| OberonBob said: The supreme court was put in place to decide if laws are constitutional, not to change the meaning of the constitution as times changed. |
This si not about changing the constitution. This about clarifing what the constitution says and how it reflects on our laws.
Raziel Dune said:
Yes i agree i've always kinda thought it we did what some european contries do where only Detectives and Army have weapons. Would americans give up their weapons or would america destroy it self because of the crazy bastards at the NRA? |
| TheSource said: Personally, I've always wondered what the hell would happen if the Supreme Court decided the Constitution meant only militias could have guns, and that individuals couldn't. Would people really give up their guns in the age of the Patriot Act? I think people with guns would essentially protest or shoot the people trying to take the guns away. Its going to be interesting. I don't like guns in theory, but in practice, the truth is if we ever had a truly power obsessed president, gun laws mean millions of americans would have the opportunity to shoot the bastard. |
Well, a ruling that the Second Amendment does not provide for a universal right to bear arms would not mean a ban on firearm possession. Instead, it would be left to the states - or, perhaps, to Congress - to determine what weapons should be allowed, and to what extent. And, really, that's all right with me; state and federal legislatures are the bodies best suited to weigh all of the disparate policy matters involved in crafting handgun legislation, if any, and individual states can still include a general right to bear arms in their state constitutions.
The important thing is this case, though, is that it'll determine to what extent the Roberts Court is politically motivated. If they rule that the Second Amendment provides for a right to bear arms, then they will be working against the plain text of the amendment, which succinctly states the policy reason behind the amendment as a whole. Given that the Roberts Court has a history of strict constructionism with regards to Constitutional matters, it would be highly unusual for them to rule in favor of a general Constitutional right, and I suspect that if they do, there will be a pretty major outcry of "judicial activism."
"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."
-Sean Malstrom
The other interesting thing on gun rights is Bush and Cheney have different ideas about this...
Bush is ok with states having some regulation of hand guns and other weapons (he was a governor of Texas after all)
Cheney takes the approach that everyone has a right to guns because of the constitution. Period. No gun regulation.
As for Obama's speech, its one of the best speeches I've heard on racism in the USA, and I think it speaks to Obama's abilities as a leader and his earlier internal conflicts that he was able to address the issue so clearly.
There is something to be said for having a president truly comfortable with White, Black, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu people because of how the person was raised.
People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge.
When there are more laws, there are more criminals.
- Lao Tzu
Entroper said:
It doesn't matter when it was written. The Constitution is the supreme document of law, and it supersedes everything else. If we can all agree (two thirds of the house and senate, and three fourths of the states) that part of it is outdated, we can amend the Consititution to fix the outdated section. But without such an Amendment, we must abide by what the Constitution says. All the Supreme Court can do is decide on the precise meaning of the Constitution and whether or not a law is constitutional. |
Well, with such a majority needed I don't think there is a big chance of the law being changed, although a majority of the people could be in favour for change. Ironicly, the biggest chance of changing the second amendment is to actually take up arms and overthrow the government to change the constitution.
Eh, I've got no issues with owning guns for hunting. Hunting rifles are fine, but the only real REASON to own a pistol is to shoot humans. You can argue it's for self defense, but if no one else owned a pistol you wouldn't have anyone else to defend yourself from now would you?
Personally, I see very little reason to own a gun and thus would probably never own a gun, but I think the reasoning behind gun control laws as being flawed; which explains why they tend not to work, and why gun violence tends to go up after a law is created.
Basically …
A criminal buys a gun because they intend to (or see the possibility to need to) commit the most violent crimes which carry the harshest punishments. Gun control laws add a marginal increase in the punishment over what they will already face and therefore don’t act as a deterrent to committing gun related crimes.
The irresponsible gun owner has far less concern for the consequences of their actions and therefore will (probably) not respect or follow the law anyways; they may also do remarkably stupid things to prevent the “Guvment” from finding their guns, like hiding them in their baby’s crib, which can increase gun accidents.
The responsible gun owner is the person who is the least likely to use a gun in a murder, most likely to prevent a violent crime with minimal force, and least likely to be involved in a gun accident is the only person who will actually obey the law.
Essentially, you’ve disarmed the people you would want to own guns while those you don’t want to have guns continue to have guns …
Yes naznatips you are correct. However, that would mean all handguns must stop being produced and all current guns must be collected. Would the criminal element willingly give up their power over others by force (meaning give up their guns)? no. They like the ability to steal, and kill for their own goals. This is why handguns must not be banned.
| HappySqurriel said: Personally, I see very little reason to own a gun and thus would probably never own a gun, but I think the reasoning behind gun control laws as being flawed; which explains why they tend not to work, and why gun violence tends to go up after a law is created. Basically … A criminal buys a gun because they intend to (or see the possibility to need to) commit the most violent crimes which carry the harshest punishments. Gun control laws add a marginal increase in the punishment over what they will already face and therefore don’t act as a deterrent to committing gun related crimes. The irresponsible gun owner has far less concern for the consequences of their actions and therefore will (probably) not respect or follow the law anyways; they may also do remarkably stupid things to prevent the “Guvment” from finding their guns, like hiding them in their baby’s crib, which can increase gun accidents. The responsible gun owner is the person who is the least likely to use a gun in a murder, most likely to prevent a violent crime with minimal force, and least likely to be involved in a gun accident is the only person who will actually obey the law. Essentially, you’ve disarmed the people you would want to own guns while those you don’t want to have guns continue to have guns … |
Unless said gun control laws disarmed everyone... as in stopped all sales of pistols and confiscated all registered weapons. Then the criminal with intent to kill no longer even has the opportunity to break gun laws, because he can't get the gun to commit his act...
liberals and progressives want nothing but socialism and the destruction of democracy in america. BTW. Obama is in hot water and the Clinton didn't even have to do anything. Clinton better be thanking all the conservative outlets. And thats a memo
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
