DC v. Heller Ruling: SCOTUS Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

This is the same as the '9/11 changed everything' argument for allowing wholesale violations of the Constitution. Can you appreciate how unilatterally declaring the Constitution - any part of the Constitution including those parts that you don't like - to be 'outdated' or 'no longer relevant' without legislation is abhorrent? How about 'the Fourth Ammendment was written when people actually had to open the door to your house, so it doesn't apply to modern, electronic survalance?' Does that argument work for you at all? I see no difference between your argument about the Second Ammendment and wingnut arguments about the 'modern irrelevance' of the Fourth.

 

We've adopted a flexible, modernized view of a number of constitutional provisions (definition of obscenity under 1st Am; Cruel & Unusual punishiment under 6th Am) - to put it on the context of militia and muskets is no different from this.

 

The above pictured gun looks like the one that killed Old Yeller. BAN IT!

 

Yeah, I absolutely get what you're saying. Excellent points you make, really. And to the extent there's a slippery slope argument, I'd agree I'd want to avoid that.

I haven't heard all the wingnut arguments about the 4th.

But the entire PURPOSE of the 2nd, from what I can read, was to guard against government tyranny. Not to guard against the guy who might rob your house. Not to guard against wild animals. But to guard against tyranny. The very purpose for which it was written is so far irrelevant now that I can't imagine making the argument with a straight face. I'm not merely saying, "oh, something's changed so we'll find a way around it." I'm saying the very purpose of the amendment to begin with is now a sunk ship. And now we're using it to allow for easy accessibility to guns for other purposes with other costs....but without meeting the purpose of why it was protected in the first place.

 

Absolutely.

 

conservative good

liberal evil

COOKIES

 

I've skimmed this thread and haven't yet read the opinions but the problem I have with the gun ruling is that the DC Law wasn't banning all guns, and in that sense wasn't violating the Second Ammendment, but only handguns. Reading the Second and the Federalist papers I don't see anything saying that all types of guns have to be allowed or that guns can't be registered or their use curtailed.

I haven't seen a lot of discussion on the Second ruling, the millionaires exception, but I agree with the majority here. Just because someone is wealthy it doesn't seem like that means we should handicap their ability to use their wealth to pursue political office.

 

Your post makes a good point and there is a question regarding whether gun control laws really do reduce violate crimes. There is another issue here though whether DC's law is Constitutional leaving aside the merits of the law. For me I don't see it as being a violation of the Constitution given the specific languange of the Second Ammendment. Nothing about it to me says that DC or any other muncipality couldn't ban handguns just that they can't ban "arms". A handgun is a type of arms but nothing about the DC law seems to me as banning arms altogether.

 

Wait, what?

What kind of "freedom to bear arms" means that you can only bear certain types of arms, ones that the government chooses?

Is that not, in and of itself, government tyranny?

 

They already do that with fully automatic weapons. What's the difference?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

they're not illegal (the ban on sales already sunsetted). what are illegal are large clips of ammunition.

it does take quite a bit of paperwork to acquire one legally though.

 

So should the average person have the right to own nuclear and biological weapons? That are, after all, just another form of "arms", no?

 

if he can afford the billions of dollars that it takes, sure why not?

 

IMO it is pretty clear the Framers wanted us to have a right to bear arms. Not just the army or the national guard/militia. If we don't think that is necessary now, we should repeal it, not end run it.

Your own individual determination of the probability of needing those arms doesn't entitle you to anything more than your own opinion of the issue. Acting as if one is crazy or engaging in fantasy to think otherwise only reveals one to be not quite as smart as you think you are - history serves up plenty of examples of governments, including our own, taking actions reasonable people did not anticipate.

 

I have no doubt that a government could rise up against it's people. I have lots of doubt that your handgun would make a difference. I certainly don't think people are crazy for thinking there should be safeguards with regard to limiting government, though. I'm with you on that, for sure.

 

i don't know where to start.

 

Oh, MadMax!