2nd Amendment being mulled

Here we go on the roller coaster. The Supreme Court is now hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of DC's ban of handguns. From the first day's arguments, it sounds as if the proponents of gun rights are getting a positive hearing.

"A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives 'a general right to bear arms'. Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals’ gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home."

In other developments, a Slate online article gives a novel (to me) interpretation of what gun rights is all about and its legality. It involves the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

"a focus on the Ninth and 14th Amendments is simply more honest. The open-ended language of the Ninth and 14th Amendments really did aim to invite Americans to ponder state constitutional provisions that declare rights, and these provisions really do focus on individual self-defense. The framers of the 14th Amendment really did focus intently on self-defense in the home. The framers of the Second did not."

No votes yet

of most of the stories about this.

1. The gun ban in Washington D.C. went into effect in the year 1976. At that time there were 188 people shot to death in that city, in that year. By 1991, 15 years after law abiding citizens no longer had the option of owning a gun for self defense, that number was 479 people shot to death in that city - in that year.

2. in the 32 years that D.C. has had a ban on guns, 8,400 people have been shot to death.

Since the ***************only*********************** people carrying guns in D.C. are, in fact, criminals - you can do the math on this one. Sounds like shooting fish in a barrel. And I find it disgusting that anyone would try to defend this. Particularly in America where these right are guaranteed. The right to bear arms,the right to be secure in our persons and our papers. These rights were intended to be spelled out clearly to put controls ON THE GOVERNMENT in place so that these things could never happen.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

You Libs know how we real Americans are always saying "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns"?

Let me explain what that means and why gun laws simply will not work.

Imagine the type of person with the mentality to commit a crime using YOUR logic.

For instance, a criminal may use this thought process according to Liberal "logic":

'I think I will car-jack this car, kidnap the woman driver, take her to a back alley and repeatedly rape her, then go and rob a liquor store, take the money, grab some booze and kill the clerk.

So pass more laws that the criminal mind will IGNORE because that is the definition of a criminal.


Get it? Gun laws are just another in a long and growing list of laws that criminals WILL ignore, but law abiding citizens will abide by. So if you aare a criminal, where do you want to be?

Michigan or Ohio where concealed carry is allowed, meaning that you don't know who is armed?

Or Washington D.C. where you KNOW that the guy in the suit cannot defend himself?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

If any mayor or governor had tried to outlaw freedom of speech or the press, nobody would stand for it.

But being just ONE AMENDMENT AWAY from that, and suddenly people think that banning guns is Constitutional.

There is no difference between one right affirmed in the Bill of Rights, and another. It's a travesty that Americans even have to assert in court any one of their BoR-guaranteed rights.


As stated before, don't own one myself, have owned them in the past, may own one or more again, and am 100% pro-gun rights. I don't care if the guy next door owns a helicopter or a tank.


"Oh, Bother!" Said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.


'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

SCOTUS is going to have trouble making their usual middle of the road decision, carefully designed to piss everyone off on both sides of the argument. If SCOTUS finds that the 2A is an individual right, we might be able to buy an AK-47, an M-16, whatever.

Me, I've always wanted to chew up $1000 worth of ammo in ten seconds. I want the AK.

I'm waiting for the anti-freedom crowd to start up with the usual noise.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.