PDA

View Full Version : Supreme court upholds the 2nd ammendment allowing US citizens to own guns


Xray
27-06-08, 04:19
John McCain welcomed a Supreme Court decision invalidating a District of Columbia handgun ban. Barack Obama sought to straddle the subject by saying he favors an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.

The hotly contentious issue surfaced in the presidential campaign Thursday after the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns and struck down the city's thirty-two-year-old ban.

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, heralded the justices' action as "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom."

Voicing a stance that could help him woo conservatives and libertarians, McCain said, "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms."

His Democratic rival, Obama, issued a more carefully worded statement apparently aimed at both moderate voters and his liberal base. The statement from Obama, who has long said local governments should be able to regulate guns, did not specifically say whether Obama agreed with overturning the specific D.C. ban. But he said Thursday's ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures," Obama said.

Obama said his view was supported by the court's ruling that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns." That language "reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe," Obama said.

Both presidential candidates endorse an individual's right to bear arms. But they strongly differ beyond that. McCain has had a mostly conservative record on the issue; Obama, a mostly liberal record.

Other than a few departures, McCain is largely in line with the National Rifle Association's hardline support for gun rights. He voted against a ban on assault-style weapons and for shielding gun-makers and dealers from civil damage suits. But he broke with the NRA to favor requiring background checks at gun shows and has taken heat for pushing through campaign finance legislation that gun-rights advocates say muzzled their free speech.

Obama has voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to lawsuits. He also took largely liberal positions on gun laws while in the Illinois Legislature, including backing a ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.

Campaigning in Cincinnati, McCain claimed Obama has reversed course on the issue. Obama told FOX Business Network he's been consistent.

The Democrat's campaign said a spokesman made an "inartful" statement when he said in November that Obama believed the D.C. law was constitutional. But Obama himself did not correct a debate moderator who repeated the position in February.

"You said in Idaho recently, I'm quoting here, 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.' But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," said the moderator, Leon Harris of Washington television station WJLA. Obama nodded as Harris spoke and said: "Right, right."

"How can you reconcile those two different positions?" Harris asked.

Obama answered that the United States has conflicting traditions of gun ownership and street violence that results from illegal handgun use. "So, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets," Obama said.

The Obama campaign argued that Obama was simply acknowledging the question by saying "right."

In other instances, Obama refused to articulate a position when asked whether he thought the D.C. ban was constitutional.

The campaign would not answer directly Thursday when asked whether the candidate agreed with the court that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional, simply pointing back to his statement.

penpen
04-08-08, 08:29
Wow, I never knew about this. Its about time people start seeing it as a privilege owned and not just some dangerous act.

marquis
01-09-08, 17:37
It's one of those cases in which the writers seemed to mean one thing and say another.Reading the Amendment and its clarification,the Militia Act it seems to me that the authors never envisaged the widespread ownership of guns but rather made a provision for a well armed militia.But that isn't what they actually wrote down.

Xray
01-09-08, 20:35
I'd go with what was written down and not what they MIGHT have thought.

d3adeyes
02-09-08, 03:20
It is a RIGHT whether or not you choose to excersize that right is up to you

and as far as a well armed malitia where do you think those people come from is the government no longer holds true the rights of the people and said people need to stand up to the tyriniry ....... it is you and me not the government and again if you choose not to stand up for whatever reason, don't allow the parinoids to take away the TOOLS to defend you and the country

sorry my first post sounds like a rant it isn't I just would like people to think about why they have their beliefs they are entitled to them and should always be able to decide for themselves the only thing I would ever ask is to have some information from both sides before you make any decission

marquis
02-09-08, 09:59
It was written in a different age.The existence of a militia was because there was no standing army at the time.
I never cease to be amazed at the viewpoint that gun ownership in some way protects people from tyrannical government.Of course tyranny is a matter of perception but the US constitution is a far better guarantor of this freedom.The idea of tyrannical government I feel stems from propaganda at the end of the War of Independence.

d3adeyes
02-09-08, 14:52
Not to argue but there was an army it was the Brittish as it was not the united states yet it was still a brittish colony and the constition and bill of rights were not written for what was happening at that very moment but to to be a blueprint for a conpleatly new country with the freedoms they were being denied by the tyrantical Brittish government and to ensure that the government always was "FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE" and is something that has been forgotten by "the people" for over 100 years now and WE all need to step back and realize that the government has stopped working for the people and is now goverened by special intrest groups

I would love to keep going on about this but this isn't really the place for it ( it is a pron site ) and I welcome your comments but as I said before just be sure to have some facts to base your opinion, nowhere I have seen in the constition or bill of rights have I ever seen that gives a timeline for the "beliefs we hold true" it was for everyone to take as a blueprint to form a better way of life and for "all men to be created equal" and not have there rights infringed apon by a tyrantical government

have a great day !!

marquis
02-09-08, 19:41
Britain had a Bill of Rights back in 1689 but your response supports my suggestion of propaganda.The rule applied by the British was with a very light hand indeed, the colonies were to a large extent able to make their own decisions (remember that the 18th century was not anywhere the age of the common man) and was by no means any more tyrannical than what followed.

d3adeyes
02-09-08, 19:47
and what you are saying here is not relevant to the subject at hand

you said the founding fathers were not making statments for the future just for the time they were in and what I have said is they specificaly say that it is not something for just that time in history but as a foundation for the country to be built on and continue following for all days

marquis
03-09-08, 11:29
and what you are saying here is not relevant to the subject at hand

you said the founding fathers were not making statments for the future just for the time they were in and what I have said is they specificaly say that it is not something for just that time in history but as a foundation for the country to be built on and continue following for all days

Of course they were and on the whole they made a good job of it.But situations change and some provisions just don't apply any more and the Amendment which was written to provide militiamen became outdated when the Army was created.

d3adeyes
03-09-08, 15:01
well we will have to agree to disagree as far as I can see with the creation of a government run army the right to assemble a militia was put into the bill of rights exactly for that purpuse

marquis
03-09-08, 19:30
well we will have to agree to disagree as far as I can see with the creation of a government run army the right to assemble a militia was put into the bill of rights exactly for that purpuse

The Militia Act of 1791 was an attempt to clarify the 2nd Amendment (by the way it specified what arms were involved and applied only to white males between 18 and 45) .It was not however formerly declared as such which accounts for the present day disputes.The government (the Act actually placed the militia under the control of the President) was therefore guaranteed armed support.Some years later a standing Army was created to serve this purpose instead.But nobody thought to revise the existing provisions so there was left an Amendment which appeared to be what it wasn't.