Supreme Court to take D.C. case

Yep! the SC will stand on the 2nd amendment and strike down the unconstitutional law in D.C.

 

Agreed. raying:

 

If the SC follows precedent the ban will stand. Frankly that works for me...

Kind of funny how constructionists are perfectly ok with an activist court as long as their view stands....

 

I hope you are correct. I believe in the citizenry being armed and dangerous. It causes the bad guys to think twice about who they victimize.

 

Funny how you say the 2nd ammendment is an activist decision.

 

No I said that I agree with the precedent set by the Court regarding the definition and scope of the second amendment. The activist part would come into play if the court broke precedent. (you know that whole stare decisis thing.)

 

The second ammendment doesn't need definition, or scope. It needs to be respected. The people of D.C. have every right to protect themselves as we do, out here. An armed society is a polite society. Come visit. You'll see. Even the hippies out here have handguns.

But alas, it is fruitless to argue such. You not liking guns is fine with me. You saying other people shouldn't have them, based on your dislike for them, is highly offensive, to me.

We'll wait for the decision, and hopefully, the right decision will be made, and you'll see the violent crime rate go down, in what is now one of the ugliest places in America.

 

And this may be a gratutitous slap, but I can't imagine a place better suited to fully display the utter folly of liberalism than Washington D.C..

 

It is a good thing precedent wasn't followed with regard to slavery. Precedent is not the constitution. And quite frankly it is activist judges or otherwise that brought about this unconstitutional law to abn guns.

 

Great City, Austin Texas, home of the Texas Longhorns!

 

Austin is a great city! I lived there for three years and loved it.

Unfortunately , it's the most liberal city in Texas as well.

Possibly too many move-ins from out of state. It's getting harder all the time to find a native Texan in Austin.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201818.html?hpid=topnews

Crime Data Underscore Limits Of D.C. Gun Ban's Effectiveness

By Paul Duggan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page B01

Three decades ago, at the dawn of municipal self-government in the District, the city's first elected mayor and council enacted one of the country's toughest gun-control measures, a ban on handgun ownership that opponents have long said violates the Second Amendment.
All these years later, with the constitutionality of the ban now probably headed for a U.S. Supreme Court review, a much-debated practical question remains unsettled: Has a law aimed at reducing the number of handguns in the District made city streets safer?

Although studies through the decades have reached conflicting conclusions, this much is clear: The ban, passed with strong public support in 1976, has not accomplished everything that the mayor and council of that era wanted it to.

Over the years, gun violence has continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times.

 

Slavery was not part of the constitution. The right to arm yourself is. How is this the same?

 

I was speaking to the issue of precedence which is the past decisions of the court. The Supreme court decided that slaves could be owned and black people were not human. this set "precedence" and ti was rightly overturned. Precedence and the constitution are not equal. Precedence can be wrong.