The Wild, Wild (North) West - A Supreme Mistake

[villager]

The Wild, Wild (North) West - A Supreme Mistake


Earlier this week the Supreme Court outlawed the gun ban enacted by the District of Columbia. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Justices decided that the ban was unconstitutional as it violated the right of an individual to own a firearm through the Second Amendment.
In my opinion, they have made an error in judgment based on an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. For those of you who have not read it lately, here is what the Second Amendment 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 key phrase is the one before the comma; “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” The Constitution was a compromise between the states and a national government that allowed both entities to share power in a federal system. A State militia was necessary to protect the States from the National government and to protect the United States from foreign invasion (the British). The Second Amendment was written out of necessity because there was no standing army therefore mobilization of citizen soldiers was crucial to our defense as a nation.

In their landmark decision the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment differently. The majority decision reads: “Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun ban, which "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense," and the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, which "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense," is ruled unconstitutional.”

The Second Amendment mentions nothing about a “lawful purpose of self-defense” against other citizens. The purpose was to secure the State, not for people to practice their personal brand of justice. This decision will have long-term consequences for public safety at every level of society. In Chicago, gun right activists have already filed a lawsuit to get their gun ban law repealed and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I am a veteran, a member of the American Legion, and a citizen soldier in the Army National Guard. Repealing the gun ban in D.C. is wrong because the reason given for the decision is not applicable under the Constitution.

This is the wrong signal to send to a municipal jurisdiction that was making good strides in the reduction of homicides (85 as of June 27th) and a record number of firearm recoveries in 2007 (2,924). Time will tell if this ruling will be a blessing ….or will signal a return to record shattering homicide rates of the early 1990s.


http://www.examiner.com/x-367-DC-Elections-Examiner~y2008m6d28-The-Wild-Wild-North-West--A-Supreme-Mistake

[pt22]

1. What a bunch of horse shit.

:grr:

[villager]

2. Your reply? Indeed.

n/t

[spin]

3. Let's compare crime rates....

For example:

Tampa Fl. where guns are legal for honest citizens to own and concealed weapons permits allow citizens with a background check and training to carry weapons in most public places. Murder rate per 100,000 is 7.5

Chicago which has draconian gun laws. Murder rate per 100,000 is 16.4

The national murder rate per 100,000 is 7.

With the ready availability of legal weapons many anti-gun people would expect a higher murder rate in Tampa.

http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=chicago&s1=IL&c2=tampa&s2=FL

But if you examine the chart at the link you will find that in many crime categories, Tampa has a higher rate than Chicago.

Guns are not the fix all solution to the crime problem.

However, I personally feel safer in an area that allows me to own and carry a weapon for self defense. (Florida has what I feel are reasonable gun laws and restrictions.} Statistics lose their significance when you hear glass breaking at 3 am.

[Vincardog]

4. in the first place a "well regulated" militia is well supplied militia

In the second place a militia is a group of citizens joining together for common purpose.
Finally the right was granted to the People not the state.

the rest of you arguments are just more of the same BS based upon faulty premises and running down dead end conclusions based upon those faulty premises.