Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - The gun-rights fight isn't over (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=278268)

squexx | 06-28-2008 06:02 PM
The gun-rights fight isn't over The gun-rights fight isn't over LA Times June 27, 200 Brian Doherty http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/i...times0358.html The Supreme Court's decision in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case settles a long, heated debate, finding the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own weapons for self-defense -- not merely a right related to membership in a "well-regulated militia." But the ruling doesn't end the struggle over gun control, nor does it mean gun regulations have been eliminated. The court lists a number of laws the decision does not affect, including concealed-weapon prohibitions and "long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Still, even though the decision didn't ban gun control outright, it did make a strong statement about our right to self-defense and safety. The city of Washington claimed its gun ban helped protect citizens. But the facts show how foolish it is to rely on gun control for safety. Washington's per-capita murder rate has exceeded the rate in 1976 (when the ban passed) every year but one since then. For 10 of the last 30 years, its murder rate was more than twice as high as in '76. The ugliest aspect of D.C.'s law was its implication that your life is not worth protecting -- given that police cannot, and don't promise to, protect you in every life-threatening situation. Like other epochal Supreme Court decisions, Heller will give rise to a protracted legal and public-policy debate. Leading gun-control advocates, such as the Brady Center, are already spinning Heller as a victory: They claim the gun-rights lobby's strength is based on stoking the public's slippery-slope fears that any gun regulation is a forerunner to a total ban. With that ban now impossible, gun-control advocates believe they'll have more ability to restrict sales, possession and carrying in ways short of prohibition. Gun-rights advocates, for their part, are expected to use this decision to challenge Chicago's handgun ban next, attacking another important question: Does the 2nd Amendment apply to state and local or only federal laws? The right at issue -- an ancient right, preserved but not created by the 2nd Amendment -- is that of self-defense. The gun-control debate will continue, but it is a blessing that the court has refused to deny us the means of protecting our homes and families. Brian Doherty is a senior editor at Reason magazine and the author of the forthcoming book, "Gun Control on Trial."

Cassius | 06-28-2008 06:19 PM
Re: The gun-rights fight isn't over Quote:
Does the 2nd Amendment apply to state and local or only federal laws?
What an idiotic question. If the 2nd amendment (US Constitution) did not apply to state and local laws, then state and local jurisdictions would likewise be able to pass laws preventing freedom of speech/religion (1st amendment), allowing warrantless searches and seizures (4th amendment), require compulsory self-incriminating testimony (5th amendment), and on and on. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A high school civics student would be able to tell you that it is the standard by which all laws are measured in the US, regardless of their jurisdiction. Obviously this reporter did not take civics or government in high school, or perhaps more likely, flunked out of it. Or, most likely of all I suppose sadly, this reporter probably KNOWS the truth but asks that question "innocently" because he has a liberal anti-gun agenda to fulfill. YOUR BIAS IS SHOWING THROUGH, REPORTER. THE JIG IS UP.

AZLiberty | 06-30-2008 01:51 AM
Re: The gun-rights fight isn't over Traditionally the bill of rights applies to the Federal, not state governments. The 14th changed that.

WAoG | 06-30-2008 02:02 AM
Re: The gun-rights fight isn't over Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassius (Post 1167665) What an idiotic question. If the 2nd amendment (US Constitution) did not apply to state and local laws, then state and local jurisdictions would likewise be able to pass laws preventing freedom of speech/religion (1st amendment), allowing warrantless searches and seizures (4th amendment), require compulsory self-incriminating testimony (5th amendment), and on and on. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A high school civics student would be able to tell you that it is the standard by which all laws are measured in the US, regardless of their jurisdiction. Obviously this reporter did not take civics or government in high school, or perhaps more likely, flunked out of it. Or, most likely of all I suppose sadly, this reporter probably KNOWS the truth but asks that question "innocently" because he has a liberal anti-gun agenda to fulfill. YOUR BIAS IS SHOWING THROUGH, REPORTER. THE JIG IS UP.
This is one of the Commonwealth of nations that make up the Holy Nation of Israel. Gods Laws and God given rights are the Law here. We need no CON!!

Cassius | 06-30-2008 02:35 AM
Re: The gun-rights fight isn't over Yeah, well, when you're up against the cops it'll be the Constitution that protects you and not common law, even though common law shares many of the same freedoms.

WAoG | 06-30-2008 02:39 AM
Re: The gun-rights fight isn't over Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassius (Post 1169504) Yeah, well, when you're up against the cops it'll be the Constitution that protects you and not common law, even though common law shares many of the same freedoms.
I believe it will be God that protects me:-)

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 AM. |

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM