Gun nut: one who blames 2.5 pounds of alloy for a death, or a crime.
The Supreme Court has just agreed to hear the case of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the Federal Government. In District of Columbia v Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use. However, this protection was only in the District of Columbia, and so did not apply to the individual states. One of the most egregious cities violating a law abiding citizens right to protect themselves is Chicago. The new case is called McDonald v. City of Chicago and will probably come before the court as early as this coming January, 2010.
This is one of those topics that always amuses me. It’s another “It’s too important to leave it up to voters.” that “Progressives” latch onto as a way of making themselves feel enlightened. Meanwhile, they insult law abiding citizens who want to keep their homes safe (in Colorado home invasions are up 18%) and try to turn democracy on its head. If it was so important, they could gather their multitude together and change the constitution. Until then, it doesn’t matter how many people in Congress or the Senate want to change the law. They have nothing to say.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
The Chicago case will be an important milestone in advocating the entire Bill of Rights. Organizations like the ACLU have very selective vision when it comes to seeing all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, usually leaving out the 2nd and the 10th because they’re “inconvenient”. Chicago imposes a handgun ban similar to the one the Supreme Court struck down last year for Washington D.C. In that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court declared what we have all known: that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to firearms for self-defense and does not merely refer to a state “militia.”
Gun nuts get so wee-wee’d up seeing people carrying firearms that all it takes is seeing a firearm and they scream “white boys want to kill the President.” Never mind if the face of the man carrying the weapon is black.
So seriously, let’s start telling these freedom abusers what they’re really about. They’re really about being happy to leave you at the mercy of criminals. They’re really happy to see you turn into a criminal yourself, because if you insist on protecting yourself in their world, that is what you’d be. They’re really happy to blame the law abiding rather than the law breaking, because they are the victims of society and law abiders are just winners in lifes lottery.
As a younger man I had a different view on gun control. I was a western movie fanatic and I always remembered the signs as the gunslingers rode into town “NO GUNS ALLOWED” and the sheriff would make them leave their guns at the saloon. And I knew that the “shootout” was really a great rarity. So counties and towns deciding for themselves what to do about guns seemed a pretty consistent American notion. But then there was that pesky Civil War I forgot about. And that 14th Amendment where we realized that basic freedoms of speech and assembly, and private property, couldn’t be guaranteed among the states and the 14th amendment was created so that all the enumerated rights would apply to the states as well. All of them.
And that’s where the argument with myself fell apart and the truth became clear.
Do I have a gun safe? You bet. Do I know how to shoot? You bet. Will I teach my child to shoot? At least as much as she needs to to operate one safely, then no more unless she asks.
Will I teach her to boycott kill zones that mark their doors “no guns allowed”? You bet. Will I show her the difference between a school rampage where guns are banned and one where a student defended themselves and others?
You bet. Good luck to the rest of you.
Certain requirements like not having a violent criminal past and perhaps being able to pass a gun safety exam seem reasonable.
The court should follow the precident set in the DC finding and individuals should have the right as the constitution lays out to have a gun or guns for personal use. But not an Ak 47 or automatic machine gun, those rulings should stand.
Jim, that is the problem……An Ak-47 is restricted, but a Mini 30 is not, why? Because the AK looks mean…Ohhhh scary!
Why don’t we have laws saying we need to have some “reasonable” restrictions on speach? Before you say, “We Do!” You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater! Truth is, you can, BUT you are liable for your actions, if there is a panic and people get hurt! Same with guns, you should be able to have them, but YOU are liable for what you do with it!
I always get a kick out of this argument when the anti’s mention an AK, here is the deal.. An issued AK, which btw can only be had with VERY expensive permits per the National Fireams Act of 1934, before the AK was even invented. Same goes for EVERY full auto firearm. The AK’s that we can get here in the US is a semi auto rifle, same as a Ruger 10-22 or Browning Auto 5,that means it fires 1 round per pull of the trigger, same concept used in many guns since the late 1800’s to early 1900’s (example Mauser Broomhandle pistol) The only difference between a Mini 30 & an AK is the way it looks, plain & simple. Anti’s Please get your facts straight before you try & argue your points. BTW, Meg Whitman & Tom Campbell don’t know about the firearms either but have said they are for the bans, so if you own a firearm, don’t vote for them.