TV Schedule

Guns in the USA



  3. rwylie
  4. related topics
'Gun rights' activists have won a controversial ruling in the US supreme court, which overturned a previous handgun ban in Washington DC.

The controversy surrounds the interpretation of the second amendment to the United States Constitution, which states: "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 motion was passed after the court ruled for the first time that "the Constitution confers an individual right to gun ownership", and critically that this right goes, "beyond providing for "a well regulated Militia", as the amendment states."

Part of the voting majority (which won on a narrow margin of 5-4), 'arch-conservative' Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote, however that the ruling "is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." While this may superficially appear to be detrimental to gun restriction movements, Dennis Henigan, a vice-president at the Brady Centre to Prevent Gun Violence, believes that the ruling indicated that "regulation of guns ... is entirely permissible." and that "The ruling gives a constitutional green light to a wide range of gun restrictions.".

The importance of the ruling however, is not simply a case of gun control, but specifically of the banning of guns, and it is the failure of the court to endorse this specifically that worries some; with Richard Daley, mayor of Chicago, calling the ruling "a very frightening decision".

Other senior figures, such as Justice John Paul Stevens of the voting minority, criticised the majority for "its expansive reading of the amendment's "ambiguous" text." The wording of the amendment is obviously outdated: the days of Militias in the US are obviously over; the term being a relic of the time when such armaments were commonplace.

By ignoring the significance of the "Militia" part of the amendment, the Court has made it a "constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes". The logical progression from the apparent choice to interpret the second part of the amendment separately is to pose the obvious question: if part of the amendment can be ignored, why not all of it?

Responses from those in the know about American politics would be welcome.
rwylie

20 responses // Guns in the USA

  • The Brady Center needs to be shut down. They don't get it. The Second Amendment's guarantee to the right to bear arms is spelled out in plain ENGLISH. Here, read it again:

    "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."

    There are five words in there that specifically address the right as belonging to the people: "the right of the people". It doesn't say anything about the right of the state or the right of the militia, the amendment specifically guarantees the right to the people, period. Additionally, in contrast to Justice Scalia's comments, the amendment does specifically guarantee the right to carry a gun as an individual desires. The term "bear" means "carry"

    Justice Stevens is also wrong (as liberal judges tend to be all the time) when he claims the amendment has "ambiguous text". There is nothing ambiguous about the Second Amendment. The amendment is as plain as the nose on your face (or the lack of any brains in Stevens' head). The amendment specifically spells out the right of the people to have guns. There is no ambiguity about it. To say otherwise is to 1) misrepresent what it says and 2) display a gross negligence on your part, Justice Stevens, in understanding the Constitution. Thus, you should be impeached for your incompetence.
    decarson
  • Arms isn't defined, though... If you mean "weapons" then I have the right to bear nuclear weapons! *takes the world hostage*

    We should just rule "arms" to mean wooden clubs.
    handshakeheartbreak
  • Though I don't think arms should mean "wooden clubs", I do think that the term "arms" is flexible and should be including, as well as prohibiting, certain kinds of weapons.

    Included in those weapons we should have access to known as "arms" should be; rifles, pistols, knives, and non lethal weapons like stun guns.

    Weapons that I think should be prohibited to public use are; assault rifles, guns capable or modified for fully automatic fire, chemical weapons (things like mustard gas, not mace or pepper spray), and explosives.

    Also, I think that certain items should require a license or permit to be carried, as is the current situation. There is a difference between legally arming a militia or legally arming yourself for self defense, and arming yourself because you think guns are cool and wanting to go look for trouble. And there are places were guns just should not be carried (court houses, schools, hospitals, etc.).
    Varex_Sythe
    3 responses to this
  • A person should be allowed as much armament as they can carry.
    Dmitri_Molotov
  • "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."

    first let me say i have nothing against guns.but
    when this was written the bullet as we know it today didn't exist. a well trained army regular could fire about one round in a minute and since barrels weren't rifeled yet he had to stand with other army regulars in a line and aim and fire in volley to hit anything.

    in the modern world when people are directly affected by gun viloence it is understandable how they would blame the gun laws.

    the Bureau of Justice and FBI report on gun crimes is very interesting. this shows gun violence from 1973 to 2006

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab....

    i would really like to see statisics about how many people have saved themselves from home invasion , murder and aggravated assaults and robberies by having a gun.

    in my opinon the best thing for home protection is a pump shot gun.just the sound of a pump shotgun loading a round will scare most anyone away.

    so if you want guns then have a rifle for hunting and a shotgun for home protection.
    let's leave the automatic weapons to the military and handguns to the police.
    come on people it just takes some common sense.
    rodajones
    2 responses to this
  • Wait until the government takes away all of your firearms and then declares a martial law dictatorship like Chaves did.
    You will wish you had a gun then.
    jason1973tl
    2 responses to this
  • I agree with Molotov; Handguns and Automatic weapons are both unfit for public use.
    rwylie
    2 responses to this
  • If you take guns out of the hands of responsible people the only people left with guns will be the criminals.
    This thinking is seen in Chicago, DC and several other gun banned cities that also have the highest crime rates.
    jason1973tl
    1 response to this
  • Here are some quotes posted on another related string.

    I feel they must be heard regarding this topic.

    I must give credit to Hawkmang for posting these:

    "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

    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
    ~ George Washington

    "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
    ~ Patrick Henry

    "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
    ~ Alexander Hamilton

    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
    ~ Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
    1percent
  • rwiley: You're too naive for your own good. Guns do more good than harm, but as a liberal, your wouldn't believe the facts I have to support my statement so why bother posting them?
    decarson

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.