NationStates Jolt Archive

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/09wire-gun.html?hp


Truly phenomenal news!

Misinterpretation of the Constitution FTW.

Well this is horrible news.

Misinterpretation of the Constitution FTW.

Well this is horrible news.


How is this a misinterpretation of the Constitution? The US DOJ has already stated that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, not militias or the state.

Woohoo! Excellent.

The dissenting view was that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to D.C. because it's not a state?!? :confused:

SO does that mean none of the other amendments apply either? http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/huh.gif

Shame, really, since it does basically say "you can have guns if you're in a militia and only then", doesn't it?

Nope, it says very clearly "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This is the same "the people" for whom the rights to say, free speech, are granted.

Shame, really, since it does basically say "you can have guns if you're in a militia and only then", doesn't it?

The 2nd amendment says no such thing. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.


ETA: Let's do the Time Warp again! :D

Shame, really, since it does basically say "you can have guns if you're in a militia and only then", doesn't it?

Woohoo! Excellent.

The dissenting view was that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to D.C. because it's not a state?!? :confused:

SO does that mean none of the other amendments apply either? http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/huh.gif

Now wait just one minute, that guy had a grand idea.

Imagine, no due process for politicians :D

Shame, really, since it does basically say "you can have guns if you're in a militia and only then", doesn't it?

Nope. It doesn't.

This it what it says:

"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 right of the people to keep and bear arms is to regulate the militia.

Now wait just one minute, that guy had a grand idea.

Imagine, no due process for politicians :D

Time to shut down the Washingon Post, eh?

How is this a misinterpretation of the Constitution? The US DOJ has already stated that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, not militias or the state.

The bolded part is where I go "so what?"

Stupid framers and their wordiness. If they had just left out the first part then we wouldnt be having this arguement :rolleyes:

You have to understand the circumstances; They had just recently had a problem with a poorly regulated milita(Shay's Rebellion), and they realized that a standing army simply isn't enough protection from roving bands of maniacs. That is assuming that the standing army isn't the force led by the maniac. :p

So current events kind of inspired the wording. *nod*

Nope. It doesn't.

This it what it says:

"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 right of the people to keep and bear arms is to regulate the militia.

Stupid framers and their wordiness. If they had just left out the first part then we wouldnt be having this arguement :rolleyes:

Hmm, proved wrong, eh?

Oh well.

Time to shut down the Washingon Post, eh?

I was thinking more along the lines of drowning bad congressmen in the potomac without a trial... The WP can move its HQ to virginia or something ;)

I was thinking more along the lines of drowning bad congressmen in the potomac without a trial... The WP can move its HQ to virginia or something ;)

Seems like a waste. Let's just enslave the lot of them. :)

The 2nd amendment says no such thing. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.


As assumed.

Hope this reaches a higher court. That would be interesting :)

The 2nd amendment says no such thing. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
Um, you guys are remembering your Constitution was written in 1787?

You know, the time when guns could only be fired once every couple of minutes, and had all the accuracy of a drunk pig?

I don’t want to rile feathers, I know how much you like your old pieces of paper (look, i even capitalised it!), but could you not update it to face 21st century realities? Possibly amend it? With, say, amendments?






*hides*

How is this a misinterpretation of the Constitution? The US DOJ has already stated that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, not militias or the state.

The department of justice is executive branch. They only offer opinions of what the constitution says. The courts make the final decision.

Um, you guys are remembering your Constitution was written in 1787?

You know, the time when guns could only be fired once every couple of minutes, and had all the accuracy of a drunk pig?

I don’t want to rile feathers, I know how much you like your old pieces of paper (look, i even capitalised it!), but could you not update it to face 21st century realities? Possibly amend it? With, say, amendments?

*hides*

Update it for what purpose? The idea is still the same: the regulation of militias and the military, that is, the ability of the people to defend themselves against the government should the government decide to go "Hey, I know, let's toss the Constitution out the window and oppress our people!"

Of course, the counter argument is that current military technology makes defending against the military with handguns and rifles impossible, but all I have to do is point to Iraq and Afghanistan and prove why that's complete bullshit.

