Jump to content

Supreme Court considers 'right to bear arms'


Steve

Recommended Posts

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a landmark legal battle over gun rights, taking up for the first time in decades whether Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

At issue is the meaning of the Second Amendment and a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C.

 

A majority on the court appeared to support the view that the amendment protects an individualâ??s right to own guns, rather than somehow linking the right to service in a state militia.

 

But it is less clear what that means for the Districtâ??s 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.

 

â??Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say â??No handguns here?â??â? Justice Stephen Breyer asked.

 

On the other side, Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point: â??What is reasonable about a ban on possessionâ? of handguns?

 

The rest of the story

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest lazyphil

people are allowed to bear alcohol which does cause utter misery, death, injury, family breakdown, social breakdown in places in america. so why not guns?.....both guns and booze can be used sensibly, why should the responsible users suffer because of the morons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people are allowed to bear alcohol which does cause utter misery, death, injury, family breakdown, social breakdown in places in america. so why not guns?.....both guns and booze can be used sensibly, why should the responsible users suffer because of the morons?

 

 

Because other morons get scared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the USA is going, I will not be surprised if gun control gets tighter.

 

I see the trend going the other way and I see this issue as one that will be quite damaging to the Democrat's quest for the Presidency this fall. Whichever way the Supreme Court rules, it will be the liberal appointees who side with the District of Columbia and the conservative appointees who side with the sovereign people of the United States and their God-given rights as preserved by the Second Amendment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of Americans that don't own a gun, have no desire to and never will own one who fully support the right to have a gun.

I think the problem for most Americans is keeping hands out of the people who will misuse them, rather than banning them totally. Better safeguards against the crazies.

 

I don't see any wiggle room around the second amendment meaning anything other than citizens allowed to bear arms. The militia argument holds no water when its viewed in the time and context when the amendment was written. Guns were plentiful and many of the framers owned arms themselves(Jefferson, Madison, etc.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...