Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

District of Columbia v. Heller

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • District of Columbia v. Heller

    Just getting this topic started as the Supreme Court this week faces one of the most controversial issues in American politics. Is the Washington D.C. ban on handguns constitutional? We've had this discussion many times here in the sandbox, so it will be interesting to see what comes of it.

    A summary from the Washington Post put it well:
    "The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.

    'This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,'' said Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar at the Georgetown University Law Center. "And that's why there's so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment.'"

    And the obligatory wiki link.

    My personal view is that it is an individual right to bear arms with certain restrictions, prohibition not being one of them. Background checks and safety and competency training are fine by me. Beyond that I'm not convinced.
    New to TG?

  • #2
    Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

    Should it not be an individuals right to live in a violence-free enviroment in order to live and settle with their family without the additional risk of fire-arms and all issues that arise from embracing lethal weapons as a common right?

    Surely the current state of your society has evolved beyond the need for the individual to protect their land and property with deadly force. You have something that you fore-fathers never had while drafting the constitution - a police force.

    I have heard it said before that the USA's society will not continue to progress with all others if it doesn't recognise that certain rights that were available two hundred years ago are out-dated in this day and age.

    I don't wish to hurt anyones feeling or lead them to believe that I'm advocating their human rights should be removed but rather I'm attempting to illuminate the fact that they should have a stronger right not to live in fear as so many do. If society changes for the better then so should the law.
    sigpic




    Comment


    • #3
      Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

      I'd be fine with checks and training requirements if the gun grabbers weren't using those as a foot in the door to an all-out ban. (I'm also fine with voting tests and parenting tests, except that they're used in the same way. Who decides what should be tested? Imagine if the Berkeley city council was put in charge of military recruiting tests. ;))
      Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

      snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

      Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

        Originally posted by INSUNABULA View Post
        Should it not be an individuals right to live in a violence-free enviroment in order to live and settle with their family without the additional risk of fire-arms and all issues that arise from embracing lethal weapons as a common right?
        Should I not have the right to live in a car-free environment, safe to blindly walk across the street without looking both ways? Why should I need to fear getting run down?

        Shouldn't I have the right not be offended by people who disagree with me? My feelings might get hurt.

        Shouldn't I live free of all risk? We should outlaw new medicines, new technology.

        Danger is part of life. The question is not if guns are dangerous, but do they mitigate danger more than increase it. As with abortion, large minorities exist on both sides of that question, and government should not take a position where there are large minorities in contention. The force of law should be reserved for cases of significant consensus (like murder, which almost everyone agrees is wrong).

        Surely the current state of your society has evolved beyond the need for the individual to protect their land and property with deadly force.
        It has not. Our society is full of people who don't obey laws.

        You have something that you fore-fathers never had while drafting the constitution - a police force.
        And the courts have ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect any individual. If they screw up and don't show up after you call in a house invasion and get injured, you can't sue for failure to perform. They don't operate under the same rules as private security and bodyguards, where performance can be guaranteed by contract. You're still on your own.
        Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

        snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

        Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

          Originally posted by INSUNABULA View Post
          Should it not be an individuals right to live in a violence-free enviroment in order to live and settle with their family without the additional risk of fire-arms and all issues that arise from embracing lethal weapons as a common right?

          Surely the current state of your society has evolved beyond the need for the individual to protect their land and property with deadly force. You have something that you fore-fathers never had while drafting the constitution - a police force.

          I have heard it said before that the USA's society will not continue to progress with all others if it doesn't recognise that certain rights that were available two hundred years ago are out-dated in this day and age.

          I don't wish to hurt anyones feeling or lead them to believe that I'm advocating their human rights should be removed but rather I'm attempting to illuminate the fact that they should have a stronger right not to live in fear as so many do. If society changes for the better then so should the law.
          I kinda agree that a town should have some ability to determine it's fate. But the towns desires cannot override the individuals rights. They can't, with a law, drive out a certain religion or race of people no matter how much safer it would make them feel.

