The majority of Supreme Court thinks the second amendment applies to individuals and has, basically, struck down the ban on handguns in Chicago.
Here's a good editorial supportingthe decision. Here's one opposing it.
A novice's take on the local, state and national political scenes
Me
David Allen
- Politics 101
- All politics is local -Tip O'Neil
Best sites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(239)
-
▼
June
(21)
- Gun ban debate
- Tiahrt needs surge
- As the downtown turns
- Don't spend, unless
- Unhappy meals
- Light isn't right
- Another downtown closure
- RIP Margie Berrie
- And they're off ....
- Silent 78th
- ACI shares
- Kobach's = Kline
- Anti-semitism
- Parkinson's praises
- Kasha running
- judgeship
- Dem defector
- Customer service
- A taxing debate
- Sheldon's Paw_ Shop
- Everything in moderation?
-
▼
June
(21)
12 comments:
David,
I'm glad to see you presenting both sides of the issue.
The writer of the first article is absolutely right. The writer of the second is delusional.
From the first article:
"In the years following its ban, Washington did not generate a decline in gun murders. In fact, the number of killings rose by 156 percent — at a time when murders nationally increased by just 32 percent. For a while, the city vied regularly for the title of murder capital of America.
Chicago followed a similar course. In the decade after it outlawed handguns, murders jumped by 41 percent, compared with an 18 percent rise in the entire United States.
One problem is that the bans didn't actually have any discernible effect on the availability of guns to people with felonious intent. As with drugs and hookers, when there is a demand for guns, there will always be a supply.
Who places the highest value on owning a firearm? Criminals. Who is least likely to fear being prosecuted for violating the law? Criminals. Who is most likely to have access to illicit dealers? You guessed it."
I would add that when you have a population that criminals know are unarmed, even in their own homes, they are more likely to prey on them. Criminals don't like to be shot any more than you or I do. That is why the gun is the great equalizer.
The second article gives no statistical facts to back up any of their bogus claims. It just regurgitates the typical liberal stance on "those scary guns we've seen on TV, but never actually researched or learned anything about".
What scares me the most is the fact that the vote was 5 to 4. One more liberal judge is all it takes to totally rewrite the Constitution of the United States to make it say whatever the radicals want it to. These are scary times indeed.
"totally rewrite the Constitution of the United States to make it say whatever the radicals want it to"
Yeah, that's all it would take. The more you say, the dumber you prove yourself to be.
Two words for SG... "Citizens United." Radical conservative activist Supreme Court justices handing their preferred candidates a blank check.
Maybe you don't understand. I'll explain it better.
The Constitution is a set of laws that all people and governments in America are sworn to live by.
The Supreme court often "interprets" how and where the constitution is applied, and what the founding fathers meant when they wrote it.
Kagan has said that the Constitution is to be "interpreted over time".
One more liberal and the Second Amendment would have been shot down (pun intended) by the court, and the government would have had free reign to restrict gun ownership. Then what would be next? Freedom of speech? Not being able to speak out against the government? (Remember to send Obama a copy of this to their email)
I really don't see how you can fail to understand that, but I will draw you some pictures on a chalkboard if you need me to.
Hey SG, is it possible at all for you to present a point without being demeaning and extremist?
Statements like "Maybe you don't understand" and "I will draw you some pictures on a chalkboard if you need me to" and "totally rewrite the Constitution" only serve to lessen your credibility and show your immaturity and ignorance. I'm sure you have valid points, but sorting through your diatribes to get to those points can be trying.
"Two words for SG... "Citizens United." Radical conservative activist Supreme Court justices handing their preferred candidates a blank check."
-------------
Ooookay. I had never heard if it until now, but I googled it and this is straight from their website:
"Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens."
OH MY GOD!!! IT'S THE END OF DAYS!!! A GOVERNMENT RUN BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE??!!
IT'S A MADHOUSE!! A MADHOOOUUUSE!
Radical? Really? Are you really afraid of that? Somebody will have to explain to me why any of that would be a bad thing. Sure, if you long for Socialism, I can see how that might put a bee in your bonnet. Otherwise, I just don't see it.
July 1, 2010 9:58 AM
It wasn't aimed at everyone. I was responding to someone who just called me dumb, so I was understandably less than cordial. I didn't start the attack.
"They drew first blood, not me!"
haha
Very mature.
"IT'S A MADHOUSE!! A MADHOOOUUUSE!"
lol. Charlton Heston is lucky he is no longer alive to see what is happening to this once great nation. He's probably rolling in his grave.
The reason we are free and not speaking japanese, german, or living in a monarch is because we have guns folks. The founding fathers saw this and put the right to have guns right behind freedom of speech. If the libs would protect the second amendment as much as the first, we wouldn't be having this debate, but guns don't fit into the whole utopian ideal. Even when you give statistical facts about how guns are important to a free nation and how it actually prevents crime, gun haters still don't believe it.
It doesn't say guns. It says arms. Where do I find an M1A1 and an ICBM? Or perhaps the founding fathers had no idea about what the future held for arms and figured everyone should have an unaimable single shot powder musket.
guns that the founding fathers had back in the day were state of the art. they thought it was good for the people to bear "ARMS" and they meant state of the art weaponry. If we had to fight for our freedom today, would you want muskets? wake up smart one!
Post a Comment