Gun rights case likely to be landmark Supreme Court ruling

Ultimately this hearing could finally answer if the Second Amendment is an individual right or an issue for the State to decide.

It is a very big issue for the American people. Many advocate that the freedom to own a firearm is for the protection of the individual from all that would do them harm be it a criminal, an invasion by a foreign host or commonly from a tyrannical and corrupt government.

It can be argued that the intent was for every available able-body to be able to respond for an immediate call to arms. That the local constable should be able to handle crime. But ruling after ruling has been made that police force are not there to protect the individual, but society as a whole. That personal defense from crime was in the hands of the individual at the time of immediate threat.

Gun advocates and critics alike will need to watch for the results.

Personally, I feel that gun ownership is an individual right. With the anti-gun laws currently in Chicago, carrying personal protection makes you a criminal before a crime has been committed. The possession of a firearm that is never used is really no different than knowledge of advanced martial arts which is not a criminal offense.

Just like an incapacitating blow, a firearm does not have to be used in a lethal manner for protection or escape from harm. Likewise a kick or palm strike in the right location can as fatal as any targeted gunshot to specific locations.

source

Reporting from Washington - When the Supreme Court takes up a challenge this week to Chicago's strict ban on handguns, it will hear two contrasting visions of how to make the city safer and to protect its residents from gun violence.

On one side are the law-abiding city dwellers who say they need guns to protect themselves from armed thugs...

On the other side are prosecutors and police who say the city's ban on handguns gives them a legal basis for confronting gang members and drug dealers.

From your comment section-

On the other side are prosecutors and police who say the city's ban on handguns gives them a legal basis for confronting gang members and drug dealers.

I could give a FLYING # what prosecutors or cops want! Cops and prosecutors will let a drug house be run for years by drug gangs to get the BIGGER FELLAS.

This HAS NOTHING to do with protecting anyone. This has to do with getting promotions for themselves.

Wow, REMOVE MY FRELLING RIGHTS SO THEY CAN GO AFTER CRIMINALS!

There is so much wrong with this, it just PISSES ME OFF!

The overwhelming majority of people who carry a non-automatic weapon have absolutely no intent of causing mental nor physical harm to any other person. It is the ones that will have the guns regardless that are the problems. While yes gun control does minimize the amount of people who would kill, it increases the amount of people who will kill.

[edit on 2/27/10 by Misoir]

Always a lively debate in any circle. Personally I think it is every citizens duty to carry a gun a be prepared to act. However, I also feel that non mandatory courses be held so that people can learn how to use their firearm.

It has been proven that with law abiding citizens carrying guns crime goes down. The risk isn't worth the reward and increases the risk of not only getting injured but dead.

By the way by saying it is a duty to carry a firearm, that would not make it mandatory.

And one of the most important reasons why people should be able to carry firearms, is because it is in the second amendment that people have the right to bear arms. This is not a hunting clause as the cops here in Montana would have people believe.

To get people awakened to their tights I even carried my AK47 down main street. I was detained, then the officers were kissing my butt and let me go.

If everyone is carrying a gun, and someone opens up, at least people cold defend themselves as our creator intended. Remember our rights are not given to us by the government, and we do not live in a democracy. Our rights are god given or natural rights, and while we have democratic elections, we are a republic. Broken and fading in glory, but a republic.

For those of you that say since the Supreme court ruled it is the law and constitutional. I will ask you to remember some of the "Constitutional" decisions they have made in the past. Japanese internment, Patriot Act, Gun registration, Subversive registration act (South Carolin), 16th Amendment, and so on and so forth.

The people in robes can and are wrong, and We The People have a responsibility to ensure our rights are respected. You don't have to agree with the rights, but you have to respect them.

Great topic

reply to post by Ahabstar


I'm so sick of politicians trying to ban guns if they are successful then they need to ban knifes, axes, bow and arrow, crossbows, cars/trucks, alchohol, prescription drugs, doctors, nurses, work, stress. Because all those can kill people too. Seriously the line has to be drawn somewhere, criminals will always be able to get guns and kill they are criminals after all thats what they do. So the solution to end gun violence by criminals is to take guns away from the law abiding citizens it just doesn't make sense to me at all. Strict gun laws will not end gun violence, getting the gun out of the criminals hand will end gun violence and that soley rests on Law Enforcements shoulders not law abiding gun owners.

reply to post by endisnighe


The best quote from the article:

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley countered that bringing more guns into the city would make matters worse. "Does anyone really believe that the founders of our nation envisioned that guns and illegal weapons would flood our streets and be used to kill our children and average citizens?" he asked at a news conference in Washington.

So placing guns in the hands (or shoulder holsters) of law abiding peaceful citizens will mean more deaths of children and non-criminals? Hmm. I guess no one else in Chicago is like me then. I mean I have owned guns for years and have known how to fight for even longer. I don't recall punching anyone in the face in a long time (childhood) and I have had jobs were I could legally do just that.

I don't think Mayor Daley has much to fear. I am sure that despite a more armed Chicago, it will still be known for its shady political system. Maybe he is truly afraid of another Al Calpone and the return of the mob scene. Or that Chicago will become home to Old West style shootouts in the streets. Those gunfights were nothing more than the duels that civilization had always had until the modern age and they were nowhere near as prevalent as Hollywood Westerns made then out to be.

reply to post by Aliensdoexist


Rather than outlawing all that, I'd rather outlaw non-representative politicians. They seem to be a far greater source of crime than any other.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by Aliensdoexist

 

Rather than outlawing all that, I'd rather outlaw non-representative politicians. They seem to be a far greater source of crime than any other.

Hey I agree with that it would be much easier, but then we would have no more Government well with the exception of a few that seem like they are legit but thats a very short list.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Aliensdoexist]