D.C. Tries to Finesse Gun Ruling

[hsckris]

The right to bear arms was a constitutional provision made at a time when a gun was necessary to defend oneself from wild creatures, as well as for feeding the family. They were seen as necessary for the defense of the new country too. I sincerely doubt that the framing fathers even considered whether firearms should be carried in a school setting, or used in an urban environment. Had they seen where the 2nd. amendment was headed, I would b e willing to bet that they added a few restrictions regarding the use of those guns.

Remember, the 2nd. amendment guaranties the right to own the firearm, but society still has the right to regulate how and when it is used.

I doubt they did either.... why? Not for the reason you are thinking. Because schools were not considered a job for the Federal government. THe Framers wanted state & local gov't to control the schools without federal infringement.

I'm 100% sure that the framers would've considered the right to be that of the individual variety. In fact, I wrote my thesis in college on that very topic. I can prove it to you if you feel like reading 35 pages, and, trust me, that is what it takes to come close to adequate coverage of the topic. My paper actually didn't even address the practical side, it was entirely focused on the Constitutional law/original intent side and was still 35pgs.

[WDRacing]

rn:

you can take your italics and shove it up your ***. As much as i disagree with this supposed right to bear arms (I think Scalia is a nutjob and a farce as a justice), there is no freakin way the government should be regulating my rights.

Sure you can speak freely...but not in manner X

Sure your you can't be searched without probable cause, but this isn't a search its a screening.

I am a gun owner but if I told you it made me feel safer I would be lieing.

Normally I want to throw you under a bus...but in this instance I agree 100%. If the Gov would do a little less meddling in personal affairs and a little more running of the economics we'd be in a far better place today.

People own guns, people love guns, it's been agreed on for decades that the Constitution supports our right to do so. So find another cause to fight for and quit trampling my personal freedoms

[srellim234]

As I read through this thread it seems possible that compromises can be reached to satisfy both the right to bear arms AND the responsible handling of them. Through the responsible drafting enforcement of laws regarding use and leaving Constitutional interpretation and amending alone. Simply put, I feel what the Washington politicians are proposing is too far-reaching but some changes do need to be made in the high crime/high accidental gun charge areas.

I would like to get a feel for everyone's idea of the answer to one question: Given the advances in weaponry over the last two hundred years, what is your definition of "arms" as the framers intended? Where would you draw the line on what's allowed and what isn't? Rifles? Handguns? Fully automatic weapons? Grenades? Mines to protect your property? Grenade launchers? Missile launchers? Bombs? Where would each of you draw YOUR line?

[ishkabibble]

Constitutional interpretation

Could it be? Semantics in the legal profession? (this is directed at rn)

Fenty is the best mayor D.C. has had in a looooong time, but he is way off base here. He's most likely trying to go with the will of the majority of D.C. residents, who support the gun ban. News flash: the majority of D.C. residents are incredibly ignorant.

Like I've said before, the drug dealers in my neighborhood have guns, while the law-abiding citizens don't. Something's wrong here.

[rn79870]

rn:

you can take your italics and shove it up your ***. As much as i disagree with this supposed right to bear arms (I think Scalia is a nutjob and a farce as a justice), there is no freakin way the government should be regulating my rights.

Okay my friend, Consider italicized statement...Remember, the 2nd. amendment guaranties the right to own the firearm, but society still has the right to regulate how and when it is used. as your neighbor does the following...

1. Stand in the state capital and start shooting out the windows.2. Go nextdoor to an elementary school and start shooting tin cans.3. Go shoot at or near a few police cars.4. Go to the corner of Main and 1st. and start shooting in the air.5. Go hunting deer from inside a car using your headlights etc....

When the neighbor get out of prision, have him come and tell us about your how his constitutional rights and priviledges were violated.

I'll say it again, someone may have the right to own a weapon, but the government has the final say, and rightfully so, on how, when and where they use it. That is hardly infringing on anyone's right to own a firearm. In fact, I doubt there is a gun owner anywhere who would think otherwise.

[rn79870]

I would like to get a feel for everyone's idea of the answer to one question: Given the advances in weaponry over the last two hundred years, what is your definition of "arms" as the framers intended? Where would you draw the line on what's allowed and what isn't? Rifles? Handguns? Fully automatic weapons? Grenades? Mines to protect your property? Grenade launchers? Missile launchers? Bombs? Where would each of you draw YOUR line?

We already know that the SCOTUS has allowed some gun control. Try buying an assault rifle now. Try buying a machine gun. A RPG... If you listened to the oral arguments (I know Bud and I did) you'd have seen that they specifically addressed rifles and handguns. They used the example of a machine gun and even the lawyers arguing against the ban agreed that they were (fully automatic weapons) properly banned.

