PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Yahoo News Article


Soundman
11-15-2007, 12:31 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20071114/cm_usatoday/ourviewonthesecondamendmenthighcourthasrarechancet oguideguncontroldebate;_ylt=AtHyLpAXJbpGs77W8gyTYD 2s0NUE

SemiAutoSam
11-15-2007, 12:49 PM
By the end of this month, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to wade into a historic, grammatical and constitutional thicket over the ever-contentious Second Amendment.

That's the one that reads, in the Founders' peculiar phrasing, capitalization and seemingly casual use of commas, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The high court's action could negate gun-control regulations across the nation. Alternatively, it could destroy the longstanding rallying cry of the gun lobby that weapons' ownership is an unfettered right. Or— and this would be the ideal — it could sensibly define the limits of both individual gun ownership and government's ability to control it.


The last time the court ruled was in 1939, when it said that a bootlegger's sawed-off shotgun had no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Based on that logic, judges for decades have rejected arguments that controls on gun ownership and use are prohibited by the Constitution.


But early this year, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit read the Second Amendment differently. It overturned Washington's handgun ban, saying an individuals right to bear arms doesn't have to be linked to the role of a militia. In an unusual twist, both sides in the case have asked the high court to intervene.


The Supreme Court could reject this case as it has other gun-related issues. But when appeals courts disagree and longstanding precedent has been challenged, as in this case, there is an expectation that the court will act. And that's where its opportunity lies.


Conservative and liberal scholars have increasingly agreed that the Second Amendment constrains government's ability to control guns. At the same time, all but the most rabid gun advocates believe that the right to bear arms is not absolute. Government has an obvious interest in limiting ownership of stinger missiles and other weaponry the Founders couldn't have imagined.


Even the appeals court that knocked down Washington's law was at pains to say "reasonable restrictions" could still pass constitutional muster. Suggested examples included prohibiting drunks from carrying weapons and banning guns in polling places, surely a modest start.


Left unsettled, though, is just where the limits lie. Is there a difference, for example, between outlawing stingers that can shoot down airplanes and outlawing automatic weapons that can mow down children in a schoolyard?

Nope Both are considered arms.
http://www.answers.com/topic/arms-3

Arms
n. pl.
[OE. armes, F. arme, pl. armes, fr. L. arma, pl., arms, orig. fittings, akin to armus shoulder, and E. arm. See Arm, n.]


1. Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.

If the court can draw a distinction, perhaps it can alter the nation's paralytic debate over gun control. This page has long suggested that the proper starting point is registration of guns and licensing of their users. That does not infringe the rights of gun owners, but it can instill safety skills and avert tragedies such as last spring's massacre by a mentally disturbed student at Virginia Tech.


If the Supreme Court decides to unsnarl the opaque phrasing of the 18th century, it should not take guns away from those who use them responsibly. But neither should it require states and cities to disarm themselves in the fight to contain the toll that the misuse of guns imposes on society.

StukaJr
11-15-2007, 12:55 PM
How is it interesting? Mosh of jumbled up ideas and suggestions that Gun control should work as long as criminals follow the Law and no rights are stripped from Law abiding citizens? What's next? Collectivism and Communal Living? Send my unfinished burger to feed the children of Africa? Why mention the time the Amendment was drafted in? Not like it applies to any other Amendments...

What do Modern Military grade weapons have to do with DC Ban on firearms? How many civilians own Stinger ground to air launchers?

There isn't one original thought in that "Opinion" - lots of wishful thinking, erroneous statements and straight up utopia... I'd rather read Friedrich Engels

Patriot
11-15-2007, 1:14 PM
Obtuse 'language mucking'-enabled fearmongering by a pundit. Big whoop.

Opaque-phrasing :rolleyes: The text hasn't become less-clear or changed over the years. Attitudes toward weapon control have, to the point that a blanket statement that people have the right to keep and bear arms is now a cause for dismay if read literally.

"Arms" means "weapons"! Bazookas and suitcase nukes and machine guns. oh my!

Completely ignoring that 1A, 4A, 5A, etc. have not been unconditionally affirmed and are subject to certain restrictions in scope.

StukaJr
11-15-2007, 2:12 PM
Completely ignoring that 1A, 4A, 5A, etc. have not been unconditionally affirmed and are subject to certain restrictions in scope.

That does not get brought up enough!

KenpoProfessor
11-15-2007, 2:25 PM
Obtuse 'language mucking'-enabled fearmongering by a pundit. Big whoop.

Opaque-phrasing :rolleyes: The text hasn't become less-clear or changed over the years. Attitudes toward weapon control have, to the point that a blanket statement that people have the right to keep and bear arms is now a cause for dismay if read literally.

"Arms" means "weapons"! Bazookas and suitcase nukes and machine guns. oh my!

Completely ignoring that 1A, 4A, 5A, etc. have not been unconditionally affirmed and are subject to certain restrictions in scope.

Actually, it's not illegal to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre or event, especially if there is one :D. However, by doing so when there is no fire, this could cause catastrophic repercussions, of which you would be responsible for legally.

We have the right to not self-incriminate, however, when offered immunity for any illegal activities, then we are compelled to do so.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde