US right to to be tested by Supreme Court

[CrazyAnglican]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/17/usa.usgunviolence

Fingers crossed they see sense.


Perhaps an american could explain something to me: Why is this amendment so sacred, when, for example, everyone was happy to see the amendment prohibiting alcohol be gotten rid of?

Alcohol does little to help when your government is the one coming to get you.

[heavycola]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/17/usa.usgunviolence

Fingers crossed they see sense.


Perhaps an american could explain something to me: Why is this amendment so sacred, when, for example, everyone was happy to see the amendment prohibiting alcohol be gotten rid of?

Alcohol does little to help when your government is the one coming to get you.

But where did that distinction come from? And anyway, what good would a .45 be?

[DangerBoy]

Guns should be, like banned. the kkk southern americans should hand them in right away.

And what about the other 50 million people who own guns?

They should be forced to hand them in....so many poor, innocent people get shot by farmers and land owners...it's so like dangerous! someone who i know went to america, and saw a poor spanish person get shot, for stealing some bread or something.

Poor poor spanish person, perhaps they were shot by one of the mean nasty gringo people or someone. I had a friend who visited a farm once in america and they like forced them to eat rhubarb or something.

[Lazy_Pilgrim]

sorry to re quote myslef but it still holds true

It is not defence from the government that makes people carry wepons its becuase of other civillians carring wepons for exactly the same reason, its just a vicious cycle.

[Jenos Ridan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/17/usa.usgunviolence

Fingers crossed they see sense.


Perhaps an american could explain something to me: Why is this amendment so sacred, when, for example, everyone was happy to see the amendment prohibiting alcohol be gotten rid of?

It is "sacred", as you put it, because for one:

It is the reason we are not like Canada or Austrialia (or any other part of your commonwealth).

For two:

As I said before on similar topic, what assurance do I have that Big Brother will not take the rest of the Bill Of Rights (which the 2nd Amendment is part of)? Well?

For three:

It's part of the Bill of Rights, the part of the Constitution that is very important to the average joe. No part of it should be removed simply because someone is a whiny little bitch!

And for four:

Do you want to see every gun nut, veteran and criminal take to the streets in armed protest and bring this nation into a state of civil war? I sure don't!

There, I answered your inquery. Satisfied?

[Iliad]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/17/usa.usgunviolence

Fingers crossed they see sense.


Perhaps an american could explain something to me: Why is this amendment so sacred, when, for example, everyone was happy to see the amendment prohibiting alcohol be gotten rid of?

It is "sacred", as you put it, because for one:

It is the reason we are not like Canada or Austrialia (or any other part of your commonwealth).

For two:

As I said before on similar topic, what assurance do I have that Big Brother will not take the rest of the Bill Of Rights (which the 2nd Amendment is part of)? Well?

For three:

It's part of the Bill of Rights, the part of the Constitution that is very important to the average joe. No part of it should be removed simply because someone is a whiny little bitch!

And for four:

Do you want to see every gun nut, veteran and criminal take to the streets in armed protest and bring this nation into a state of civil war? I sure don't!

There, I answered your inquery. Satisfied?

You are different from us because you have guns. Do you really want to be different there?

Oh and if Big brother does try to take over you're fucked any way no matter what guns you have. Haven't you ever thought of chemical or nuclear warfare?

[GabonX]

"If you could prove that gun laws are making us safer, the remedy is to change the constitution."

To answer you question HC, the right to own guns is part of a very special part of the Constitution called the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was written as the first ten amendments of the US Constitution and was intended to outline certain rights that they thought that all citizens should have. The Right to Bear Arms, is right up there with Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Speech according to the US Constitution.

Based on this I would argue that any gun could be owned if the Constitution is interpreted properly. Certainly the man in this case would be allowed to own a hand gun to defend himself. Among others one of the reasons the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to bear arms is so that an armed individual can protect himself if the government cannot or from the government if it should become corrupt.

According to the details I have heard about this case a man registered to own a hand gun in Washington DC and was refused. He lives in a violent part of the city where many people own and use guns illegally. This means that the police likely try to avoid this area due to gang violence and for fear that they would be targeted by these gangs. In an area of the city where there is frequent gun violence and where police do not patrol would you really deprive the one man who tried to own a gun legally to protect his family of his constitutional right?

If your answer is yes and you think it is safer to make all gun possession illegal it is possible to do so. It would require a change to the Constitution and would be one of ten rights originally guaranteed in the Bill of Rights which would be lost.

[MeDeFe]

by "any gun", do you mean that exactly as it sounds, up to and including those fancy things that fire 10k bullets in 1 second, RPGs and flamethrowers, hey, why not let people own a tank for self-defence?

[greenoaks]

but that constitution is for people living in the united states of america. he does not. he lives in the district of columbia.

if the forefathers meant for it to apply to him they would have called the nation the united states and districts of america.

[greenoaks]

by "any gun", do you mean that exactly as it sounds, up to and including those fancy things that fire 10k bullets in 1 second, RPGs and flamethrowers, hey, why not let people own a tank for self-defence?

that's the whole point of this legal challenge. to overturn the local governments right to determine what they the government determine to be a fair and reasonable restriction and replace it with any arms, any time, any place. afterall the amendment does not specify restrictions of any sort.

[heavycola]

"If you could prove that gun laws are making us safer, the remedy is to change the constitution."

To answer you question HC, the right to own guns is part of a very special part of the Constitution called the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was written as the first ten amendments of the US Constitution and was intended to outline certain rights that they thought that all citizens should have. The Right to Bear Arms, is right up there with Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Speech according to the US Constitution.

Based on this I would argue that any gun could be owned if the Constitution is interpreted properly. Certainly the man in this case would be allowed to own a hand gun to defend himself. Among others one of the reasons the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to bear arms is so that an armed individual can protect himself if the government cannot or from the government if it should become corrupt.

Bill of rights, fair enough.

Still, as I said before: arguing that a civilian population living in a liberal democracy needs to be armed in case its government gets too uppity is ludicrous. Where is your faith in democracy?

There is still this weird suspicion of government in the US, as evidenced by the 9/11 or JFK or moon landing conspiracy theories. And I don't mean suspicion like, 'they might be corrupt!' or ''He just said that to get elected!' - I mean suspicion that the entire democratically elected body politic is going to suddenly rear up and subjugate everybody. It's weird. Especially wnen your system is apparently so perfect that we need to force it at gunpoint on brown people everywhere.


And how about this: guns are embedded in the american psyche not just because of the bill of rights but because of this john wayne romanticism, that gets so many posters in here worked up in frothy self-righteousness - 'I will use LETHAL FORCE to PROTECT MY FAMILY froth froth froth etc' when actually they would shit themselves, leave the safety on, shoot themselves in the foot (literally) and so on. Tell me it ain't true.

[Pedronicus]

The Founding Fathers, however, could not resolve the issue of Slavery which divided the Colonies and was preventing agreement on the remainder of the Constitution. Accordingly, they made the decision to keep the status quo and leave it to future generations to resolve this issue.

Laws written in 1786 (no matter how important you may think they are to your history) need to be constantly revised and amended to keep pace with the change of the modern world.

As the centuries progressed, these hand-held cannons evolved into the flintlock rifle, then the breech loader and finally the automatic.

Breech loaders became practical in the 1860s

So this right to bear arms when you had to pour gunpowder down a barrel, insert a shot, pack it all down etc. needs to be modernised.

Alas, this has all come too late. Too many guns in circulation, will never all be handed in now.

[Frigidus]

The Founding Fathers, however, could not resolve the issue of Slavery which divided the Colonies and was preventing agreement on the remainder of the Constitution. Accordingly, they made the decision to keep the status quo and leave it to future generations to resolve this issue.

Laws written in 1786 (no matter how important you may think they are to your history) need to be constantly revised and amended to keep pace with the change of the modern world.

As the centuries progressed, these hand-held cannons evolved into the flintlock rifle, then the breech loader and finally the automatic.

Breech loaders became practical in the 1860s

So this right to bear arms when you had to pour gunpowder down a barrel, insert a shot, pack it all down etc. needs to be modernised.

Alas, this has all come too late. Too many guns in circulation, will never all be handed in now.

Exactly. Why isn't this obvious to people? Should the laws still be the same assuming we last another 1000 years? By that point they would be ancient!

[GabonX]

but that constitution is for people living in the united states of america. he does not. he lives in the district of columbia.

if the forefathers meant for it to apply to him they would have called the nation the united states and districts of america.

The Bill of Rights is for citizens of the United States and it would be a hard argument to say that districts do not count.

By your logic they could take someone to the Capital and execute them without a trial...

[GabonX]

"If you could prove that gun laws are making us safer, the remedy is to change the constitution."

To answer you question HC, the right to own guns is part of a very special part of the Constitution called the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was written as the first ten amendments of the US Constitution and was intended to outline certain rights that they thought that all citizens should have. The Right to Bear Arms, is right up there with Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Speech according to the US Constitution.

Based on this I would argue that any gun could be owned if the Constitution is interpreted properly. Certainly the man in this case would be allowed to own a hand gun to defend himself. Among others one of the reasons the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to bear arms is so that an armed individual can protect himself if the government cannot or from the government if it should become corrupt.

