Supreme Court considers 'right to bear arms'

[Flashermac]

Nah, we need to pass more laws to make the lawbreakers obey the laws. Or whatever ...

 

 

[Julian2]

We argued this last year to the point where the anti gunners were thinking about going out and buying guns to protect themselves from the pro gunners.

I grew up in rural Australia in the 1950's where everybody had a gun except the police.

It was just a tool you carried in the car along with a spade, an axe and a few spanners in case some tasty varmint crossed the road in front of you.

Then it all got crazy and most of us who didn't belong to a gun club or want to join one got rid of them.

Certainly didn't go on about our divine right to own one.

[Hugh_Hoy]

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.)

 

 

You are absolutely correct. Can you imagine frontiersmen/pioneers establishing expanding boundaries in hostile Indian territory without having a firearm at hand. I guess they could've turned in their firearms for bows and arrows...but that wouldn't square with the anti-gun folks of those days. 5555555555

 

HH

 

[Flashermac]

Quite simply, the "militia" means every male citizen between the ages of 18 and 50. (Sometimes it was as low as 16.) Such citizens were required to report twice a year on muster days to elect officers, drill and verify that they had a musket or rifle and 20 (sometimes 40) rounds of ammunition. After that, everybody had a big piss up and staggered home.

 

The "militia" is thus entirely separate from the National Guard, which is the "organized militia".

The militia simply means every male citizen, in uniform or not. In time of war, the militia would be called up and so many men picked for active duty. They marched off, and the rest went home unless another call came. The National Guard is the outgrowth of the volunteer units that were formed in war time. e.g. During the Civil War, the fighting was done almost entirely on both sides by volunteer soldiers. The militia stayed home to preserve order and occasionally fight if the local area was invaded.

 

Note that the militia was required to have a long arm - a rifle or musket. Commissioned officers might have carried a pistol, but not the others. If the anti-gunners wanted to get serious, they could start arguing on that point and say the 2nd Ammendment doesn't cover handguns. Of course, they seldom are that intelligent and want to ban everything - thus pissing most people off.

 

 

 

[Flashermac]

Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.

 

[color:red]Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree.[/color] But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.

 

The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.

 

Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia.

 

Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution.

 

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

 

Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home.

 

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous," Dellinger said.

 

 

 

More

[Faustian]

Indeed, it's unreasonable to think that people shouldn't have guns, shooting each other is just so much fun! Lets hear it for homicides

 

Yay!

 

Drug dealers and spouse murders

 

Wooo hoooo

 

Serial killings and mass murders in public places

 

Woop woop

 

Really I don't know how I've survived so long, not being able to protect my home, as my country has a total ban on all firearm possession. I must lobby Parliament urgently, I simply don't feel safe anymore! Hells bells! Quickly, where's my NRA subscription form? Damnit!

 

What a bunch of idiots... opportunity missed.

 

 

 

[Flashermac]

<< What a bunch of idiots... opportunity missed. >>

 

Not at all. Congressmen make the laws, not the courts. But notice that sentence I highlighted: "Governments have a right to regulate those firearms ..."

 

That opens a lot of doors.

 

 

p.s. I'm so delighted to hear that the UK no longer has any shootings, now that most firearms are banned.

 

 

 

[AF16]

The way the US is going the SC probably will end up making gun ownership mandatory, especially for psychopaths and mentally ill loners.

[Torneyboy]

They have them already

[Guest lazyphil]

people kill each other in public spaces everyday day under the influence. yay lets here it for whiskey!