D.C. Gun Ban: Why The Court's Decision Won't Matter
Big story: The U.S. Supreme Court decides to take on the D.C. gun ban, agreeing to rule next spring whether the Constitution protects an individual's right to own a gun. For the first time since 1939, the Supremes will take on a Second Amendment case that promises to settle the long-roiling national debate over just what the Founders meant when they wrote that "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."
Should be a momentous case, right? "Clearly," said Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett, "this is going to be one of the biggest cases decided by the Supreme Court this year, and perhaps...the biggest in 10 years."
And for law fans, it will indeed be huge. It's the nature of lawyers to push their positions to the max, so this episode will be the profession's equivalent of the climax of a shoot-em-up.
But try this out for size: No matter whether the Supremes definitively make clear that the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms, or definitively go along with decades of decisions that the amendment is really intended only to assure that militias can operate effectively, or take some weaselly middle route that satisfies neither side in this long-running culture war, it won't make much difference to the future of gun ownership in the United States.
The courts, you see, don't get to decide what's at the root of what it means to be American. The people will decide that, through their shifting attitudes and the pressure they place on their elected officials. If the Supremes toss out the District's gun ban, that still leaves a strong body of law, tradition and, amazingly enough in these supposedly polarized times, political consensus that it's perfectly reasonable to regulate gun ownership. They don't like to tout this in their fundraising ads, but even hard-core NRA supporters favor some regulation of guns. There's hardly any opposition to the idea that felons and the mentally impaired should be barred from owning guns. Increasingly, there's widespread public consensus about banning guns from certain places, and the various local debates about excluding firearms from bars, schools, libraries, college campuses, or hospitals are just arguments about which places to include in the list of forbidden zones.
Decades of efforts to expand gun control laws, countered by equally strong campaigns to protect gun ownership, have led to what looks like a legal and political stalemate. But if you look beyond the big, handsomely funded interest groups, you see that over that same time, popular opinion has shifted pretty dramatically. While most Americans tell pollsters they read the Constitution to protect an individual right to gun ownership, similar majorities favor all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership that hardline pro-gun groups feel compelled to oppose.
Let's be honest: Neither gun bans such as the District's, nor pro-gun legal initiatives such as those we see coming from Virginia's legislature most years, have much impact on violence or crime. "Gun policies," Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet concludes in his new book, "Out of Range: Why The Constitution Can't End the Battle Over Guns," "aren't all that effective." In fact, if you remove the big-money lobbies from the debate and turn down the volume on the cable TV shoutathons, you'll find a pretty impressive consensus around the country--even in stereotypical red states--that there ought to be tighter restrictions on guns.
Tushnet concludes his book with a call for politicians to, well, disarm on the gun issue--to be honest with Americans and say that there are a lot of interesting and promising ways to attack crime, but passing new gun laws--in either direction--is not one of them.
Of course, we're not likely to see many politicians taking the professor up on his proposal. The NRA and the gun control groups are good, steady providers of campaign cash, and it's beneficial to any politician to take a strong stand on guns, pro or con. It's a good way to appeal to the highly polarized voters who tend to dominate the primary election voting pool.
That leaves most Americans--and their more discerning views on guns--pretty much out of the picture.
In the case of the District and its symbolically admirable but practically ineffectual gun ban, what will happen in the next few months will be great fun to watch and analyze. But in the end, it will be meaningless.
"There's every reason to think we have four sympathetic justices," Barnett told me. That would be Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. "And four unsympathetic justices." That would be Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. "And Justice Kennedy."
Because the Supremes have not ruled on a Second Amendment case since 1939, and because lower courts tended to shy away from gun cases until the last few years, Kennedy, like his colleagues, doesn't have much of a paper trail on gun matters. But he's something of a libertarian and just as he's a strong proponent of gay rights because he believes that all things being equal, the government should leave people alone, he may be inclined to feel similarly about gun ownership.
It's easy to see the court deciding that well, yes, grammatically, the Second Amendment seems to be just about the collective right to own guns for our general defense, but the history of the country makes it clear that individuals have always owned guns, whether to get food for their family or to protect themselves against bad guys. But it's equally easy to see the court saying that while the Second Amendment is about such an individual right, the government nonetheless has the right and obligation to do as the people want and restrict that right in various ways, for the protection of all. Which would leave us pretty much where we are today.
