washington DC should ban free speech.

We can''t have our "leaders" hear anything they don''t like!

And the words "the people" are the same in the First and Second amendments. Clearly "free speech", "freedom of religion", "freedom of assembly" and "freedom of the press" only belong to the government, not to individual citizens. That''s the reason for the First Amendment, in case the government wants to say something.

Right?

[cfin5]

Posted by gkc99 at 08:47 AM : Mar 18, 2008----Good point! Those Amendments were wrote down to protect "WE The People" from governmental tyranny. Besides, what public servant in office today has the intellect that is remotely close to those of our Founding Fathers? I can''t think of one save Ron Paul. He has proven himself diligent in office in honoring his oath to our Constitution,.....protecting our birthrights and our treasury.

[lorinkundert]

There doesn''t need to be a debate on the 2nd Amendment, it is crystal clear what the intent of the framers was, and unless we change that Amendment under article 5 of the Constitution, we have an right to have weapons.

[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 27, 2006

[ace0123]

I am not going to give up my gun. In America, Gun Control, Freedom of Speech, (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) go hand in hand (so to speak). Take one away and you can bet the other will be taken away. Take away the guns and you have no defense (folks just trying to survive). I was very nearly raped and killed by a man (very large black male) and all I had to defend myself with was a steak knife. Guns don''t kill, people kill people. Being a responsible gun owner isn''t hard - we keep our families guns under lock and key. We paid with an awful lot of blood to be free of the oppression of the British, fighting the Indians, freeing the slaves during the Civil War and keeping our freedom here and abroad. We are not free in the true sense of the word. There will always be someone bigger, meaner and with a bigger gun. We could not defend ourselves from any real threat hand to hand combat. America is not combat ready. If we are ever invaded and we need to defend ourselves and my husband isn''t home to defend us then I am the last line of defense - I am going to defend my home, my children and myself from whom ever or what ever comes our way. Therefore, I will keep my gun and add to my collection and suggest that you do the same. Other than the occasional snake and target practice, if we are really hungry and hurting for money, I shoot deer, rabbit, turkey, duck, quail. Getting off the *** of the government and not having the government "provide" everything to us/for us.

[bhappy2-2]

If the Supreme Court decides the second amendment is a right of the state, not an individual, then the first (for peaceable assembly), fourth (unreasonable search and seizure)and tenth (delegation of powers) will be taken soon; they are each written as "of the people", not specifying who "the people" are. Then, all those who want the guns banned will have no problem giving up "their" rights, since the gun owners will not be able to defend the rights of ANYONE.

[speed01rcr]

Didn''t the anti-gun politicians that took the oath of office that are against gun ownership swear to bear TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGANCE to the constitution, and support it?

Sounds like we need some impeachment proceedings!!!

[quatrops]

I have a question for those of you who argue that handgun ownership is a GOOD thing, and that, additionally, the country would be "better off" if all citizens owned a handgun to protect themselves against criminals or an over-reaching government.

Why is it that every european country that has severe restrictions or prohibitions against handgun ownership also has lower crime and murder rates than the United States? It seems to me you must have concluded there are OTHER dysfunctional aspects to our American culture that make our crime and murder rates higher than our european neighbors.

If handgun ownership ISN''T a contributing factor, what is?

[bhappy2-2]

Why is it that every european country that has severe restrictions or prohibitions against handgun ownership also has lower crime and murder rates than the United States? It seems to me you must have concluded there are OTHER dysfunctional aspects to our American culture that make our crime and murder rates higher than our european neighbors.

If handgun ownership ISN''''T a contributing factor, what is?

Posted by quatrops

Are you kidding? Their violent crimes INCREASED after their firearms were taken! Do you know why? Because the CRIMINALS know their victims are unarmed, while the CRIMINALS continue to be armed because the laws only stopped those who OBEY THE LAWS. CRIMINALS are excluded from obeying the laws because they are CRIMINALS. (That means they do not obey laws, in case you have never had it explained to you)

[coppertales]

How come everyone forgets what a "comma" is for. Look it up in the dictionary. Or, is the dictionary wrong?

A person has the right to defend themselves and their family. The SCOTUS has already ruled, Castle Rock vs Gonzales, that the police have no duty to protect the individual citizen. So, who is going to protect you? It has to be you or you die.....chris3

[bbailey642]

Every gun control advocate focuses on one main point; that guns are for militia members. Where were the militia members supposed to get their guns? They had to bring them! They themselves supplied their own guns, powder and ammo. We, in that era were a hunting, home self-defending and self-preservation society. That is what the framers intended. That the right to own a gun, was a need. In our modern era while no longer a hunting oriented society, we are still faced with home self-defense and self-preservation. While I personally own guns, they are locked according to law and I have not fired a gun since 1989. But, I have access if the need arises ala a home invasion or life-threatening situation. If you''re my neighbor and don''t like guns, that''s fine with me. If you want to rant and write venomous diatribes against me as a gun owner, that''s your right. However, don''t mind too much when I erect a sign on my property pointing to yours stating "We have guns in our house and this one (yours) does not".