CNN: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional. The justices voted 5-4 against the ban.
What do you think?
Should cities with high murder rates be allowed to ban handguns?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Make New Friends |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.
Comments: 89
Now you know I don't really mean that it's just that no body is going to listen anyway
I like what John said
The result of these laws, which permit law abiding citizens to carry handguns for protection, has been a reduction in violent crime. I'm in a hurry at this moment, but I can post several sources to verify the crime lowering statistics of CCW..concealed carry permit laws. Today's SCOtUS ruling is monumental in scope and importance. It is a reassurance that our Constitution and bill of Rights are being protected.
Name-calling is always so effective anyway.
John have you even considered that "the people" in the second amendment is the same "the people" in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, etc.?
You do realize that the issue here was a BAN? So which of the other amendments are you comfortable BANNING?
Maybe we could apply it to the 1st, then you could be banned from posting such tripe?
At least in The District?
More Free Graphics and Myspace Layouts at pYzam.com
Thus a lot of what we are paying them for is to solve crimes AFTER they have happened. Not much help to you DURING the crime Fred.FBI annual crime reports indicate no other method is so effective in stopping a criminal act on your person than defense with a firearm.
I would never suggest that ALL people should carry. Funny how many want to tell me NONE should carry?
Also Vivian, the 2nd was included as a protection against GOVERNMENT ,not just the Brits. As with the rest of the constitution, it was not designed and written for just the moment. By your logic Vivian, the first amendment is also antiquated in that it was in response to Brittish actions to stop publication of pro revolutionary pamphlets and newspapers at the time.
Thus antiquating the 4th, 5th, etc., etc. Since the whole document was written while under Brit rule and oppression?
Whether one agrees with the amendment or not, I am disappointed that it receives so little thought before comment.Hey guys, how about giving it some respect just because it IS in the constitution? Right next to the 1st, I think?....
I'm not going to come down one way or the other.
We all have our own opinion.
I am a responsible gun owner and am happy with this ruling.
Consider that DC has already added street cameras in many locations. Not traffic cams, STREET cams. They are fighting constantly to add more and they are directly accessible to law enforcement. Remember that the next time you visit the museums and have to loosen you underwear or scratch your armpits.
Recently they have even done CHECKPOINTS in certain areas. ALL cars coming into those areas were stopped and asked their business in the regions. That wasn't Bush violating your privacy by the way.
DC has done gun buybacks for years. For everything from sneakers to tickets to food to tickets to sporting events. No questions asked. Yes many of the weapons were then tied to crimes, but were only available as evidence in a VERY limited fashion.
I believe currently in DC you are not allowed to carry stun guns , tazers, or mace. Pepper spray may be allowed, but is not exactly an equitable substitute.
You are also not allowed to carry an ASP or baton device, and carrying a pocketknife of any effective size and quality might get you charged with concealed carry and jail.
With this in mind , I am eagerly looking forward to hearing your solutions.
Unfortunately I have seen years of this debate with little consideration to the fact that we are discussing an INTEGRAL piece of the CONSTITUTION. Regardless of your position on the topic, I think it deserves some substantive consideration.
I think cities should be able to issue their own ruling on carrying ( I think most already have these laws). To prohibit people from owning one at home all outright is IMO against the second and the supreme court made the right call.
I know I would start by leagalizing pot and allow the states to profit from the sales . And you Michael where would ou start ?? Cause if you took and average of the cause of these crimes I'll bet ya most are drug related. Just like the legal drug alochol your not gonna get people to quit toking.
The NRA and the gun lobbyists sure got their dollars worth from this adminisration.
This is not a general issue. Only about hand guns being legal to be owned, and in the owners home.
It's very specific.
Other issues about weapons may and should come up later. Specificity will be the issue, and more cases will come up over the years ahead. There will be no general laws with the second amendment I feel.
If one notices, the Supreme Court also has struck down every death penalty issue that has come up to them as unconstitutional, saying that it is cruel and unusual punishment, which I think is four. Again Specificity not general results by the court.
We are guaranteed freedom to practice our religion but human sacrifice is frowned.
We are guaranteed freedom of expression but walk around outside with no close on and see how far you get
Michael.
My position on the topic has here-to-fore been unknown.
It is this:
I agree, the Supreme Court made the right call.
They upheld the constitution.
Now, do I think emotionally immature people should be on the streets with hand guns, whether they have a permit or not.
NO.