The District is likely to lose its gun ban, but might come out of this more free than it is today to place restrictions on who may own a gun and where, when and how he may carry or display it.
Was the D.C. government foolish to seek Supreme blessing for its total handgun ban from a Court that's pretty antagonistic to all things D.C.? If you're deeply commiitted to the D.C. gun ban as it's written, yes, this is something of an act of folly. But as Barnett notes, there's not much downside to the appeal: "They have virtually nothing to lose," given that a federal appeals court has already tossed out the D.C. ban. "They can't be made worse off than they currently are." In a sense, all the District is hunting for is one vote.
But whether the District's lawyers get that vote or not, thugs will still find guns easily and cheaply on the city's streets and Americans will still believe that it should be much harder for deranged killers such as Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho to get his hands on a firearm. Those issues will be resolved in the court of public opinion, not in any court of law. Simple regulations, not fancy legal arguments, will determine who gets to own guns, and those regulations will be driven by politicians under pressure from citizens who've had enough. The Supreme Court action is a fun intellectual exercise, but it is little more than a game, a sideshow to the real action.
By Marc Fisher |
November 21, 2007; 6:12 AM ET
Previous: Boss Shepherd and The Power to Shape D.C. |
Next: Redemption Roulette: I-Man Back In, Greaseman Still Out
Posted by: Dwight | November 21, 2007 6:36 AM
"Simple regulations, not fancy legal arguments, will determine who gets to own guns"
Yea, they cross the t's and dot the i's on the existing gun regulations everytime you buy one in a parking lot of Anacostia....
Marc--Do you even live in this city?
Posted by: Bob | November 21, 2007 6:36 AM
This article is ripe with non-sense. However I will point out just the first of many problems that jump off the page/screen when viewed by this gentle reader of steady habits.
"While most Americans tell pollsters they read the Constitution to protect an individual right to gun ownership, similar majorities favor all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership that hardline pro-gun groups feel compelled to oppose."
"REGULATING" FIREARMS
Most modern Americans do not even realize that language and the meaning of words has actually changed over the past 217 years.
Back in the day when the Bill of Rights (Copyright 1791) was created, the verb word "regulate" meant to keep well functioning / practiced. That meaning still existed into the early part of the 20th. century with "Regulator" clocks that you could rely upon to keep accurate time. These could be found in railroad stations across the country.
However, when the word "regulate" is used today, the common meaning is understood to refer to government intrusion, restriction, and supervision.
So, clearly, it is bogus to ask an uniformed American today to comment upon his lack of understanding of the 2nd Amendment, and then attempt to compare it with a person who actually knows about the original meaning of the word at the time it was written into the Amendment.
Posted by: Douglas in CT | November 21, 2007 8:48 AM
Actually, Marc is shaking in his boots in fear that a Supreme Court decision on Guns next June could derail the Post's efforts to anoint Mark Warner as Senator.
Posted by: Woodbridge VA | November 21, 2007 8:50 AM
The great thing about a decision affirming the individual right as acknowledged in the 2nd Ammendment is that it will FORCE liberals to confront the immorality of violence rather than deflecting the issue towards the gun itself.
That is progress.
Posted by: Charlie | November 21, 2007 9:02 AM
What is wrong with you people? Marc isn't saying that gun bans are appropriate or even that they work. But it is a responsible government that puts some restrictions on potentially dangerous freedoms.
By way of example, an automobile is a tool that is also with improper use a potential weapon. We have drivers education mandatory in most places for young people and laws for who may drive an automobile legally and what constitutes legal operation of an automobile. These laws are for the protection of all of us.
Isn't it reasonable to require the same for gun ownership? There are many legal and recreational uses for guns that should not be banned. But taking into consideration the deadly force a gun inherently posesses, it's appropriate for the government to put some laws in place to control their access and use.
And solutions don't work magic overnight. But a sustained program of legislation outlining gun ownership with appropriate controls could have an impact over the long haul. Isn't it at least worth a try?
Posted by: Cathy | November 21, 2007 9:04 AM
Not that I expect you to actually deign to respond to blog comments and actually support your inane positions, but could you cite to the " decades of decisions that the amendment is really intended only to assure that militias can operate effectively"? Because as noted on Volokh.com:
"Although the Court has not issued a major Second Amendment decision since Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court has mentioned or discussed the Second Amendment in thirty-five other cases, almost always in a context which requires an individual rights interpretation. (The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases. 18 St. Louis University Public Law Review 99 (1999).)"
