2nd Amendment Challenge -- DC v. Heller

[catchacab]

The problem does not lie with legally owned firearms.  The problem is with illegally owned firearms. 

Banning ownership of firearms is wrong.   The issue that the government needs to address is monitoring the possession of firearms.  All firearms should be registered federally.  Periodically, (annually, semi-annually) all firearms should be required to be re-registered.  All changes in possession or ownership should  be tightly monitored.  When a firearm is lost, stolen or sold, it needs to be reported. 

I don't own any firearms, but I wish to have the freedom to purchase one, if I deem it necessary.

[AMoore]

Be careful of which amendment you want to attack, one you firmly believe in could be next.
Wally

Translation: Don't attack ones right to own a gun because it could lead to an attack on a right you value.


I would hate to think that anyone would ever abstain from speaking out against a policy or issue in the hopes that nobody else speaks out against a differerent policy or issue.  Being able to speak out agaisnt policy is what makes this country great!

This country has the oldest constitution in the world because it breathes.  Ironically, the Second Amendment was adopted because of the fear people had against tyranny.  Tyranny, of course, results in the supression of the right to speak out against that which we disagree with. 

[ccm911]

catchacab wrote:

The problem does not lie with legally owned firearms. The problem is with illegally owned firearms.

Eric hits the nail on the head. The guy that is going to attack you or your family is not going to have a registered weapon. So why limit the ability of an honest citizen to protect himself and his family?

I know I sleep better at night with a Glock 26 under the "passenger pillow".

[Wally]

AMoore wrote:

Be careful of which amendment you want to attack, one you firmly believe in could be next.
Wally

Translation: Don't attack ones right to own a gun because it could lead to an attack on a right you value.


I would hate to think that anyone would ever abstain from speaking out against a policy or issue in the hopes that nobody else speaks out against a differerent policy or issue. Being able to speak out agaisnt policy is what makes this country great!

This country has the oldest constitution in the world because it breathes. Ironically, the Second Amendment was adopted because of the fear people had against tyranny. Tyranny, of course, results in the supression of the right to speak out against that which we disagree with.

Aaron, You speak of "policy". I am speaking of constitutional right. The best government is the one that fears its people, not the other way around. If we repeal the Second Amendment and then the First, Fourth etc., what redress do the people have to restore their right's. If you don't like firearms or the fact that others may own them, that is fine, express your views. But don't suggest that there should be a modification or repeal of a right we all hold to suit your beliefs. Every firearm sold through a dealer since 1968 has been registered Federaly. To make people jump through hoops to exercise a right smacks of tyranny. We now have the Patriot Act, what could be next? I do not live in fear, I want to exercise ALL my right's as long as they don't interfere with others right's.

[AMoore]

Aaron, You speak of "policy".  I am speaking of constitutional right.  The best government is the one that fears its people, not the other way around.  If we repeal the Second Amendment and then the First, Fourth etc., what redress do the people have to restore their right's.  If you don't like firearms or the fact that others may own them, that is fine, express your views.  But don't suggest that there should be a modification or repeal of a right we all hold to suit your beliefs.  Every firearm sold through a dealer since 1968 has been registered Federaly.  To make people jump through hoops to exercise a right smacks of tyranny.  We now have the Patriot Act, what could be next?  I do not live in fear, I want to exercise ALL my right's as long as they don't interfere with others right's.

I do not argue for a repealing of the 2nd Amendment, only for what I believe would be an accurate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  That is what our courts do.  Moreover, the founders, within the Constitution, specifically provided for a process to repeal amendments in recognition that the people may want to do so in the future.  Not all amendments provide for inalienable rights.

[Darren]

Tony356993 wrote:

The reality is that gun legislation punishes people who are obeying the law, and people who ignore the law are unaffected.

Isn't that with most legislation?

Not really, some I guess. Most laws are about what you can't do, you can't steal, you can't kill someone, I don't want to do any of those things so they don't impact me. The criminals ignore these laws but they are tracked down and punished.

In this case, banning guns would be a personal restriction that I wouldn't welcome.

Laws should punish people for doing things that are wrong, not change the lives of people who are doing things right. I don't think there has been a single case where the restriction of gun ownership has led to less violent crime -- in DC and most other places, gun restrictions correlate with an increase in volent crime.

[Darren]

Wally wrote:

We now have the Patriot Act, what could be next? I do not live in fear, I want to exercise ALL my right's as long as they don't interfere with others right's.

I don't live in fear either -- yet on more than one occasion I've had conversations on the cell phone when I've said things and wondered whether the programs that are monitoring cell phone conversations might pick up on key words that I'm saying.

This isn't paranoia (well maybe a little), its a proven and admitted fact that our government has this technology and they have the right according to the Patriot Act to conduct what should be illegal monitoring of innocent citizens.

There is a valid slippery slope argument, and the way things are going I think we have reasons to make that argument.

The 2nd Amendment debate is a great one because it really goes back to the Constitution and wording that was never clarified. The outcome of this current court case should shape gun laws indefinitely into the future.

[Wellardmac]

Nice discussion!

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

[Tony356993]

 I don't think there has been a single case where the restriction of gun ownership has led to less violent crime -- in DC and most other places, gun restrictions correlate with an increase in violent crime.

Then why restrict weapons at all? Are you saying if everyone was packing there would be less violence? I'm sure you do not think that is the case.

Be careful of which amendment you want to attack, one you firmly believe in could be next.

For the record, I never stated I was in favor of banning firearms. We are cool Wally - no offense was meant.

Tony, let me ask you, how many cars should a person be able to own?  How much horsepower is enough or too much?  Should we depend on the government to get us around (public transportation)?  If we're worried about the death rate, motor vehicles and their operators are still responsible for more deaths and injury than firearms.

As far as comparing vehicle hp to AK-47's, AR-15's or Uzi's , I just do not get it. Maybe if we could drive really fast (in a 993TT by chance ) we would need an assault weapon so we don't miss any bystanders on the parade route.  If in the future everyone has assault weapons do you think the all crime will stop? Will you feel safer if everyone is packing?

The best government is the one that fears its people, not the other way around.

Can one only instill fear in another with weapons? Government is in fear of the people (press/news) everyday.


Does freedom translate that we can do whatever we want? No. Would some modicum of common sense help ease the burden of gun proliferation in our country with some form of legislation? I do not know but it is a fair question to ponder.

If you really need to have an automatic assault weapon I would like to know why. If you need it because it is your right, that is a bs answer. Ask yourself why anyone would need such a weapon. Do you really feel that without that weapon you might be falsely imprisoned? Look deep.


I am not suggesting that this is not the best country in the world. I am also not suggesting we ban weapons. Have an open mind and think that maybe there could be a better way. Should we be forced for the next 1000 years not to change because, "it's in the constitution"? The constitution is the perfect document because it allows the people a voice for change.


Off to SP for a few days on the track - with my low hp car by the way

Nice debate - No more PM's please. Be a man (or woman) and put your ideas on the forum for everyone to see. We can agree to disagree and still move forward.

[Darren]

Tony356993 wrote:

I don't think there has been a single case where the restriction of gun ownership has led to less violent crime -- in DC and most other places, gun restrictions correlate with an increase in violent crime.

Then why restrict weapons at all? Are you saying if everyone was packing there would be less violence? I'm sure you do not think that is the case.

My point was that gun restrictions and bans don't seem to reduce violent crime. If the strategy is not effective, then there is no need to have gun control legislation.

This case has two main issues: 1. whether it's a personal right to own firearms and 2. whether gun control legislation is effective on reducing crime.

If point 2 isn't proven, then point 1 is a non issue.