          And this is what it comes down to. They feel they would be safer. Everybody having a gun is nothing to fear.
          Iím not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
          - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
          - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
          - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
          - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette
          - "Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." -Friedrich Hayek
          - "Don't waist your time on me your already the voice inside my head." Blink 182 to my wife

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

            As my brother got mugged IN his hotel room in Washington D.C. last summer, I am really hoping they get rid of the silly gun ban there. They stole his wallet and all his valuables leaving him with no id or money to fly back home or just get help. Honestly, they have some of the highest crime in the nation yet the strictest gun laws. Why didn't he have a gun to protect himself? Because he was abiding by and respecting the local laws. Why is it that in TX, where I'm free to carry a gun in my car, do I feel safest?
            "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

              Originally posted by INSUNABULA View Post
              Surely the current state of your society has evolved beyond the need for the individual to protect their land and property with deadly force. You have something that you fore-fathers never had while drafting the constitution - a police force.
              The only point we have evolved past is the point were if you take guns away from law abiding citizens then only the criminals will have guns.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

                Originally posted by INSUNABULA View Post
                Should it not be an individuals right to live in a violence-free enviroment in order to live and settle with their family without the additional risk of fire-arms and all issues that arise from embracing lethal weapons as a common right?

                Surely the current state of your society has evolved beyond the need for the individual to protect their land and property with deadly force. You have something that you fore-fathers never had while drafting the constitution - a police force.

                I have heard it said before that the USA's society will not continue to progress with all others if it doesn't recognise that certain rights that were available two hundred years ago are out-dated in this day and age.

                I'm sorry but you have most likely never carried a gun for self defense, owned on, and probably touched one. Guns do not equal violence at all, it's an effective tool. Nothing more.

                It does not pull its own trigger, unholster its own self, load, or do bad things by its own. It's a tool remember?

                Firearms do not influence an individual to do anything, period!

                There is no such thing as "A violence free environent".

                If that were really true and everywhere was safe, then I wouldn't have had to respond to 911 calls in Compton the other day would I?

                As for Police, I really find this one funny. Though they do an awesome job, they have NO DUTY to protect the individual. It has been proven in the Supreme Courts. Also, even if by some miracle you are able to dial 911 do you think they will come the instance you press the button? Just thinking that alone is nonesense!

                Our 2nd(note how it's the second one) amendment was created for a reason, and is not outdated at all, infact it starting to play a bigger role in society than ever.

                Please educate yourself and stop thinking with your emotions...

                That is all

                Turkish
                |TG-X|Turkish

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

                  I wonder how incidents of burglary (no one home) compare to home invasion in Toronto? It's my understanding that in the UK would-be burglars are more likely to attack an occupied home, knowing that no one there will be armed.

                  I recall reading about studies of crime rates in neighboring US states with different gun laws. The overall rate of crime was about the same, but crimes involving engagement between the criminal and victim were more pervasive in the communities with stronger gun control. When a criminal thinks he'll encounter an armed citizen, he picks a different crime.
                  Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

                  snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

                  Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

                    Originally posted by INSUNABULA View Post
                    Should it not be an individuals right to live in a violence-free enviroment in order to live and settle with their family without the additional risk of fire-arms and all issues that arise from embracing lethal weapons as a common right?
                    lolololol....ahhh...good one.

                    Surely the current state of your society has evolved beyond the need for the individual to protect their land and property with deadly force. You have something that you fore-fathers never had while drafting the constitution - a police force.
                    See...this kind of nonsense makes me think you are serious.

                    ...are you? Don't you see the world out there?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

                      Let's keep in mind that the original reason for the Right to Bear Arms was so that individual citizens would have the fail-safe to make the Government accountable in the event they overstep their bounds. It was a direct result of the British rule, trying to protect it's over-lordship over the colonies by doing everything they could to prevent the colonies from banding together in militias and revolting. Without the tools to that end, we would be at the mercy of the Government whenever they may decide to throw out the current system and install a dictatorship. It happens around the world all the time in smaller countries, but it is still a possibility in any country. The Government must recognize that they are in fact, there to serve the people and the people can, and will, remove them if they go too far. That is the reason for the Right to Bear Arms and the law's original intent. Personal security is simply a very nice perk and I totally agree that should some individual cross the line and endanger our personal safety and property, we should have the right to fight with everything we have, just as if it were a Government doing the same. As with any personal right, it does infringe on the rights of others and we are forced to compromise. There is no such thing as a truly "free" society. If there were, it would be total chaos and anarchy. We must find the balance between being able to execute our own freewill and keeping someone else from executing theirs. But when someone's desires under freewill break the laws we have put in place and the majority agrees on, then we should have the ability available to us to defend our lives, our loved ones and our property. If that means I carry a gun and I shoot someone trying to rob me, so be it. It will be one less criminal to tax our justice system, our penal system, or commit another crime.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

                        Well, from what I've seen, people are much much friendlier in Toronto than in D.C., Detroit, or Trenton. I've never felt the need for a gun in Canada, but in certain places, such as Trenton, I feel scared to be with out one. So I can understand Insunabula's sentiments and reasons for feeling that guns are all bad, BUT the way life is in the microcosm of Toronto DOES NOT apply to the rest of the world.
                        "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

                          Originally posted by War.mongeR1 View Post
                          Well, from what I've seen, people are much much friendlier in Toronto than in D.C., Detroit, or Trenton. I've never felt the need for a gun in Canada, but in certain places, such as Trenton, I feel scared to be with out one. So I can understand Insunabula's sentiments and reasons for feeling that guns are all bad, BUT the way life is in the microcosm of Toronto DOES NOT apply to the rest of the world.
                          You bring up a very important point.

                          Guns do make you safe or introduce the initial danger. You can make the argument that once the danger of an area increases to a certain amount they compound that danger in that guns increase the likelihood of a deadly injury.

                          I know I have brought up the fact that my childhood town was (and still is) very safe. I would bet that every house had at least one firearm. Many had dozens. Was the town safe because of that? I really don't think so. It was safe because it acted as a small, self sufficient community and stopped most small problems before they got large. Usually through intrusive measures to be sure.

                          So even though guns do not inherently make a community more dangerous I also think that they do not make a community safer either.

                          Now they can change the attitude of people and THAT can make it safer I feel. Of course the attitude can be achieved without firearms but that takes people with a certain kind of courage, something lacking in parts of this country.
                          Iím not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
                          - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
                          - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
                          - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
                          - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette
                          - "Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." -Friedrich Hayek
                          - "Don't waist your time on me your already the voice inside my head." Blink 182 to my wife

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

                            Originally posted by Elwenil View Post
                            Let's keep in mind that the original reason for the Right to Bear Arms was so that individual citizens would have the fail-safe to make the Government accountable in the event they overstep their bounds.
                            This is a common misconception, although it is true it is not the entire truth. The framers believed that man has a God given unalienable right to self defense. A government which has the power to grant a right has the power to revoke the same -- including the right of free speech, free assembly, free press, etc. On the other hand, a God-given right will be much more secure. Our framers believed that these rights are not given by the government, but protected by it. Since the unalienable right of self-defense is given by God, it cannot be revoked or weakened by government. As long as there is evil in the world, and there are evil people using guns, the right to have arms will be necessary to secure one's self-defense. Whether that defense is against a tyranical government or a home invader makes no difference.

                            Originally posted by Elwenil View Post
                            But when someone's desires under freewill break the laws we have put in place and the majority agrees on, then we should have the ability available to us to defend our lives, our loved ones and our property.
                            I agree with this also, except that we cannot rule by majority alone. That's exactly why this case is in front of the SC now. The majority in DC believe the handgun ban is the right thing to do, while others believe it is unconstitutional.
                            New to TG?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: District of Columbia v. Heller

                              Originally posted by El_Gringo_Grande View Post
                              So even though guns do not inherently make a community more dangerous I also think that they do not make a community safer either.
                              No, but the absence of the right to self defense makes a community safer for criminals.
                              New to TG?

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X