In short Marc, it's one thing to make an argument in your opinion column, but it's another to misrepresent the facts to make your argument.
Posted by: AlvinT | November 21, 2007 9:15 AM
Sure, Alvin, here are a few:
The Ninth Circuit ruled just a few years ago that the gun right is a collective right:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1039054410124
The Tenth Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment was intended only to protect the effectiveness of state militias. U.S. v. Haney, 2002: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=278
Why, there's even an unpublished Sixth Circuit opinion from this year that assumes the gun right is a collective one directly tied to the keeping of a militia:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/11/unpublished_opi.php
There's plenty more where those came from.
Posted by: Fisher | November 21, 2007 9:26 AM
Marc makes a fairly accurate analysis of the reality ... past the emotions ... of this.
But I think that DC appealed because Mayor Fenty, a politician to the core, felt he had nothing to lose personally and everything to gain for himself politically. He profits either way by posing as the champion of DC's independence.
I agree that not much will change in DC when they lose, because the Council will just craft a new set of onerous restrictions, and get away with it. But I disagree that the ruling is a meaningless exercise for other parts of the country, where the political climate is not like DC's, and where HUNDREDS of lawsuits are in the works.
.
Posted by: gitarre | November 21, 2007 9:31 AM
This was a good, balanced, article. It recognizes that with restrictive laws like DC "only outlaws have guns," while also recognizing that there need to be reasonable limits on who gets access to what weapons. I'm on the side that says concealed weapons permit holders, who must be screened, should be allowed to have their guns wherever they go. Their guns are not the ones that are the problem. Heck, I might start going into DC at night again if I could carry.
Posted by: Benjamin | November 21, 2007 9:33 AM
I don't understand how the District would be "more free than it is today to place restrictions on who may own a gun and where, when and how he may carry or display it," if their handgun ban is indeed found to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Certainly if DC felt free to institute an outright ban, there was nothing stopping it from prohibiting concealed carry or placing restrictions on licensure.
Hopefully this case will force legislatures around the country to remember that the Bill of Rights is not designed to enhance government power, but to rein it in.
Posted by: Foreoki12 | November 21, 2007 9:33 AM
One of the largest groups of new gun owners is single females. I agree that Marc is running scared since he's clearly 100% antigun.
Posted by: FLvet | November 21, 2007 9:37 AM
To Charlie, Your comment regarding the "2nd Ammendment is that it will FORCE liberals" to confront the immorality of violence rather than deflecting the issue towards the gun itself, THIS CAN BE APPLIED TO THE REPUBLICAN RIGHT WING CAPITALIST CONSERVATIVE AS WELL, WHO WE ALL KNOW IS IN THE CHEST POCKET OF NRA, BUT HOW DO YOU MIX BEING A CHRISTIAN W/GUNS, GOD WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED.
To Douglas,
The manipulation or changing of words, who cares (that's why we have lawyers to interpret).
Give me my gun please before I get robbed coming home from shopping for my family for christmas and some crack head or this new thug who rob's innocent people for his own self gain, while I lie there bleeding my life away....and thinking to myself I could have got him first if I had my gun on me.
Sensless murder = Senseless Defense
Posted by: Frankey | November 21, 2007 9:41 AM
Why do certain parts of the constitution apply to DC and other parts do not?
Posted by: KraziJoe | November 21, 2007 10:15 AM
The courts have ruled repeatedly that governments have no burden to protect individuals. The police Government can only apprehend and prosectute offenders after a crime has been committed. This means that individuals must be responsible for their own security. An unarmed populace such as DC provides a "victim rich" environment for violent criminal actors.
All human beings possess the basic human right to self protection. Denying law-abiding citizens tools to enable lawful self-defense enables the violent criminal actors who victimize the public.
This is not to say that the District should not enact prudent and reasonable restrictions on civilian use of firearms. It is entirely reasonable to require that guns, when unattended, be kept unloaded and secure to prevent their access by unauthorized persons. However, defensive firearms must also be functional and readily accessible, when they are in physical possession and direct control of their qualified owners.