Bill of rights, fair enough.

Still, as I said before: arguing that a civilian population living in a liberal democracy needs to be armed in case its government gets too uppity is ludicrous. Where is your faith in democracy?

There is still this weird suspicion of government in the US, as evidenced by the 9/11 or JFK or moon landing conspiracy theories. And I don't mean suspicion like, 'they might be corrupt!' or ''He just said that to get elected!' - I mean suspicion that the entire democratically elected body politic is going to suddenly rear up and subjugate everybody. It's weird. Especially wnen your system is apparently so perfect that we need to force it at gunpoint on brown people everywhere.


And how about this: guns are embedded in the american psyche not just because of the bill of rights but because of this john wayne romanticism, that gets so many posters in here worked up in frothy self-righteousness - 'I will use LETHAL FORCE to PROTECT MY FAMILY froth froth froth etc' when actually they would shit themselves, leave the safety on, shoot themselves in the foot (literally) and so on. Tell me it ain't true.

You edited my post so that it didn't include a key point which already speaks about your point. I will reinsert the part of my post which you cut out below:

"If you could prove that gun laws are making us safer, the remedy is to change the constitution."

According to the details I have heard about this case a man registered to own a hand gun in Washington DC and was refused. He lives in a violent part of the city where many people own and use guns illegally. This means that the police likely try to avoid this area due to gang violence and for fear that they would be targeted by these gangs. In an area of the city where there is frequent gun violence and where police do not patrol would you really deprive the one man who tried to own a gun legally to protect his family of his constitutional right?

If your answer is yes and you think it is safer to make all gun possession illegal it is possible to do so. It would require a change to the Constitution and would be one of ten rights originally guaranteed in the Bill of Rights which would be lost.

Self defense does not only include defending oneself from the Government but also defending oneself when the Government cannot intervene to defend a citizen.

If people have a problem with gun ownership, the remedy is to change the US Constitution which is supposed to have nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

[greenoaks]

but that constitution is for people living in the united states of america. he does not. he lives in the district of columbia.

if the forefathers meant for it to apply to him they would have called the nation the united states and districts of america.

The Bill of Rights is for citizens of the United States and it would be a hard argument to say that districts do not count.

By your logic they could take someone to the Capital and execute them without a trial...

no, by my logic they could grab someone who wasn't living in one of the 50 states ie. the district of columbia.

if the people of columbia want the bill of rights to apply to them they should vote to change themselves from a district to a state. it is the USA. not the US&DA.

[GabonX]

but that constitution is for people living in the united states of america. he does not. he lives in the district of columbia.

if the forefathers meant for it to apply to him they would have called the nation the united states and districts of america.

The Bill of Rights is for citizens of the United States and it would be a hard argument to say that districts do not count.

By your logic they could take someone to the Capital and execute them without a trial...

no, by my logic they could grab someone who wasn't living in one of the 50 states ie. the district of columbia.

if the people of columbia want the bill of rights to apply to them they should vote to change themselves from a district to a state. it is the USA. not the US&DA.

Well I still don't think it would go over to well if the Government started to lynch natives from Washington DC.

Regardless the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are Federal Law which means they are applicaple in all US territory. The fact that DC is not part of a State doesn't have any bearing, not sure why you think it does.

Alot of people in DC probably would like to be part of a State as they currently have no electorates and they feel misrepresented in Congress...

[DaGip]

Where I am from, NOBODY...let me repeat...NOBODY will hand over their guns! No way, no how! I don't care how many laws they pass, or if they threaten everybody with prison time...in this part of the country, the government isn't taking anybody's guns away!

Let it be said that DaGip does not own a gun, and does not have a desire to. I don't care for hunting. But I own a fishing pole! And when the government comes for that...they can pry my pole out of my cold dead hands!

[GabonX]

They make you get a licence to fish in PA. What a load of horse crap.

[greenoaks]

but that constitution is for people living in the united states of america. he does not. he lives in the district of columbia.

if the forefathers meant for it to apply to him they would have called the nation the united states and districts of america.

The Bill of Rights is for citizens of the United States and it would be a hard argument to say that districts do not count.

By your logic they could take someone to the Capital and execute them without a trial...

no, by my logic they could grab someone who wasn't living in one of the 50 states ie. the district of columbia.

if the people of columbia want the bill of rights to apply to them they should vote to change themselves from a district to a state. it is the USA. not the US&DA.

Well I still don't think it would go over to well if the Government started to lynch natives from Washington DC.

Regardless the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are Federal Law which means they are applicaple in all US territory. The fact that DC is not part of a State doesn't have any bearing, not sure why you think it does.