Woohoo! Excellent.

The dissenting view was that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to D.C. because it's not a state?!? :confused:

SO does that mean none of the other amendments apply either? http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/huh.gif

That's precisely what it means--citizens who live in DC have individual rights, but the DC government doesn't, and that's the real import of this ruling--the Court has come out and definitively said that gun ownership is a personal right, which is something, I believe, the courts have been loathe to say in the past. This could get sticky on appeal, because I'm not sure how the Supreme Court will break down on this issue.

Um, you guys are remembering your Constitution was written in 1787?

You know, the time when guns could only be fired once every couple of minutes, and had all the accuracy of a drunk pig?

I don’t want to rile feathers, I know how much you like your old pieces of paper (look, i even capitalised it!), but could you not update it to face 21st century realities? Possibly amend it? With, say, amendments?






*hides*

That was Brititsh army standards, hence our independence. Originally, the Militia, composed of all able bodied males, was expected to muster with privately owned, military weapons of the time. I should, if called, be able to muster with an m-16 or equivalent, at the very least.

Jim

Um, you guys are remembering your Constitution was written in 1787?

You know, the time when guns could only be fired once every couple of minutes, and had all the accuracy of a drunk pig?

I don’t want to rile feathers, I know how much you like your old pieces of paper (look, i even capitalised it!), but could you not update it to face 21st century realities? Possibly amend it? With, say, amendments?






*hides*

Some people could make the same argument for speech or the freedom of religion.

The right to bear arms is designed to protect against government tyranny and as crazy as it may sound there are tyrannical governments out there. The national founders had the foresight to set in stone that a person has a indisputable right to self defense and must be allowed to attain the means to defend themselves if they so wish.

That was Brititsh army standards, hence our independence.
I thought Mel Gibson won you guys independence, single-handed?

Originally, the Militia, composed of all able bodied males, was expected to muster with privately owned, military weapons of the time. I should, if called, be able to muster with an m-16 or equivalent, at the very least.
What if Iran supplies the M-16s? [/flamebait]

Woohoo! Excellent.

The dissenting view was that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to D.C. because it's not a state?!? :confused:

SO does that mean none of the other amendments apply either? http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/huh.gifSo slavery is legal in D.C.?:D

*Gathers Viking horde and begins enslaving politicans, celebreties, and beautiful women*

I thought Mel Gibson won you guys independence, single-handed?

Watch a few too movies I see.


What if Iran supplies the M-16s? [/flamebait]

Nah.

So slavery is legal in D.C.?:D

*Gathers Viking horde and begins enslaving politicans, celebreties, and beautiful women*

Nope (http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend13.htm)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. That includes D.C.
Sorry--sounds like you would have had fun.

Watch a few too movies I see.
You can never watch too many films; unless they star Adam Sandler.

And Gibson has raped and pillaged Scottish history too. He seems to have a penchant for killing soldiers of HM’s Government.

Um, you guys are remembering your Constitution was written in 1787?

You know, the time when guns could only be fired once every couple of minutes, and had all the accuracy of a drunk pig?

I don’t want to rile feathers, I know how much you like your old pieces of paper (look, i even capitalised it!), but could you not update it to face 21st century realities? Possibly amend it? With, say, amendments?






*hides*

apparently you'd have to tell a lot of historians about that... since we're taught that the greatest thing about the Constitution was it's ability to adapt with the changing times. New amendments should come when new problems arise, not when already challenged problems are questioned.

New amendments should come when new problems arise, not when already challenged problems are questioned.
What sort of logic is that; who gets to say what problems have been overcome with amendments? A bunch of dead white dudes?

Many people misread the second amendment, when they read, right to arms for a well organized militia- they think, a well organized militia. It means nothing of the sort. To the people who wrote the constitution, a well organized militia is the people themselves. Regardless of how well organized they are. And they also forget the last line, the right of the peopleshall not be infringed.
So, next time you read anything from the constitution, take up the mind of thought that it was written in at the time before you start to scream.