It is reasonable for the District to require gun owners demonstrate competence in home firearms safety, basic marksmanship and the laws which apply to the use of deadly force. DC would do well to follow the lead of states who have adopted concealed carry permitting and offer to the public, and require as a condition of permit issuance, an approved training course which includes basic safety, legal awareness and firing qualification for gun owners, subject to a criminal background check. This is common practice for issuance of handgun permits in states which do so.
Allowing retired law enforcement officers, members of the armed forces on active duty in the DC area, and qualified civlians who demonstrate competency, who have passed a criminal background check, would enhance public safety and be a deterrent to crime.
Posted by: Ed Harris | November 21, 2007 10:18 AM
Marc, you are missing something obvious here. The fact is that if the Supreme Court (the final arbiter of what the Constitution means) decides restrictive gun regulations are unconstitutional, that is likely to have a significant impact on how and to what extent all levels of government can regulate or restrict guns and gun ownership. Depending on the Court's ruling, the "simple regulations" about which you rhapsodize may well be null and void regardless of what people or their elected officials think or how they feel about it. This decision isn't a sideshow: it is the main event as far as gun ownership is concerned.
I'm not taking a position here on what the Court should do, what the Second Amendment means, or whether gun ownership is good or bad. But your blog post today comes dangerously close to saying that our Constitution - the highest law of the land - or the interpretation thereof, really doesn't matter in the face of public opinion. But it does. Bear in mind that your freedoms to post this blog and to write for a free press are guaranteed by that same Constitution. Should a "simple regulation" censoring this blog or your "Potomac Confidential" column be upheld, regardless of what the First Amendment is interpreted to mean, solely because it's a popular thing to do in a particular jurisdiction? Of course not.
Posted by: courthouseguy | November 21, 2007 10:29 AM
Marc:
You cited court of appeals cases, supporting the militia/collective right interpretation, not supreme court cases. Statutes and regulations (federal, state and local) must comport with the court's decision. Even if the amendment doesn't protect an individual's right, the definition of "militia" makes such distinctions moot--note provision b2:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
See 10 U.S.C. § 311 (enacted 1956, amended 1958)
For background material, see Eugene Volokh's excellent compendium.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
Posted by: Pants | November 21, 2007 10:40 AM
Marc, the most recent attempts to provide the District with voting representation was thwarted largely by claims that doing so would be unconstitutional insofar as the language of the law links voting representation with the "states", the case being that since the District is not a state there is no basis for it having voting representation. If the Second Amendment links the right to bear arms to the security of the "state," should the case not be made that the amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia, as there is no state to secure? How can that one word have such importance in one piece of legislation and not hold similar importance in another?
Posted by: Craig Hughes | November 21, 2007 10:45 AM
"Heck, I might start going into DC at night again if I could carry."
My god. Please don't come back. You're just another in a long line of stupid hillbillies that show the depth of their bigotry and loathing with clumsy, thinly veiled attacks on DC and it's euphemistically "criminal" population. Why don't you say what you really mean?
Here in Chocolate City, we're friends across racial lines and not scared of "the other," and I know that's hard for you to understand. I pity you.
Tell you what, you keep the guns/racism/fear-mongering on your side of the river, and we'll keep the tremendously literate newspaper that you read everyday, the free museums, wonderful restaurants and music clubs, and clearly superior cultural offerings on our side.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2007 10:49 AM
When the Bill of Rights was created every American then living was a citizen of a state; every state had an organized militia ready to attend to local concerns until called up to defend the Nation. This has carried over to today's National Guard.
That is another reason why the DC gun law ruling may not reduce Second Amendment ambiguity: DC National Guard units are permanently federalized, a condition that does not maintain -- could not legally maintain -- in the 50 states. A militia with local jurisdiction is yet another abridged constitutional right of DC citizens.
Posted by: Mike Licht | November 21, 2007 10:52 AM
"THE Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms".
Posted by: SAMUEL ADAMS | November 21, 2007 10:54 AM
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. ...Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Posted by: JAMES MADISON | November 21, 2007 10:58 AM
FIREARMS stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence...From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happi- ness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
Posted by: GEORGE WASHINGTON | November 21, 2007 10:59 AM
Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be."
Posted by: Westbrook v. Mihaly | November 21, 2007 11:02 AM
I think everyone assumes this is going to come down on conservative vs liberal lines but it's likely to be more about strict constructionist vs liberal interpretation and states rights vs federalism.
