U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-21-2007, 11:24 AM
 
Location: I live in Ronan, MT but am stationed in Virginia Beach
290 posts, read 627,873 times
Reputation: 94

Advertisements

“In a decision that could affect gun control laws across the nation, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a gun,” reports ABC News.
Carry? Or possess?

“It has been 70 years since the high court has focused on the meaning of the words ‘right to keep and bear arms’ in the Second Amendment and the case is sure to ignite cultural battles across the country.”

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
Seems pretty straight forward to me.

“The Supreme Court agreed to step in because the issue has caused a deep split in the lower courts. While a majority of courts have said that the right to bear arms refers in connection to service in a state militia, two federal courts have said the amendment protects an individual’s right to keep a gun.”

A deep split? Apparently, members sitting in the lower courts have a difficult time reading plain English. The Second Amendment states unambiguously that the right to bears arms “shall not be infringed.”

But then there are people like District of Criminals mayor Adrian Fenty, who states: “Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die.”

In other words, Fenty thinks he can ban guns and he will not “stand by” the Second Amendment.

The District of Criminals has the highest crime rate in the country, surpassing Los Angeles and New York. Is this possible because guns are banned there and the criminals realize they can victimize anybody they want without consequence?
It seems Fenty is standing by while people die.

But then it is not the responsibility of the police to protect the people. It is the duty of the people to protect themselves.
We’ll see if the Supremes agree. Or if they will strip the Second Amendment to its bones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2007, 11:27 AM
 
11,945 posts, read 17,452,893 times
Reputation: 6060
Quote:
A deep split? Apparently, members sitting in the lower courts have a difficult time reading plain English. The Second Amendment states unambiguously that the right to bears arms “shall not be infringed.”

Were it so unambiguous, it would not be before the Supreme Court. And its only unambiguous when you slice off the first part about the well-regulated militia. I realize commas are tedious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2007, 11:34 AM
 
Location: I live in Ronan, MT but am stationed in Virginia Beach
290 posts, read 627,873 times
Reputation: 94
I'm sorry some people think that guns are a bad thing, here in Montana where Gun/people ratios are higher than anywhere in the United states yet we have absolutly no problem with gun violence
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2007, 11:40 AM
 
11,945 posts, read 17,452,893 times
Reputation: 6060
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRead View Post
I'm sorry some people think that guns are a bad thing, here in Montana where Gun/people ratios are higher than anywhere in the United states yet we have absolutly no problem with gun violence
Montana is hardly a template that would apply to places like New York City or Miami.

Nobody is averse to hunting weapons. When people decry guns they usually mean handguns or AK-47 type weapons.

Its all moot anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2007, 11:48 AM
 
4,740 posts, read 8,776,266 times
Reputation: 4072
The Bill of Rights protects individual rights. It's out of context to say that the Second Amendment is the special exception, and that it really protects 'state militias'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2007, 11:52 AM
 
1,965 posts, read 5,777,835 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRead View Post
“In a decision that could affect gun control laws across the nation, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a gun,” reports ABC News.
Carry? Or possess?

“It has been 70 years since the high court has focused on the meaning of the words ‘right to keep and bear arms’ in the Second Amendment and the case is sure to ignite cultural battles across the country.”

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
Seems pretty straight forward to me.

“The Supreme Court agreed to step in because the issue has caused a deep split in the lower courts. While a majority of courts have said that the right to bear arms refers in connection to service in a state militia, two federal courts have said the amendment protects an individual’s right to keep a gun.”

A deep split? Apparently, members sitting in the lower courts have a difficult time reading plain English. The Second Amendment states unambiguously that the right to bears arms “shall not be infringed.”

But then there are people like District of Criminals mayor Adrian Fenty, who states: “Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die.”

In other words, Fenty thinks he can ban guns and he will not “stand by” the Second Amendment.

The District of Criminals has the highest crime rate in the country, surpassing Los Angeles and New York. Is this possible because guns are banned there and the criminals realize they can victimize anybody they want without consequence?
It seems Fenty is standing by while people die.

But then it is not the responsibility of the police to protect the people. It is the duty of the people to protect themselves.
We’ll see if the Supremes agree. Or if they will strip the Second Amendment to its bones.
The issue is whether the Supreme Court is going to continue interpreting the second amendment as being limited to maintaining a militia or overturn existing precedent. They won't being stripping the 2nd amendment of anything if they continue with the long-standing precedent b/c that IS the status quo (a position that is supported by conservative Robert Bork). In any event, I think even if the precedent is overturned it should be interpreted as limited the "freedom" to the technology that existed when the constitution was drafted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2007, 12:00 PM
 
11,945 posts, read 17,452,893 times
Reputation: 6060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reactionary View Post
The Bill of Rights protects individual rights. It's out of context to say that the Second Amendment is the special exception, and that it really protects 'state militias'.
Then one wonders why the word militia is there, if not for context.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2007, 12:05 PM
 
394 posts, read 204,776 times
Reputation: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRead View Post
I'm sorry some people think that guns are a bad thing, here in Montana where Gun/people ratios are higher than anywhere in the United states yet we have absolutly no problem with gun violence

that is because there are like 200 people living in the state, like I said before just wait until everyone flood your state because it will happen eventually, you will wish you did something about your guns
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2007, 12:18 PM
 
9,715 posts, read 13,294,980 times
Reputation: 3318
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRead View Post
The District of Criminals has the highest crime rate in the country, surpassing Los Angeles and New York. Is this possible because guns are banned there and the criminals realize they can victimize anybody they want without consequence?
Both Los Angeles and New York City have pretty stiff gun laws, particularly concerning Concealed carry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2007, 12:40 PM
 
1,572 posts, read 3,679,563 times
Reputation: 512
DC has a huge gun running problem, so all the banning gun in the District really does nothing. Criminals can still get guns there

Gun violence in DC has nothing to do with the idea that many criminals think that the law-abiding don't carry guns. Alot of the violence is between two people carrying guns, or killing bystanders. NRA nuts make everything sound so simplistic even when it isn't.

Luckily I believe things may change for DC as the area gentrifies more and more, and the poor people are pushed out, probably to become somebody else's problem. Then DC will have nothing to complain about. DC has honestly been a sad case since the Civil War, since thousands of freed but broke black slaves moved in to be near Uncle Abe. Lots of urban renewal and tragic, stupid race riots (the MLK race riot being one of the worst, with the military comming close to opening fire on rioters en masse. The MLK riots were started by black power types intimidating non-black businesses to close). Very sad city and there are no easy solutions for it, though Virginia and Maryland need to do more to crack down on gun running into DC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top