Nope (http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend13.htm)
That includes D.C.
Sorry--sounds like you would have had fun.Dang sub-sections.:p

Oh well, I will only enslave the politicans and celebrities as they are criminals in every sense of the word.:D

I will not even begin to contemplate how movies have raped history. Or how watching films can in any way do anything other than entertain.
I contest you sah! But I shall hijack this thread no longer.

You can never watch too many films; unless they star Adam Sandler.

And Gibson has raped and pillaged Scottish history too. He seems to have a penchant for killing soldiers of HM’s Government.

I will not even begin to contemplate how movies have raped history. Or how watching films can in any way do anything other than entertain.

Many people misread the second amendment, when they read, right to arms for a well organized militia- they think, a well organized militia. It means nothing of the sort. To the people who wrote the constitution, a well organized militia is the people themselves. Regardless of how well organized they are. And they also forget the last line, the right of the peopleshall not be infringed.
So, next time you read anything from the constitution, take up the mind of thought that it was written in at the time before you start to scream.

Look, if it were that simple, then 9 other courts of appeal wouldn't have interpreted it as a state instead of a personal right for all these years. There is some contention about the interpretation of this amendment, and the fact is that this court went against established precedent in this ruling. I'm not saying this court is wrong--just that your contention that this is an open and shut interpretation is incorrect.

Look, if it were that simple, then 9 other courts of appeal wouldn't have interpreted it as a state instead of a personal right for all these years. There is some contention about the interpretation of this amendment, and the fact is that this court went against established precedent in this ruling. I'm not saying this court is wrong--just that your contention that this is an open and shut interpretation is incorrect.

No it is that easy. Life is too- but thats different. People just tend not to open their brains to posibilities. They close thier minds and are determined to drive thier personal beliefs home and not really care about the facts. Thats the *soul* if you could put it of arguments.

No it is that easy. Life is too- but thats different. People just tend not to open their brains to posibilities.

Yes yes.....federal appeals court judges are such ignorant and stupid people....

I laugh greatly at people who have the balls to argue the opinions of people who have shat out more legal knowledge than they will ever have.

Yes yes.....federal appeals court judges are such ignorant and stupid people....

I laugh greatly at people who have the balls to argue the opinions of people who have shat out more legal knowledge than they will ever have.

Listen, arguing on the Internet is like the special olympics- even if you win, your still retarded.

But you didnt even win, because I know more about law in my ass than you ever would.

Listen, arguing on the Internet is like the special olympics- even if you win, your still retarded.

But you didnt even win, because I know more about law in my ass than you ever would.

Dont be a moron, child.

Repeating decade-old "OMG ITA FUNNY" internet cliches doesnt win you any brownie points.

Nor does pretending to be smart when talking to a J.D.

You're in way over your head, if you have half a shred of decency you wont just cease to post in this thread, you'll publically apologize.

Which said, and considering you're a kid, I'm not holding my breath.

/PUI

Dont be a moron, child.

Repeating decade-old "OMG ITA FUNNY" internet cliches doesnt win you any brownie points.

Nor does pretending to be smart when talking to a J.D.

You're in way over your head, if you have half a shred of decency you wont just cease to post in this thread, you'll publically apologize.

Which said, and considering you're a kid, I'm not holding my breath.

/PUI



wow dude, you are certianly sad. "I'm in way over my head" OH NOES! YOUR INTERNET POWERS ARE SO INTIMIDATING! I QUIVER BEFORE YOUR VERY PRESEANCE. go blow yourself. Take all hard words and slide them in your fat aristocratic asshole. I'll get banned, and perhaps my nation will be deleted. At which point I wont care, because unlike yourself, I have a life outside this forum, and not on the computer. So yeah, keep getting yourself off on trying to be a cyber bully. Really though, I'm scared, I must be in over my head, I mean you said so right? so are you like gonna come find me and come to my house and publicly reprimand me or something? in real life? ha, ha, your cute. really, you are, infact your kinda hot. All your glorious internet power is turning my on, wanna hook up sweet cheeks?

No it is that easy. Life is too- but thats different. People just tend not to open their brains to posibilities. They close thier minds and are determined to drive thier personal beliefs home and not really care about the facts. Thats the *soul* if you could put it of arguments.