[rn79870]

Could it be? Semantics in the legal profession? (this is directed at rn)

Not in 2008 Ish, the definations are pretty well set. It's way too late to start redefining words.

You never forget do you?

[ishkabibble]

You never forget do you?

I would say I'm like an elephant if it weren't for the fear of being associated with the Republicans.

[HashiriyaS14]

1. With your rational how do you reconcile that the all powerful United States Military was worn down to the point of withdraw from Vietnam by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army? I am sure that the King of England laughed at the Colonist Militias when they stood against the British Army at Bunker Hill. It is also amazing about how few Al Qaeda In Iraq operatives it take to create troubles for the United States Military.

I think that, just tactically speaking, we're looking at different scenarios. You're talking about US involvement in wars, and US involvement wherein the government is still as we know it today, i.e. largely benevolent and answerable to both the people and common decency. Obviously, the US military was stymied in these situations because we couldn't, politically, bring our entire arsenal to bear. If we could, we would have vaporized the opposition in question.

There were no B2's available during Bunker Hill. I'm pretty certain that if the British had possessed B2's and tactical nukes, they would have incinerated their troublesome former colony.

2. I am horrified that you would think that our government would violate posse comitatus in such a way as nuking Indianapolis and the fact that you are ok with that. Further more that you would just roll over to an oppressive government is shocking.

You're the one who's saying that it's a semi-realistic scenario the US Government might "go rogue" on it's population, not me. What I am saying is that 'twere this to happen, given how crazy circumstances would have to BE for it to happen, what would then stop a government capable of that from then bringing it's full arsenal to bear? NOTHING.

If the US government or a limited and powerful portion of it ever exhibited the will to turn on it's population, there is no reason to believe that, in such wildly improbable circumstances, they wouldn't also exhibit the will to direct the full capabilities of the military upon the US population. In such circumstances, personal small arms ownership would obviously not be a material consideration in regards to which "side" emerges victorious.

No one would have the chance to "resist", it would just be over.

I have a great deal of respect for you, but I am beginning to question that.

This makes me cry a tiny diamond tear.

Seriously, if you're really reading my posts, you'd understand that we're having a tactical disagreement, not an ideological one.

For the record, no, I do NOT believe that it is possible to have the "soldier on every street corner" form of tyrannical government in the United States. Not with a 100% volunteer military, fairly transparent government, speed of information transfer, our extensive checks and balances and how even the partisan divide is. It's either a handful of crazies hit the button and kill everyone, or it doesn't happen.

Thus, in conclusion, no, I do not believe that the unbelievably improbable situation I'm outlining above is good enough reason to justify citizens owning fully automatic weapons.

If we REALLY wanted to hand out fully automatic weapons to citizens, we'd do what the Swiss do, wherein most families with a man of fighting age have a military assault rifle in the home. It is essentially a citizen militia. Everyone knows that everyone else has one, everyone is volunteer, but the guns are REGISTERED AND TRACKED, so the Government knows who has what. Switzerland has an incredibly low rate of gun violence, given that it probably has a higher gun OWNERSHIP rate than the United States does.

[skylndrftr]

We already know that the SCOTUS has allowed some gun control. Try buying an assault rifle now. Try buying a machine gun. A RPG... If you listened to the oral arguments (I know Bud and I did) you'd have seen that they specifically addressed rifles and handguns. They used the example of a machine gun and even the lawyers arguing against the ban agreed that they were (fully automatic weapons) properly banned.

but why? See heres my arguement. Under the second amedment how can you prevent me from owning lets say a small nuclear bomb. Theoretically I could use it to protet myself and my personal property if I was in danger. The 2nd amendment says "arms" not guns. I'll take some mutated anthrax (for duck hunting) on vacation with me.

This idea that gun control is acceptable is something created by Scalia out of thin air based on his, frankly, bastardized view of constitutional law. Read his opinion, its simply that his personal bias that made this decision. It has nothing to do with a close reading of the constitution and the people agreeing with him should be embarrassed that you have to pin your beliefs on that whackjob.

Rights are rights, everyone in here is willing to submit to restriction of others rights a long as they don't affect an individual persons views of wha their rights should be. "Sure keep guns from felons"...until your convicted of a felony. "absolutely track sex ofenders" well how bout speeders? The only reason Scalia allowed any regulation at all is to mitigate the negative response and placate people. So much for strict constitutionalist.

Not to mention that the decision is now being used to challenge gun laws in other states, what happened to states rights Scalia? DC isn't a state how does this apply elsewhere?

[/RANT]

Sorry I just strongly dislike Scalia and think this issue obviously shows what a moron he is.