Alot of people in DC probably would like to be part of a State as they currently have no electorates and they feel misrepresented in Congress...

you are obviously not a fan of the Corbert Report.

[Jenos Ridan]

You are different from us because you have guns. Do you really want to be different there?

Oh and if Big brother does try to take over you're fucked any way no matter what guns you have. Haven't you ever thought of chemical or nuclear warfare?

Gas can be effective, I'll admit. But nobody is going to use a nuke on one residence, assuming I stay there when they show up, or waste them in a vain attempt at carpet bombing. So, yes, I have thought in over.

The simple fact is the Supreme Court may not change the Constitution, only interpret it. To change an amendment requires something like 3/4 of congress and an equal number of state legislatures. So is reallity, I have no concern until such a thing happens. As soon as that bit of news hits the airwaves, I'm gone, off into the deep backwoods.

So, no, I am not fucked. Only a defeatist sheep would give up as you obviously would.

[dewey316]

To me, its a fairly straightforward comparison of the number of gun related deaths between the UK and the USa. One of the few areas in which, no doubt, UK social policy is superior to Yanks

I am bringing this back up, as I just got a chance to finaly listen to the SCOTUS session in its whole.

A few things. First, to all the brits who are convinced that their way is far superior to ours. The statistics are not backing that up. In the US that states that have gone to Shall-Issue laws since 1986 are showing drops in the violent crime rates. The places with the most strict gun controls are the least safe in our country. At the same time, what has your UK crime rate done since you put the strick gun control laws in place? Every statistic I have seen, shows the UK crime rate has been on the rise. During the same time, the US is allowing more responsable people the ability to own and carry guns if they choose to. Our crime rates are dropping.

For example, here is a selection of states in the northeaster US. It has the states with the higher Brady score, have more strict gun control laws.

STATE BRADY SCORE VIOLENT CRIME RATE (per 100,000)
New Jersey 63 352
Massachusetts 54 447
Connecticut 54 281
New York 51 435
Rhode Island 47 228
Maine 12 116
New Hampshire 11 139
Vermont 9 137

We are seeing the complete opposite of what everyone is saying should happen. THe crime rates are lowest, in the states with the least gun control laws.

second, the issue was brought to our Supreme Court. Their function is to determine if something is constitutional or not, they are not the one who create the policy, they are the ones who determine if the policy made is legal under our constitution. For a little better idea of what is actualy being discussed, here is a link to the entire 1.5 hours of oral arguments. This issue at hand, is about if a legislation in the U.S. can legaly put a blanket ban on owning a handgun.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/200 ... /argument/

[DaGip]

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.

You would think that after 200 years they would have changed this by now. I just think it is funny that this is becoming an issue right at the same time that the economy is taking a piss. You suppose they want to limit our gun rights so that we don't go killing congress?

[dewey316]

I very much don't think so. The DC gun ban was put in place in the mid 80's, The district court ruled in favor of Heller, and that ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, and they are finaly hearing on the 2nd. In listening to it, I wouldn't be suprised to see this be 6-3 or even 7-2 upholding the individual right for gun ownership. I think the DC ban is going to go down in flames, and I would venture to guess that Chicago's rules are going to be the next ones to be challanged, and DC v Heller is going make it very hard keep those rules in place, once the issue hits the courts.

And we don't have a practice of changing the fundamental rights given us in the first 10 ammendments, those were put it place as for the people, and are not subject just being changed, that is why they are our rights, they will always be our rights. I am sure it is hard for the non US people to understand how us citizens of the US feel so strongly about gun ownership rights, but it is one of the rights protected by the contitution, and that is something you just don't take away. Just the same as freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, it is one of our liberties.

I think you also must be careful to think of this as purely a right meant as a mechanism to keep the government in check. Sure it can act as the ultimate check, but our founder fathers put the seperation of power in as the check, our right to keep and bear arms, is just as much about our individual right to protection, and we have the ability to own guns to do this, if that is the means you choose as a law abiding citizen.

[DaGip]

...but it is one of the rights protected by the contitution, and that is something you just don't take away. Just the same as freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, it is one of our liberties.

Unless of course you have a 9-11 type of attack, then the Constitution becomes totally meaningless to everyone...Security over Liberty! That is the new American battle cry!

Give me Liberty or give me Death! is such an out dated saying. Better for us to say nowadays Give me Security over Liberity!.

We still have to wait until June to hear the ruling, I believe.

Make no mistake about it, the people in power would love to take your rights away, and they are trying very, very hard...especially in light of the economic meltdown that we are having.

If this Heller case is successful, I might just go out and by a Glock 9 to celebrate! I have never owned a gun before, so I might just go out and practice that right!