Supreme Court Gun Case

[Crucified in Christ]

How often have you had to defend yourself with a gun in your home?

This quote baffles me. The Bill of Rights lists the rights that belong to the people, yet that some future government may wish to infringe. It lists the rights, publicly, that a legitimate government should never interfere with.

The fact that you have not, as of yet, required their protection in no way argues for their illegitimacy. The fact that I have never used my gun, although I have continuously owned it, is no more an argument for limiting gun ownership than to say that because I have met with others without persecution, it should not offend me that the Government wants to limit my right to assemble. Or that since my right to free speech has not yet been infringed, I have no argument that such a guarantee is needed.

In fact, the entire framework of these rights was so that this sort of discussion would not be needed. The Government does not legitimately have the right to interfere on these points...it is not up for discussion...that was the entire point. Of course, Governments always give excellent reasons to take away the right of its citizens; this has always been. Our founders knew this and for this reason they resolved that there were certain rights that were quite simply out of the auspices of Governmental authority. The Bill of Rights does not make this so, it simply recognizes that it is so.

Unfortunately, there are many who hold no regard for this Nation's principles or freedoms- freedoms that do not come from paper or votes, but from God and God alone.

 

[donnA]

is this about owning guns, or carrying guns, being armed?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I think the Supreme Court will and should incorporate the Second Amendment against the states. The government should not ban handguns and people should be able to own them for any legitimate reason, including self-defence.

 

[preachinjesus]

One of the germane points, which seems to be missing here, is that the case involved whether the 2nd Amendment pertains to just the federal government or can be applied to state and local authorities. In other words while the Federal Government cannot ban hand guns or another type of firearm does that 2nd Amendment exemption pass along to states and localities.

The Chicago ban is only on hand guns so please stop bringing up rifles people.

It is interesting to see how often states' rights activists respond to this question. I listened to the NPR story about this on the way in this morning and found it to be fascinating.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

One of the germane points, which seems to be missing here, is that the case involved whether the 2nd Amendment pertains to just the federal government or can be applied to state and local authorities. In other words while the Federal Government cannot ban hand guns or another type of firearm does that 2nd Amendment exemption pass along to states and localities.

Right. It involves selective incorporation.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Before we were married, my wife had to use a pistol to keep a group of thieves out of her home. It's amazing what a 45 does to remove the fever to steal and more.

 

[Revmitchell]

I so get tired of liberals who know not their own constitution. Read the 10 amendment it will clear up the states rights issue on guns of any kind.

 

[JTornado1]

Are you admitting that you have never had to use a gun in defending your home?

Do you hunt?

As a kid growing up we had rifles and shotguns for hunting. That is different. Actually you have no need for a rifle or shotgun unless you hunt.

Have I said I want to take away your right to owning a gun? No. But if you have no need for one ........ After all how many kids have been killed when they found an "empty" gun at home. And how many murders have been committed because a gun was handy ... no time to cool down and be rational.

You were a Marine so you must have had some training in handling a rifle and using it safely. Far too many people have not had any training.

Your imagination runs wild when someone seems to counter your opinion. I find it most amusing.

What's wrong with using a shotgun for self defense?

 

[sag38]

The right to bear arms is a fundamental right extended to all citizens of the United States superseding state's rights. I can't imagine any state arguing that it's laws supersede the most fundamental of rights as found in the Constitution.

 

[sag38]

If I am not mistaken this law is like the one that was overturned in D.C. where you can't not have a hand gun even in your home. To even possess in your own home is illegal.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I never noticed that the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment was specifically for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated state militia.

"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."

I'm not sure if firearms for personal safety and recreation falls under that description. Interesting.

 

[Revmitchell]

One of the germane points, which seems to be missing here, is that the case involved whether the 2nd Amendment pertains to just the federal government or can be applied to state and local authorities. In other words while the Federal Government cannot ban hand guns or another type of firearm does that 2nd Amendment exemption pass along to states and localities.

The Chicago ban is only on hand guns so please stop bringing up rifles people.

It is interesting to see how often states' rights activists respond to this question. I listened to the NPR story about this on the way in this morning and found it to be fascinating.

Apply this logic to free speech. Do you think states can limit free speech?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Apply this logic to free speech. Do you think states can limit free speech?

It has to do with selective incorporation. For example, the Supreme Court has never held the Third or Seventh Amendments to apply to the states, or the part of the Fifth pertaining to grand juries, or the part of the Eighth pertaining to excessive bail. While I agree with you that the Supreme Court should apply the Second Amendment to the states, your comparison to free speech is a bad one.

 

[rbell]

I'm not sure if firearms for personal safety and recreation falls under that description. Interesting.

Of course it does...and you have to torture the Constitution to make it say otherwise.

 

[targus]

I never noticed that the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment was specifically for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated state militia.

"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."

I'm not sure if firearms for personal safety and recreation falls under that description. Interesting.

And it also says that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There are no stated execptions limiting that right.

 

[Crabtownboy]

And it also says that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It has been debated for a long time whether they meant bear arms within the militia only or anytime, anywhere.

 

[rbell]

It has been debated for a long time whether they meant bear arms within the militia only or anytime, anywhere.

Not by people who have a rudimentary understanding of freedom.

 

[sag38]

If had just related to a local milita then it would stand to reason that arms would have been removed from the common man and only allowed in the hands of the soldier be he a professional soldier or a citizen soldier called up to defend his land and country.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Not by people who have a rudimentary understanding of freedom.

By good willed people who love freedom on each side. With freedom comes responsibility.

 

[Revmitchell]

It has to do with selective incorporation. For example, the Supreme Court has never held the Third or Seventh Amendments to apply to the states, or the part of the Fifth pertaining to grand juries, or the part of the Eighth pertaining to excessive bail. While I agree with you that the Supreme Court should apply the Second Amendment to the states, your comparison to free speech is a bad one.

Not bad at all. While the third and seventh have federal levels there is no where to go with the first and second amendments but to the states.