You know that line in Stan Lee's Spiderman?
With great power comes great responsibility?
Not everyone is responsible.
Be careful what you wish for.
Really?
How DROLL!
William owns several guns from rifles to hand guns even black powder. He has a right to own his toys. He is responsable with them . They are never stored loaded and the ammo and guns are stored separtly the ammo being carefully locked.
If you want to hold criminals at bay get a dog don't sleep with a loaded gun !! My uncle is retired cheif of police of Kirkland Wa. And my daughter-in-laws dad is retired king County Sherrif I know a litle about law an crimes.
I will answer your question, but not before pointing out that the gun issue is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue.
As to legalizing marijuana, this is NOT a constitutional issue.
I personally don't care if you toke. I am not in favor of government selling or taxing it though.Same as I am not a fan of government involvement in lotteries or even alcohol.
Problem is we are already involved in lotteries and alcohol, so pot is probably only a matter of time. I am not a fan of basing tax policy on the lowest common denominator.
Especially when I see those denominators as socially corrosive.
To answer your question about my direct involvement in the solution, get involved. I do not stand on the side lines. I am active in my community in crime prevention. Join your neighborhood watch. If you see something ,SAY SOMETHING. We have communities that actively preach that standing up for community safety is "snitching". NOT standing up is cowardice.
Get active in your childs life. Join the Scouts, coach a team, SOMETHING. Get your kids active, keep them too busy to get involved in gangs and criminal activity. Keep track of their homework, FIGHT for their education ( lack of education IS connected to crime), know their friends, be their parent not their friend.
By the way, I realize what I am asking is hard in the busy world we live in. I have children, including a special needs child. I have a mortgage for an overpriced house because I live in the DC metro area. I own my own small business. So yes, I know it ain't easy. Beats the hell out of the alternative.
As a CCW license holder, I am prepared to get involved. I have given REAL consideration to the danger, repercussions, and costs of getting involved. I know the gravity of my decisions.
In my experience, I have often been "that guy with all the guns".Sometimes said with a hint that I am obviously crazy because I have guns. UNTIL something happens. Someone hears a breaking window, sees a suspicious activity, or feels in danger . THEN I am the first person they call out to. And I respond.
The DC ban left the citizens with only one option, turn to the government for their personal safety inside their homes. To me that is a horrible situation.
The NRA has fought for YEARS for stiffer penalties for crimes committed with a gun, was ACTIVE in getting the Insta-Check system to go NATIONWIDE, has taught MILLIONS of gun safety courses of varying levels and skill, and numerous other efforts.
It is open to all age groups, all ethnicities, all religions, even has a large law enforcement membership.
Yet the best you can come up with is the NRA wants to arm criminals and the insane?....
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.....lol
If people don't like it, then move to change the Constitution with an Amendment, not get some judge to eventually rule a certain way in interpretation because of commas etc. (like eminent domain fiasco)
My sons are 39, 36, and 33 and all own guns. I have a very anti criminal stance and I would never cover for anyone. WIlliam my hubby owns several guns.
WHEN THEY OUTLAW GUN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS. That is very true. I am very glad the Supreme Court made the right decision based on the Constitution.
I think if I was driving into a city and was stopped to be asked what my business was in the city I would tell them it was none of their concern. I would use a little stronger language that that though.
This is a passionate issue to me and thus I am often "direct"....lol
As to your Sunday Drive, you would then find yourself spread eagle on the hood of your car getting a pat-down. lol.
And the Mayor has ASSURED us ,it is constitutional for them to continue the checkpoints in the future.
My point was, in an environment where you cede your personal security to the government, you will also surrender your personal privacy and freedom to that same government.
The court's decision does not mean that cities/states/federal government can't impart some reasonable controls on gun ownership, only that they can't outright ban gun ownership.
Frankly, I'm not a gun person. While I can see their use as self defense and sport (and collecting), most of the time we argue over such things as the right to own assault weapons or the right to own handguns without any kind of registration or licensing. I'm still trying to figure out the wisdom of having an assault weapon as defense (you get the intruder, but also half your neighbors too??). It certainly wouldn't be sport to use an assault weapon on game. Okay, collecting perhaps. But collectors tend not to leave their collections fully loaded with a hair trigger. As for handgun ownership, I have a hard time seeing the rationale of someone saying we don't need licenses or registrations for a deadly weapon but don't seem to mind having to buy a license to go fishing or drive a car. Hey, a little bureaucracy to keep everyone safe. Seems reasonable to me.