It could end up that the conservatives actually support DC's ability to determine it's own gun laws, weakening federal gun control laws but giving states a window to impose more restrictive laws.
It's also possible the liberals will say that gun control is a federal issue based on who knows what interpretation of the consititution.
Overall I agree with Marc, however, that the general consensus is some gun control and that won't change.
Posted by: Ajohn1 | November 21, 2007 11:13 AM
OK, Let's play some semantic word games...
"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."
Supposedly this means (well at least to some "intellectuals") that only the Government has the right to own arms in support of a militia. Hence Government may prevent "the people" from owning arms individually. Quite a leap of "logic" indeed.
So by the same logic, if we write another amendment that doesn't involve an emotional issue like guns, we get:
"A well educated civil service, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
I guess that would mean that only the Government is specifically allowed to own or read books, and any laws prohibiting certain books, or limiting access to books by "the people" would be perfectly legal and acceptable?
How you can possibly contort the English language and "logic" that far is beyond me!
If you don't like it, repeal the 2nd amendment with a constitutional majority across the States. But please do be intellectually honest about what the founders wrote and meant.
Posted by: Stuart Clubb | November 21, 2007 11:20 AM
Or the ruling might be meaningless because if the Court strikes down the ban it will probably have a narrow opinion from Justice Kennedy and then DC will just pass a less restrictive ban like NYC.
Posted by: another thought | November 21, 2007 11:35 AM
Marc,
Do you realize that with some minor editing you could have written this same piece by substituting the terms "abortion" or "gay marriage" (or any other number of issues) for the term "guns?" Oh, that we could turn down the volume, remove the special interest money, and have a reasonable discussion on both sides. Yeah, good luck!
Posted by: Oakton, VA | November 21, 2007 11:56 AM
I've said it before and I will say it again. Maybe somebody out there will wise up and admit I'm right.
Politicians are full of BS and are only using this debate as political fodder.
If they really wanted to protect us the solution is obvious and easy.
The argument that the Constitution give s us the right to posses guns is mute. Just not for the reasons Marc lists.
Here is the answer: Gunpowder is an explosive. Make ownership of explosives illegal ... oh, wait, they already are illegal. Fine - add gunpowder in all forms to the banned list.
Let everybody have their guns. Without gunpowder, the bullets don't go.
Problem solved.
Posted by: SoMD | November 21, 2007 12:26 PM
SoMd the term "bear arms" means a loaded gun.
Posted by: FLvet | November 21, 2007 12:36 PM
Regarding Cathy's comment that if we can regulate automobiles we should be able to regular firearms, the Bill of Rights makes no mention, of course, of any right to own an automobile, or even, back in the day of the constitution, a buggy or a horse.
Just what is there about "shall not be infringed" do some people not understand?
Posted by: Jerry | November 21, 2007 1:55 PM
FLvet - tell that to the cop who finds the unloaded handgun under the seat of your car.
Posted by: SoMD | November 21, 2007 1:57 PM
Marc:
Marc:
I'm impressed that the founding fathers are commenters on your blog.
Perhaps they've been raised from the dead by Ron Paul.
Posted by: Mike Licht | November 21, 2007 2:24 PM
Jerry is exactly right, not even the venerable First Amendment, which has become so elastic as to protect the most prurient of materials, contains language as strict as the phase 'shall not be infringed.' To even the most casual reader this should imply that the government (at least the Federal level) has no business limiting access to firearms in any way shape or form.
Posted by: David | November 21, 2007 2:35 PM
Mike Licht,
Being of the undead is a curse. You should show some respect for our condition and stop disturbing our deep sleep.
Yours truly,
George
Posted by: George Washington | November 21, 2007 2:37 PM
One more thing Mike, just remember that you can never put too much water in a nuclear reactor. That should give you a clue on how to interpret the 2nd.
Cherrio,
George
Posted by: George Washington | November 21, 2007 2:42 PM
SoMD I'll play this silly game w/ you, Let's ban all componants that can be used to make explosives while we're at it.
No more matches, charcoal peroxide, ammonia diesel, gasoline, propane, butane, natural gas, aspirin, cell phones, wire of any sort, tape, newspaper, batteries, water...
Shall I go on?
It's not the inanimate object, it's the intention of the user.
Clearly you don't know much about serious gun owners. I'm certain more than a few would offer to give their guns to anyone attempting to disarm them... ...bullets first!