No--because you are simple-minded, you think all answers are simple. Those who can actually read understand that it's not a simple issue, that it is indeed complex.

trollin' trollin' trollin'

Suicide by mod?

Suicide by mod?

Nah, it's not really trolling, is it? It's just a too simple approach to the interpretation of the Constitution, and a touch of the close-mindedness that he himself complains about :)

Excellent. Finally Giuliani and McCain can duel for the republican nomination.

Excellent. Finally Giuliani and McCain can duel for the republican nomination.

Pistols at dawn?


Nah. I CHOOSE THE BANJO! :D

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/09wire-gun.html?hp


Truly phenomenal news!

Now, if we can only get some more gun laws overturned we might get back our Constitutional right to bear arms.

Now, if we can only get some more gun laws overturned we might get back our Constitutional right to bear arms.

You never lost it in the first place. :rolleyes:

Um, you guys are remembering your Constitution was written in 1787?

You know, the time when guns could only be fired once every couple of minutes, and had all the accuracy of a drunk pig?

I don’t want to rile feathers, I know how much you like your old pieces of paper (look, i even capitalised it!), but could you not update it to face 21st century realities? Possibly amend it? With, say, amendments?

*hides*

Many other Rights were given to us in 1787 like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. Should they also be "updated to face 21st century realities?

The reality is we have some freedoms in this country given to us by the framers of the government and there is no valid reason to change most of them especially our rights.

What rational would you use to take away our right to bear arms? The rational that guns are more accurate and potentially more lethal is no reason to take those rights away. Hell, automobiles are more deadly but you don't see people clamoring to take away our driving privileges because of that.

Pistols at dawn?


Nah. I CHOOSE THE BANJO! :D

Right, then when you start going Hendrix on us, I'll blow your banjo out with my gun and say the shot came from the grassy knoll. ;)

New amendments should come when new problems arise, not when already challenged problems are questioned.

They do, and they have. It is intentionaly a long and slow process. However, when it comes to Rights guranteed by the Constitution, as in the right to bear arms, I don't see any "new problems" that require us to take that right away.

You never lost it in the first place. :rolleyes:

Then why do I need a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Why do I need a permit to buy a gun in some places like New York City? Why do we have gun control laws in some cities and states?

Then why do I need a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Why do I need a permit to buy a gun in some places like New York City? Why do we have gun control laws in some cities and states?

Restriction does not equal loss. You can still carry those weapons, can't you? But even if it did, you're arguing that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right--no right is absolute. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect slander and libel. The 2nd doesn't prevent Congress from regulating which weapons can be sold to private citizens in the US and what restrictions may be placed on where and how those weapons may be used.

Then why do I need a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Why do I need a permit to buy a gun in some places like New York City? Why do we have gun control laws in some cities and states?

Regulation, not infringement.

Right, then when you start going Hendrix on us, I'll blow your banjo out with my gun and say the shot came from the grassy knoll. ;)

Something tells me you're not taking me very seriously. :p

Restriction does not equal loss. You can still carry those weapons, can't you? But even if it did, you're arguing that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right--no right is absolute. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect slander and libel. The 2nd doesn't prevent Congress from regulating which weapons can be sold to private citizens in the US and what restrictions may be placed on where and how those weapons may be used.

True, but does a city or state government have the right to put any restriction on rights guranteed by the Constitution or is that something that is limited to the Fereral Gaovrnment. I'm asking because I really don't know, but it appears that states have when it comes to gun control.

Restriction does not equal loss. You can still carry those weapons, can't you? But even if it did, you're arguing that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right--no right is absolute. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect slander and libel. The 2nd doesn't prevent Congress from regulating which weapons can be sold to private citizens in the US and what restrictions may be placed on where and how those weapons may be used.

Slander and libel /= restricting firearms w/o clear and present danger. In DC, there is a clear infringement as they restrict use even in private property.

Regulation, not infringement.

But if the regulation restricts me from bearing arms, isn't that infrigement?

Regulation, not infringement.

At what point does regulation become infringement? When it's regulated to only the rich and connected? When it's regulated so that noone can own one?