It just seems we can find a rational way to both allow gun ownership for those who desire them and responsible ownership as well.
Now I can take comfort while driving through DC that should a drug turf war suddenly erupt on a streetcorner sending a hail of lead my way, there will now be dozens of law abiding citizens in the vicinity who will suddenly produce their Glocks or Colts to take down the malefactors!
well maybe not. the bad guys of course get to pick their time and place, meaning that we would all have to walk around gun in hand, which would not be a good idea just because accidents do happen and everyone would be terrified of everyone else.
Dave, well said.
Prove it. show me the statistics.
Why have you held back you solutions for "other ways of doing that" ....( "they have to protect what is theres [sic] but there are other ways of doing that. ? What are they...what are these other ways?
The SCOTUS decision had nothing to do with licenses..it was totally based upon the unconstitutional banning of all private handgun ownership in DC..not the licensing to own a handgun...the total ban of handgun ownership (I think retired law enforcement personal were exempt from the ban).
Please introduce me to a bullet proof dog. I'd love to own one of those.
(My uncle is a retired brain surgeon....therefore I know a little about brain surgery)
My hope is that no one has to use a firearm to shoot another person. I do however, hope a gun owner is close by if you are ever attacked...unless you would rather just dial 911....
I would rather be dead than make someone else dead.
Deloris Wright
Really? Tell that to a Muslim woman.
By the way...would you rather see one of your children dead than to make someone else dead? I'm not trying to be a smart ass...it's a fair question.
The US was not a peaceful place after we had to use guns to free ourselves from an oppressive government many of which we had to borrow and buy from other countries in order to win our freedom. People like Shay were heavily taxed to pay for the revolution and not only did they pay for it with their blood sweat and tears, fighting in the war, the govt continued to tax them excessively and allowed the taking of their land and property, putting many in prison and too often the exchange was not equitable. Shay organized a revolution that brought about the making of the constitution which clearly stated the govts subjection to the sovereign people. By the people for the people.
The courts decision does mean that the states cannot legislate any "laws" against these rights. Certain powers were given to the federal government and the states buy the people to protect these rights. The preamble which is also part of this article explains the reason for such powers and limitation of the government in addition to the other articles that outline the limitations of their intrusion into our personal lives. Now everyone wants Uncle Scam to come babysit telling them what to eat, read, watch, wear and say.
If one cannot read and comprehend the English language it is not the fault nor the responsibility of our govt. to make sure one can nor should it be a reason to violate the rights of those who can. The Supreme Court has no choice in this matter other than rule according to how the law is written as passed by congress and not their personal opinion or that of popular opinion. Take it up with your congressman. For many concerned about the criminal and the law it seem to be okay to subvert for their own opinions. This is the reason for writing them down and outlining the rules on how, if or when they can be changed and by who. If the SC had ruled another way it would have been the presidents obligation to reprimand them and remedy the illegal ruling. When you have a president who cries about the SC "legislating from the bench" it is because he is unqualified to be president. I don't care he can't read and or comprehend the language.
The problems that we have with this is that the majority of times the supreme court, congress and the executive branches of our govts subvert the laws every day and are not judicial one to another as required by law. The Constitution.
Another example mentioned would be marijuana. Ronny McReagan's unconstitutional executive order the "war on drugs" violates a number of constitutional rights. Some very important ones such as the fourth and fifth amendments allowing "law enforcement" to commit crimes in order to arrest people. This has in turn created a court system that thrives on illegal activities in areas outside the "war zone" where they should never be in the first place. This is also guarenteed money as it is funded through soc. sec. for both enforcement and "rehab". Even DOJ statistics which are warped on the face place indicate the number-one crime as possession and use. The framers specified their intent in the constitution was not to be moral police. Addict or sshole why does it matter if you commit a real crime that violates someone's rights they are suppose to be able to do something about it. First and foremost the right to be secure in there person.
As for people with mental illness we would have another problem as this is often another excuse for much of the incompetence and/or crimes committed by "law enforcement" these days shoot first and ask later and give an onsite diagnosis of an unarmed dead person. Sorry I've had the misfortune of knowing too many of these people and many who are medicated themselves, That should be grounds for immediate removal from duty. it is quite clear and well documented that a majority of them suffer illnesses that can be identified. and not some as "otherwise not specified" garbage. Privacy? Unless a civilian volunteers this information how would you know until they committed violent crime? Who would diagnosing them and why? Read the ADA title II. Psychology and psychiatry is for the most part not based upon any science yet many of the behavior patterns that the govt uses to strip people of their basic human rights are those very same patterns displayed by many who should be held to a higher standard. Personally I don't care what drugs Willy the Wal-Mart worker uses yet he is drug tested to gain employment and sometimes at random but our police and elected official are not. When it's okay to have an alcoholic drug addict as a president and your okay with that-.. I'll keep it loaded thankyouverymuch.
Upon further mention I don't hear any complaints that we are paying for psychotropic medications for the troops to run amuck in the streets of foreign countries or on our own soil. Sadly PTSD is not a an "illness" as their are difference between psychological illnesses and injuries. This is just another excuse to violate the rights of the soldiers when they return home. "Child protection" service and "family" courts are already starting to have a field day with this.
As for license one doesn't need one to fish or drive or to sell a piece of property or repair a home-.. but is forced to pay for one and it still fails to protect you from one who chooses willfully swindle you or place you in harms way..
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The second amendment is what also makes it legal and our right to have our military remove those who have been committing subversion and or treason or misprision thereof. And this was the first and foremost reason as the people who wrote it still had the memories of servitude clear in their minds. Some states refused to ratify the constitution until this declaration of our right were include.
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.
While I don't carry a handgun, I don't feel I have the right to tell a law abiding citizen they can't carry one if they want to.
This ruling receives my complete support
This concept that "evil doers" are out there waiting to get into our homes and kill and rob us is a fiction, a rare anomaly, and the statistics prove it.
Most murders committed are in homes that have guns. They are committed by family members against each other (lots of husbands killing wives, lovers and children), or by children who have access to guns and have "accidents" while playing with them or by teenagers whose brains have been infected by our gun loving, violent culture (remember Columbine)
The following are some statistics by the Violence Policy Center.
Since 1962, more than one million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. Handguns were used in more than 650,000 of these fatal shootings.7
In 1997the most recent year availablethere were 89 firearm deaths per day, or a firearm death every 16 minutes.8
In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.9
Case Closed.
http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
The figures are from the year 2000.
First, the number of firearm related deaths...
assault by a firearm................................10,801
INTENTIONAL self harm by a firearm.......16,586
accidental firearms discharge.................... 776
Now...
accidental drowning and submersion.........3,482
(please note..you are 4.48 times MORE likely to drown than to be killed by an accidental firearm discharge)
Of intentional self harm (suicide) of the total of 29,350...12,764 choose some other method than a hand gun.
But let's get going here..
accidental deaths by poisoning and exposure to noxious substances......12,757
pedestrian traffic deaths..............................................................................5,870
car occupant deaths...................................................................................14,813
(Of course the people who own or ride in cars are more likely to be killed while riding in a car!!!!)
falls.............................................................................................................13,322
(clearly..falling needs to against the law)
exposure to smoke, fire and flames..............................................................3,370
So..the case is not closed Cynthia. In fact..you have no case.
Your statistics are comparing apples to elephants. You have just focused on the cause of accidental deaths by category, but you are shooting yourself in foot because as I add up the numbers, guns are involved in 28,163 deaths. I don't dispute that. But how many of those deaths involved domestic violence? One family member killing another. How many of those deaths could have been prevented if there was no gun in the home?
My point is there is NO evidence that guns in the home protect people from outside "evil" forces. Which seems to be the reason most folks here seem to saying is their motivation for having, needing a gun.
Firearms don't kill people.
Ignorance does.
Educate people.
Help stop suicides.
Get the guns away from people who harm other people
MY point is this..you are not able to support your claims...... I can cite case after case of people using a handgun to protect themselves from intruders..."evil" intruders.
I copying from here :http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OpEds/Why_Good_People_Own_Guns.htm
"But isn't it a fact that guns kept for protection are almost never used? Well, no. In a 1981 survey conducted by pollster Peter A. Hart for the National Alliance Against Violence, 4% of the households polled reported at least one use of a handgun against a person in the previous five years. Even if we assume only one incident per reporting household, that's 645,000 defensive uses of handguns per year. Based on these figures, about 18% of people who owned handguns for protection actually used them for protection."
I have used my firearm to protect myself...it wasn't at home...it was as I attempted to travel to my job at 4am... Four "young men" attempted to carjack me. I produced my legally carried weapon and they decided to go away. What would have happened if I had not had the gun...I can't say, but my opinion is that I would not have come out of the situation safe and sound.
If you are inferring that the most significant reason NOT to own a gun is due to the possibility of the use of the gun in a domestic violence situation...you have further narrowed your statistics...lowered the number of instances...of a death resulting from the discharge of a handgun... AND...you have not considered that in some of the domestic/gun use cases...the gun was the tool used by the person being attacked...as a DEFENSIVE weapon. AS to the categorization of accidental deaths...I didn't even list ALL the other causes of accidental deaths.....I left a bunch of other causes out.
Cynthia...you don't HAVE to own a gun. You don't HAVE approve of the option of others to protect themselves by owning a handgun if they choose...It is not YOUR OPTION to decide what is best for others. You are skirting the issue by arguing against the use of guns because in some cases, the gun might be used in an offensive manner....like a domestic attack and you have not considered the use of a gun as protection in the domestic attack.
But most importantly...the issue here is one of the SCOTUS decision that upholds...further defines really...that we as Americans have the guaranteed right to own a handgun for use as personal protection. The fact that you do not like the decision is an issue of your personal disdain for firearms and has nothing to so with the rights of others to obtain a firearm and use it to protect themselves.... or someone else.
That being said, firearms are dangerous, and we must be extremely careful about whom we license to use them.
I guess we should all now start straping a side arm as we regress back to the days of the OK Coral and the Wild West.
Please read this...it's from the Lott Mustard Report..."John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes." Source: "More Guns, Less Violent Crime", Professor John R. Lott, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996
If you really want to argue your points Juan...you should check the facts. Your wild claims like this.."I guess we should all now start straping a side arm as we regress back to the days of the OK Coral and the Wild West." make you sound trite and reactionary.
Chicago is the only other city (I'm referring to DC as a city here) in the United states that makes it so restrictive to own a handgun...that it is almost impossible to do so legally.
I will be glad to talk about this more...after the weekend. If you really want the facts. I think though, that you would rather not hear the facts.
Now the NRA is suing San Francisco to over turn their guns laws that prohibit weapons in goverment housing. Yes the flood gates are open
As for my blank and over the top comments, they are only the use of sarcasm as a means to point out just how more dangerous our society will be, now that it has become harder for individual cities and states to police the use of deadly weapons within their borders.
Or a terrible defeat for criminals that hope people who obey the law wont have guns before they burglar, rape, kill etc..... If you can prove to me that criminals will obey the laws passed on by egg heads I want to hear it.
Jamie I will give you 1000 dollars if you walk up to a wild polar bear to shake his hand in a photo op top promote your cause.
my theorem:
there's too many people.
yeah, yeah--tolls of MOST types of death have risen. more people born, more people drown and shoot and stab and...fall.
there's no "good" answer in a PC environ'. unless Big brother could raid ev'ry domicile, removing all edged weapons / firearms / bats / canes (oh: do you think i'm being SILLY? silly's stopping SHORT of this, and talking about "safety")--as well as objects an Inventive Mind could turn into a shiv of some sort (i.e., "toothbrush", "chair", "poker"--ooh, that last has struck MANY a blow!)--until that day, with Big Brother demonized for what he's doing to back the Safe Bet...
...you're gonna have murders. and accidents.
psych'-profile all you want. for ev'ry guy you pin down as a time-bomb, there's another who walks away from the test site--and commits a crime of passion.
for ev'ry one of THOSE, there's a reptilian mind that just can't be pinned down.
for ev'ry one of those...well, if you don't get the picture NOW...
look, guys: no easy answer. either offend the These'reMyRightsSoFUCKYou-people... or trespass on the side of caution.
or try to strike a balance.
which is the point, i rather suspect.
i reiterate: NO. EASY. ANSWER.
criminals, commoners: the same.
seriously.
there's just... too many of us.
the stats won't shrink until we've got some breathing room.
or Big Brother, breathing down our necks.
The clear majority of violence committed with guns is done by criminals, not by the tens, if not hundreds of millions of law abiding gun owners. No cop in the country will tell you they are there to protect us, they are there to solve crimes afterwards. It is up to us to protect ourselves. Sadly judging by many of the above comments, this is an alien concept nowadays. And as pointed out by some above, there are thousands of gun laws now and all they do is inconvienance the law abiding, not the criminals. The strictest gun laws in the nation are in the cities/areas with the worst crime rates, no connection there of course.