Supreme Court takes gun case that will test reach of 2nd Amendment

[Hamma]

Reporting from Washington - The Supreme Court set the stage for a historic ruling on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment by agreeing today to hear a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns.

At issue is whether state and local gun-control ordinances can be struck down as violating the "right to keep and bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment.

A ruling on the issue, due by next summer, could open the door to legal challenges to various gun control measures in cities and states across the nation.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5955852.story

What is everyone's thoughts on this? Personally I believe the 2nd amendment is pretty clear and cities banning guns is unacceptable.

[Kyonye]

They don't have a right to ban Pistols. that's pisses me off. In New York (all except NYC), they regulate the sale of guns, but don't restrict you from owning rifles and shotguns. As for a pistol. you need an actual permit. I don't mind having to sign up and wait for a permit, I am just not happy with the money that I have to pay. $10 to buy the application, $125 to submit it. $1 per page of the application?

And don't tell me the money goes toward the work done on the background check, and to pay for the paper. As someone who has never committed a crime, and has no criminal record anywhere, it shouldn't cost someone $125 worth of labor to give me a background check, and it doesn't cost $1 for a piece of paper (the application is 10 pages long).

Where does the money go then? Who knows. It doesn't go back into my community.

[Firefly]

In all actuality, it's not clear. The amendment was technically designed because English subjects were required to own weapons for defense of the lands, as there was no standing army. Furthermore, it was held to be their duty of to keep watch at night to capture and confront suspicious persons, as banditry was common in those days (as opposed to now... harhar). Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and entire towns could be fined if a crime was committed.

The issue came about in America for a variety of reasons which became evident during the build-up to the revolutionary era. Colonists who viewed Loyalists with suspicion decided to create armories that Loyalists would not have access to. The British government created laws stating that this was forbidden and sought to disarm these colonists. When the Constitution was drafted along with the Bill of Rights, the need for militias was evident because there was discussion over standing armies. Standing armies were not entirely common during that period.

Now having said all that and sounding like a freak anti-gun idiot, I own weapons. I'm a firm believer in having them. I'm also against having to pay out the ass and jump through hoops like some stupid dog in a stupid doggie show, just to properly and legally carry them. I'm also dead-set against the government telling me I cannot legally protect myself, my home, my property, and my family whilst criminals are able to arm themselves. That's why I don't live in big cities where ordinary people are victims to criminals who have illegal weapons.

They need to do something about illegal weapons instead of worrying about law-abiding citizens who practice responsible firearm safety.

[BUGGER]

A handgun ban is reddiculous.

I agree with bans on automatic weapons, specialized rounds, and concielable weapons to an extent, but a whole range of handheld pistols is stupid. It's not the gun, its the providers and consumers. If they can't handle their jobs and sellings, they should get what they deserve. Same goes for the consumer if he/she abuses their rights or "loses" their weapon.

A ban on handguns is like a ban on driving while talking on your cell phone, people will still do it.


And you can't help illegal weapons. If someone wants a pistol the size of their fist, they'll get it. As firefly put it, they need to do something about illegal weapons instead of attacking our freedoms.


Theres my 2 cents.

[Hamma]

Licensed gun owners don't commit crime which is why banning this stuff is so ridiculous. Do criminals listen to no gun signs? not last I checked..

Unfortunately the founding fathers left the wording rather vague about what they wanted. But if you read some of their comments at the time it becomes clear:

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.--Madison

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.--Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.--Jefferson

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.--Washington

Sadly what we have in this day in age is people legislating from the bench and voting along what they believe, not what was intended by the founding fathers which is rather clear.

The outcome of this should be rather interesting..

[Firefly]

Ever been to Arizona? I've seen people walking the streets with an M4 carbine strapped to their back.

The problem with gun crimes is that for the majority of the cases, it seems that they occur in areas where there are plenty of victims. IE, people who don't have their own. You'll not find many criminals willing to enter a home where they know the owner has weapons. And countless times, it has been proven that an armed person defending their home is a formidable force. Just recently, some medical student from Johns Hopkins defended his home against a burglar, armed with a fucking samurai sword. He cut the guy to ribbons, including severing the guy's hand or arm (I forget the extent). The intruder died of his wounds.

I live in an area where, whilst it's not a ghetto and whilst I feel safe and secure, there have been a series break-ins at our apartment complex. Largely, it's confined to people living on the ground floor and the top floor (access via forced entry to the attic and then kicking through the ceiling). It is well known that my housemate and I own an arsenal - when we moved in, we made absolutely no attempt at sheltering the populace from the view of a van full of weapons being unloaded - many not in proper cases, for that very reason. We also moved in a miniature Best Buy. Thus far, there hasn't been one attempt. I daresay it's because the Maryland Armoury is behind our door. I'm still daring someone to face down my Mossberg or .45.

The point that people continuously try to make, aside from "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", is that responsible, law-abiding citizens don't run about committing crimes - at least not with their weapons, at any rate.

[Kyonye]

I went to school in Plattsburgh, NY. A small, almost important town in true upstate New York. A couple years before I attended, there was a shooting. A drunk 17 year old kid was trying to force his way into someone elses home (probably not realizing it wasn't his house), and when the confronted him, he shot him. The kid ended up dead. For the longest time, it was deemed to be self-defense. The kid was on his property, but while I was in school the family, of the kid, somehow had the case reopened as a homicide. I couldn't believe it.

I feel bad that this kid died, at 17 years old. But, this man had a right to protect himself, his family, and his property. I'm sure the kid meant no harm, but mistakes occur, and it cost him his life.

I have a 30-30 in my room, and a 12 gauge shotgun in the other bedroom. Plus an assortment of knives for which to cut, not only my hands accidently, but to slice and dice anyone who decides to enter my apartment illegally.

[Firefly]

I can understand cities wanting to clamp down on it - from their perspective, firearms in the city have the potential to hit innocent bystanders. It's not as if the bullet can just fly a few hundred meters and then plop down in the grass or get stuck in a tree. Still, the concept remains the same - law-abiding people don't generally go shooting up the town.