Posted by: Dave | November 21, 2007 3:48 PM
The unorganized militia refers to those who historically trained with state organiations but at their own expense -- see http://www.lawandliberty.org/what_mil.htm
and stop making up your own history.
Posted by: Mike Licht | November 21, 2007 5:32 PM
"...and Americans will still believe that it should be much harder for deranged killers such as Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho to get his hands on a firearm."
Aside from the fact that Mr. Fisher is absolutely wrong, gramatically, it's "to get THEIR hands," not "to get HIS hands." In other words, "such as Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho" is a sub sub-clause leaving "deranged killers" as the subject of the sub-clause.
Posted by: Gary Berland | November 22, 2007 12:03 PM
Thorough review of the Constitution reveals that the phrase "the people" always refers to an individual right.
To address the VT killer: He knew that no one on campus was allowed to carry a concealed weapon, even with a permit. He barred the doors and methodically killed unarmed students. If only one student had been armed, dozens of lives could have been saved. Also, you should review the testimony before Congress by the woman doctor who survived the cafeteria massacre in Killeen, Texas. Not wanting to break then-Texas law barring concealed carry, she left her pistol in her car. She testified that she could have saved a dozen lives, since she was in a position to have a perfect shot, and was well trained.
This should not be a liberal-conservative debate. The right to defend oneself and one's family is the most basic of human rights. If the Democrats would concede that they are wrong on this matter, and let the subject drop, they would win more elections.
Posted by: 2nd amendment | November 22, 2007 10:43 PM
Gun laws don't work. They don't work in NYC or DC. Even if the handgun "ban" is upheld, yos will still get their guns and kill each other.
Posted by: Kill 'em all! | November 25, 2007 3:56 PM
Mark, you are truly and idiot. To support your position that people overwhelmingly want more gun control, your parade another idiot and his book. More gun control is what lost the Democrats the 2004 elections. Even the rabid Pelosi won't touch it. But you, in your overwhelming arrogance and stupitity, cling to your your beliefs. You are a fool!
Posted by: Anonymous | November 25, 2007 11:01 PM
Just look at it:
"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."
It says if you want a militia, you need many people to keep and bear arms.
Actually it says a militia is necessary. So you got to have people with arms and able to use them.
Sooner of later we will realize that both gun laws and drug laws can not be enforced enough to be effective or even reasonable. Why bother? All it does is divert cash to crooks who are willing to do the work and take the risk.
Posted by: Gary E. Masters | November 26, 2007 11:35 AM
To the person that was comparing gun ownership to car ownership, I'd like to say how foolish is that? These are two seperate issues. A driver's license is a privilege; gun ownership is a RIGHT! Privileges are earned and can be taken away. The right to bear arms is as important as freedom of speech or freedom of the press! Any law abiding, mentally competent, of-age-citizen should be able to excercise this right. I do agree and believe in gun safety and responsibility. I think that legal training, safety handling courses as well and shooting accuracy are all important to a positive gun culture.
Posted by: VA Citizen/DC Denizen | November 26, 2007 2:42 PM
to the argument about gun powder being illegal: the problem, constitutionally, there, is that if the right to bear arms is indeed guaranteed in the second amendment, then any law passed by congress that infringes on that right is unconstitutional. however, the real debate lies in the wording of the second amendment, which many of you seem to misunderstand. the militia clause of the second amendment is a participial phrase, so the amendment could be reworded: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. thus one could conclude that if it is only because of the militia that people have the right to own guns, only members of the militia have the right to own guns. our militia no longer consists of the minutemen who were around in 1789. we now have the national guard, which is a clearly defined body that does not include all civilians.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 27, 2007 10:49 PM
Reasonable restrictions on a Right? That would then make it a privilege, not a right. Government has no business restricting, even a little, the right of every American to keep and bear any firearm. Here, I'll use the same logic on the First Amendment.... Nobody can own a Bible or go church unless licensed and background checked. Nobody, can own a pen or write an article in a newspaper unless approved first by the government. And to the person who likened this to the restrictions on a car.... Driving a car is not a right, it isn't specified in the Bill Of Rights. Yes, guns have an inherent danger to them as do cars, but guns are Necessary for each individual to protect themselves against a tyrannical & abusive government, that's the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 29, 2007 4:22 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
people need to be able to protect themselves. no goveremnt should be able to take that away.