When they say a permit is based on police approval and the police never approve, is that regulation or infringement?

Slander and libel /= restricting firearms w/o clear and present danger. In DC, there is a clear infringement as they restrict use even in private property.

I'm talking in broad terms. The DC case deals with an outright ban, not mere restrictions. And my analogy to slander and libel certainly applies, as I was illustrating how no right contained in the Bill of Rights is an absolute one. I could just as easily have said that the First Amendment doesn't protect human sacrifice as part of a religious expression and it would have been equally applicable. The Second Amendment does not hamstring Congress's ability to regulate the sale and ownership of weapons. It limits their ability to ban them, not to regulate them.

But if the regulation restricts me from bearing arms, isn't that infrigement?

Nope, because it doesn't make it impossible for you to do so--it only sets up requirements for you to meet in order to do so.

Nope, because it doesn't make it impossible for you to do so--it only sets up requirements for you to meet in order to do so.

What about my question of state government's power to regulate or restrict Constitutional right? Post #42

I'm talking in broad terms. The DC case deals with an outright ban, not mere restrictions. And my analogy to slander and libel certainly applies, as I was illustrating how no right contained in the Bill of Rights is an absolute one. I could just as easily have said that the First Amendment doesn't protect human sacrifice as part of a religious expression and it would have been equally applicable. The Second Amendment does not hamstring Congress's ability to regulate the sale and ownership of weapons. It limits their ability to ban them, not to regulate them.

I understand that. However, like I asked above, when does the process of regulation become an infringement. In DC, they are regulated to the point of a defacto ban as you can't register any handguns, longguns require police permission (rarely given) along w/ draconian storage requirements involving loss of other guaranteed rights (searchless warrant).

Would a license by police approval be acceptable for freedom of speech?

The Clinton AWB (along w/ all the state ones) was based on lies and misinformation. No "regulation" involved.

Now a real point is the rediculous "selective incorporation" concept of the BOR.

Nope, because it doesn't make it impossible for you to do so--it only sets up requirements for you to meet in order to do so.

And if the requirements are nearly impossible to meet or are clearly discriminatory?

And if the requirements are nearly impossible to meet or are clearly discriminatory?

then...it becomes a constitutional question as to whether those requirements functio effectively like a infringement.

This is why we HAVE courts, after all.

then...it becomes a constitutional question as to whether those requirements functio effectively like a infringement.

This is why we HAVE courts, after all.

Which is exactly what the DC court has stated. That the DC requirements are an infringement.

Of course the courts have also stated that w/o state/local legislation, it's constitutional to seize private property for sale to other private persons.

Sometimes the courts are wrong.

Which is exactly what the DC court has stated. That the DC requirements are an infringement.

Of course the courts have also stated that w/o state/local legislation, it's constitutional to seize private property for sale to other private persons.

Sometimes the courts are wrong.

I suggest you actually READ kelo fully then comment on it.

I suggest you actually READ kelo fully then comment on it.

Been there, done that. Comment stands.

Been there, done that. Comment stands.

then surely you know that the 5th amendment says "for public use" which does not necessarily mean that it be held in public hands, merely that it be used for the benefit of the public.

then surely you know that the 5th amendment says "for public use" which does not necessarily mean that it be held in public hands, merely that it be used for the benefit of the public.

Now read the part after the comma please.

Selling private property after it is condemned so they won't have to pay just compensation to a business exclusively for the rich on the hopes it will raise tax revenue is a stretch of the phrase "public use".

But of course the courts can do no wrong.

True, but does a city or state government have the right to put any restriction on rights guranteed by the Constitution or is that something that is limited to the Fereral Gaovrnment. I'm asking because I really don't know, but it appears that states have when it comes to gun control.

The Federal government generally restricts gun sales by using the Commerce Clause, but that limits their reach only to interstate commerce. They can't, for instance, say that you can't own this or that gun so much as they can limit or ban sales of said weapons across state lines. Individual states and cities have been able to limit gun ownership and gun sales inside the state because the 2nd Amendment has until now been interpreted as a state, not an individual right. This ruling throws that calculus into question. We'll see if SCOTUS further refines the ruling.

