better watch DC gun case

[DON WALKUP]

i saw in todays news the lawyers for washington DC's anti-gun ban loss are presenting the argument the second amendment pertains ONLY to the federal govenment, NOT the fifty states and washington DC.

that is an extremely dangerous argument.

it sounds like they want to exclude the constitution to private citizens leaving the private citizen to the whim of the states or maybe just the second amendment? meaning that section does not apply to the private citizen?

some states, like california, DO NOT have the right to own firearms in their constitution. that could spell disaster for us here in california. they would pass a law saying no one but police and active military may posses ANY sort of firearm.

we need to keep a VERY close eye on our legislators and lawyers! if their assault against the second amendment is successful, which amendment will be targeted next?

[fabsroman]

The only two arguments about the 2nd Amendment are that it is a state right, or that it is an individual right. The 2nd Amendment isn't the most clearly written Amendment.

Honestly, I think they should allow the American people to vote on this, and if the American people decide it should be an individual right, then add another Amendment to the Consitution and get this over with. I'm sure that the majority of people would want the right to protect themselves.

Right now, with this case being in the Supreme Court, it is pretty much out of the legislators hands. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of it being a state right and not an individual right, then it will come down to the legislators.

I read a Supreme Court case about a sawed off shotgun, and based upon that case law, you would think the AR-15 and the .50 sniper rifle would be the weapons in the protected class (i.e., the ones necessary for a well maintained militia), and that there would be no way to ban them.

[skeet]

Quoting
I read a Supreme Court case about a sawed off shotgun, and based upon that case law, you would think the AR-15 and the .50 sniper rifle would be the weapons in the protected class (i.e., the ones necessary for a well maintained militia), and that there wo
uld be no way to ban them.

The whole point of the 2nd. But the gummit has to legislate..and the only thing left after decades of laws not working...mainly because the law is not enforced...is legislating the Constitution. Voting on the individual right wouldn't do a darn bit of good. Couple years down the road..let's vote again. Eventually it would go the other way..if it didn't right now. Can you actually believe that a vote on anythig would be worthwhile. Hell Bud, Look at the State of Maryland. A guy got voted in on a platform of no more taxes...and he had one of the biggest tax increases ever at one time in the state of Maryland. People vote so stupidly!! And you would trust that??

Also..read the 2nd the way it was written...A well aimed and trained(regulated) militia being necessary to the security of a free nation... The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well aimed was to regulate your arms. The guns and their sights, loads powder etc had to be regulated to make a militia effective in protecting this country and our rights. There was a big problem with the early legislators not wanting a large standing army.. We had gotten lucky and defeated the strongest army of the world at the time. The people had a strong fear of a large standing army.

[multibeard]

I got this email about a poll on USA today about gun ownership. I was shocked at the percentage for gun ownership. The poll has evidently been going on since November. Open up the link. Vote and pass on the link.


Hi All,

Please vote this gun issue question with USA Today. It will only take a
few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the pro gun
folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this
month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the
Supreme Court accepting the District of Columbia case against the right
for individuals to bear arms.

First - vote on this one.
Second - launch it to all the pro-gun folks and have THEM vote - then we
will see if the results get published.

To vote in the USA Today poll, click on the link below.
Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

Vote here:


http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm

[fabsroman]

I've already seen that poll, along with other poles on AOL that were in favor of gun ownership. One poll on AOL was about the sunset provision of the assault weapon ban and whether or not people were for it. A good amount more than the majority were for the assault weapon gun ban ending with the sunset provision. That is why I think this entire issue isn't really an issue, but one that is made an issue through a select few in a specific interest group, and that is why I think we would win if this were put to a vote for a Constitutional Amendment, which I believe requires 2/3's of the vote to pass.

Skeet, the word PEOPLE is the issue with the 2nd Amendment. Does people refer to individual people, or does it refer to the states? It would have been much simpler if it read "Every single individual person shall have the right to keep and bear arms." Then, we wouldn't have to worry about all this BS and the Supreme Court could put its time to something more useful.