Now read the part after the comma please.

Selling private property after it is condemned so they won't have to pay just compensation to a business exclusively for the rich on the hopes it will raise tax revenue is a stretch of the phrase "public use".

But of course the courts can do no wrong.

Actually, what Kelo rightly said is that it's not the Supreme Court's place to adjudicate, on a case by case basis, what constitutes "public use." That's an issue for state and local authorities. But you knew that, I guess. :rolleyes:

The Federal government generally restricts gun sales by using the Commerce Clause, but that limits their reach only to interstate commerce. They can't, for instance, say that you can't own this or that gun so much as they can limit or ban sales of said weapons across state lines. Individual states and cities have been able to limit gun ownership and gun sales inside the state because the 2nd Amendment has until now been interpreted as a state, not an individual right. This ruling throws that calculus into question. We'll see if SCOTUS further refines the ruling.

IIRC there's actually one more step before SCOTUS. It could go before the full appeals panel of about 30 judges.

I notice conservatives don't bitch about "judicial activism" when it works out in their favor.

Actually, what Kelo rightly said is that it's not the Supreme Court's place to adjudicate, on a case by case basis, what constitutes "public use." That's an issue for state and local authorities. But you knew that, I guess. :rolleyes:

Based off of earlier SCOTUS precedent saying that the potential of tax revenues was considered "public use" and that condeming non-blighted property was also acceptable. But I guess you knew that. :rolleyes:

I notice conservatives don't bitch about "judicial activism" when it works out in their favor.

This isn't activism, this is sanity, at long last!

I notice conservatives don't bitch about "judicial activism" when it works out in their favor.

This time it's the "liberals" bitching about it.

IIRC there's actually one more step before SCOTUS. It could go before the full appeals panel of about 30 judges.

I doubt DC will ask for an en banc hearing--this is the sort of thing that SCOTUS has to decide, because it's a decision in disagreement with 9 other Circuits. They'll either hear the case and make a ruling, or decline, and the ruling will then become precedent, and the ripple effect will begin. How far that will reach is anyone's guess.

This time it's the "liberals" bitching about it.

Actually, if by liberals you're talking about liberal blogs, they've been largely silent on the ruling, much more so than I expected. It's a myth that there's this huge anti-gun group in the Democratic party. The Democrats have, in speech at least, come out in favor of local and state control.

Based off of earlier SCOTUS precedent saying that the potential of tax revenues was considered "public use" and that condeming non-blighted property was also acceptable. But I guess you knew that. :rolleyes:

If the state considers that a public use. If the state makes a law that says that's not a public use, then it doesn't fly in that state. What's so hard to grasp about that concept? If Florida says that's a public use, then it is. If Connecticut says it isn't, then it isn't.

Actually, if by liberals you're talking about liberal blogs, they've been largely silent on the ruling, much more so than I expected. It's a myth that there's this huge anti-gun group in the Democratic party. The Democrats have, in speech at least, come out in favor of local and state control.

The Democrats can't afford to be anti-gun as they would lose to many voters, especially in the South and West. By going the gun control route they can keep the Northeast and Left Coast happy without offending the rest of the country.

Based off of earlier SCOTUS precedent saying that the potential of tax revenues was considered "public use" and that condeming non-blighted property was also acceptable. But I guess you knew that. :rolleyes:

yes, because the state did. What SCOTUS, quite correctly said, was that because the question was whether it was of public use for the municpality/state and NOT the federal government, it was up to each state/municipality to determine whether it was, or was not, for the public use. The federal government can not decide what is, or is not, public use, for the town of new london. Not only is it too far removed to do so, but presumably it is barred by the 10th amendment.

The decision of what is of public use in the state of connecticut is a decision that must be made by the state of connecticut

The Democrats can't afford to be anti-gun as they would lose to many voters, especially in the South and West. By going the gun control route they can keep the Northeast and Left Coast happy without offending the rest of the country.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night, but the fact is that as a national party, federal gun control is off the table. A Democratic Representative from New York introduced legislation that would reauthorize and expand the Assault Weapons ban this legislative session and as of two weeks ago, it didn't have a single co-sponsor. What does that tell you about the national party's mood toward gun control? You could have made an anti-gun case against the Democrats a decade or two ago, but it was fading even then. Now it's just residue. You guys won, and congratulations to you--the debate is now over what level of control the states can exert over gun ownership, not over the federal government's control.

This isn't activism, this is sanity, at long last!

and you just proved his point. Is it just coincidence that you show up right after the last wing nut got banned?

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/09wire-gun.html?hp


Truly phenomenal news!

Why the hell should i give a damn?

Some people could make the same argument for speech or the freedom of religion.

Many other Rights were given to us in 1787 like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. Should they also be "updated to face 21st century realities?
Yes, we should make the same arguments for freedoms of speech, religion/no religion and the press. Our rights should reflect the age we are living in, including, and especially, the above freedoms; and I believe the defence of these freedoms is as important as ever. Examining and altering one portion of rights legislation doesn’t entail a wholesale rejection of all our rights.

However, perhaps the 17th-18th century notion of preventing tyranny through threat of rebellion and violence might better be updated to the enforcement of democratic accountability and political safeguards? Squashing the possibility of authoritarian abuse of government rather than preparing for violence against such a threat.

A problem with this whole debate, outside of just NS:G, is the meshing of two different arguments, namely, the right to posses weapons for personal self-defence and/or hunting, pest control, etc., and the defence against tyranny. Confusing the two arguments as one makes any proponent of gun regulation appear as an apologist for authoritarianism, and any supporter of blood sports appear as a militant vigilante.

Confusing the two arguments as one makes any proponent of gun regulation appear as an apologist for authoritarianism, and any supporter of blood sports appear as a militant vigilante.

They aren't? :p

They aren’t? :p
Apparently not.

In other news, the world’s population is made up of two types of people, liberals and conservatives. ;)

Apparently not.

In other news, the world’s population is made up of two types of people, liberals and conservatives. ;)

Or, their proper names, "Aging Hippie Liberal Douche" and "Angry Intolerant Conservative Redneck". [/SOUTHPARKREFERENCE]

This time it's the "liberals" bitching about it.

Yup. For some strange reason whenever a judge rules something unconstitutional it can never be because it's unconstitutional. Apparently.

Why the hell should i give a damn?

If you have no interest in the subject then why graffiti the thread?

All the relevant information was visible by holding the mouse over the thread title.

Many other Rights were given to us in 1787 like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. Should they also be "updated to face 21st century realities?

The reality is we have some freedoms in this country given to us by the framers of the government and there is no valid reason to change most of them especially our rights.

What rational would you use to take away our right to bear arms? The rational that guns are more accurate and potentially more lethal is no reason to take those rights away. Hell, automobiles are more deadly but you don't see people clamoring to take away our driving privileges because of that.

They were never 'given' to us. The bill of rights was merely recognition that these rights were inherent in our society, we always had those rights and always will. Something given can be take away.

They were never 'given' to us. The bill of rights was merely recognition that these rights were inherent in our society, we always had those rights and always will. Something given can be take away.

Technically, the Amendments CAN be repealed by another amendment, but that's only been done with the Prohibition amendment.

Technically, the Amendments CAN be repealed by another amendment, but that's only been done with the Prohibition amendment.

I think you're confusing "rights" and "amendment".

Our rights exist independent of the Constitution.

The Founders understood this, and their wording of the Bill of Rights reflects this.

Note that nowhere does it say "The people shall have the right to X, Y, and Z". Rather, it says "The right to X shall not be infringed"--meaning that they recognize that said right ALREADY EXISTS metaphysically prior to their recognition of it, and they are simply enjoining Congress (and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the States) from violating it.

However, perhaps the 17th-18th century notion of preventing tyranny through threat of rebellion and violence might better be updated to the enforcement of democratic accountability and political safeguards? Squashing the possibility of authoritarian abuse of government rather than preparing for violence against such a threat.

Because in the end, it all comes down to depending on the people in power to respect the laws that govern the government.

When they decide to ignore them, those laws won't do a damn bit of good--and that's where the heavily-armed populace comes in.

Rejoice and be glad in it.