|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 | Blogs > 60minman > My Blog > DC handgun law........out the window |
|
|||
|
....The Supreme Court has ruled that the ban on owning and possessing a handgun in the District of Colombia is unconstitutional. I applaud the courts ruling. What disturbs me was that it was only a 5-4 decision. We have 4 justices sitting on the high court who desire to dismantle the parts of it they disagree with and keep only the parts they like. In writing for the minority in dissent Justice Stevens wrote that the Majority, ""would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.".....Our Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be learned individuals. How can Justice Stevens and the other 3 dissenters believe that lifting a total ban is limiting an elective official wishing to regulate uses of weapons? With a ban there is no regulating the use of because there is nothing to regulate. ........Justice Breyer wrote "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." Well Justice Breyer how about this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I did not see anything about "except in crime-ridden urban areas" in the 2nd amendment........Senator Fienstien (d-Ca)leading advocate for gun control had this to say,"I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it." Senator you need to ask the members of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs if they were less safe when a female church member shot and killed a gunman who had opened fire inside that church during a sunday morning worship service......... The Constitution is a "legal" document not a "living" one that liberals want to change to fit their agenda.....The framers knew exactly what they were doing...... ....Wouldnt it be grand to have a car that runs on water. Oh yeah? what if we have a drought? |
||
6/28/2008 5:12 pm |
Her name is Jeanne Assam,and thank God for dangerous women. I have one other concern about the ruling.It did address hunting and self defense.Good. George Washington hired Von Steuben to train his army.Von Steunben created a picture trianing booklet showing the sequences of load,aim,etc to deliver effective fire in the tactics of the day.These were known as "Von Steuben's Regulations" The implications are delivering effective fire(Double rifles,artillery,and aircraft machine guns are "regulated" to shoot where they look) "Preservation of free state" Is State a government entity,or a state of being. A state of being free. Examination of the Federalist papers,the words of those who wrote our constitution clearly stated the 2nd ammendment was necessary to safeguard against Tyranny in Government. It is there for when we say",but the Contitution says you can't do that" And our Government says "Oh Yes WE Can"
| ||
6/28/2008 6:50 pm |
60min, For a change I think we see more or less eye to eye on a subject. The only gun control we need is the ability to hit what is being aimed at. Taking guns away from the citizens is just another way to fuel more crime since criminals don't give a flying flip about laws anyway and would continue to have guns after law abiding gave theirs up. I applaud the Supreme Court for this decision. Personally, if I were in a position of power I would support arming every passenger on an airplane at the time of boarding. It would make it mighty tough for anyone to take control of an airplane and crash it into a building. Mig
| ||
6/28/2008 8:34 pm |
Well..come from a country where you can not carry or have a hand gun without special permit..I sleep well at night, alone, doors unlocked..the only guns around the ones smuggled from US..I know it's like talking to a wall..but keep your guns, hopefully under lock and key, so when they break into your house , steal your guns it won't be one of mine gets hurt..I've spent a lot of time in your country and am sorry you all so afraid..but its your choice....witch
| ||
6/29/2008 1:59 am |
eiskay......There is nothing wrong with having a permit to have or carry a gun. I wish it were so everywhere that doors didnt have to be locked. But telling me a law abiding citizen that I cannot own one or have in my possesion without cause is not right..... ....Wouldnt it be grand to have a car that runs on water. Oh yeah? what if we have a drought?
| ||
6/29/2008 5:29 am |
"In God we trust"...but only when the ammo runs out. Sorry 60min , but you can't blame me for that confusion! And what exactly is a law abiding citizen? How many of them have shot their wives, husbands and children? I have no problem with gun ownership, guns are tools that's all. My problem is in the questionable right of every American to own one without governance.
| ||
6/29/2008 6:00 am |
"Personally, if I were in a position of power I would support arming every passenger on an airplane at the time of boarding. It would make it mighty tough for anyone to take control of an airplane and crash it into a building." Seems like very short sighted thinking to me Mig. Would you still say that if the man next to you pulled out his gun and shot you just for spilling his drink? We live in a crazy world, you never know how stable the person sitting next to you is. And what if, being America, he was black or hispanic and just happened to have a hot temper? Can you see what would undoubtedly happen? And how would you know who is a hijacker and who is not? The real problem is not the guns, but who chooses who is responsible enough to own one, or to be armed even temporarily...and how, in such a huge country it is policed. The prospect 300,000,000 Americans with guns,the biggest army in history, is a pretty horrific thought...if it was China, Americans would be having hairy fits! Meanwhile the rest of the world just sits quietly trying not to think about it.
| ||
6/29/2008 6:50 am |
In response to Katie, if the man next to me made me mad enough to shoot him or vice versa he would also have made me mad enough to beat him to death with my camera, laptop or just plain strangle him. Point is, it isn't the weapon we choose but how we choose to act. Having everyone with equal firepower is going to force a perpetrator to think a little harder about his actions knowing that if he makes the attempt he is history and has very little chance of success. Perhaps it is a radical idea, but I bet it would have the necessary affect as a deterent. As far as how you would know, they obviously made it pretty evident to the passengers of Flight 93, people who died heroically trying to stop them without the tools to do so. They sacrificed their own lives to stop them. Had they been armed a few would have died, including the hijackers rather than all. Mig
| ||
6/29/2008 4:00 pm |
Kate---"And what if, being America, he was black or hispanic and just happened to have a hot temper? Can you see what would undoubtedly happen? And how would you know who is a hijacker and who is not?" Sorry I got lost here. ethnicity, lack of temper control, what is the point you were making? BTW I am totally with you on the gun control issue.
| ||
6/29/2008 4:04 pm |
bigmig-----"As far as how you would know, they obviously made it pretty evident to the passengers of Flight 93, people who died heroically trying to stop them without the tools to do so. They sacrificed their own lives to stop them. Had they been armed a few would have died, including the hijackers rather than all." And how many bullet holes can there be in an airplanes fuselage before it crashes anyway? I have not intention of taking away from the heroics of those on flight 93, but I'm not convinced arming the passengers would have made a difference.
| ||
6/29/2008 6:16 pm |
flirty, An airplane can handle a substantial amount of damage from gunfire or even losing panels without crashing as long as the vitals such as fuel lines, control systems etc. aren't damaged. If you recall, a few years ago, a fuselage panel was lost on a flight to Hawaii, unfortunately, a flight attendant was sucked out of the plane in the incident but the plane landed safely. Contrary to myth, airplanes don't implode when the fuselage is penetrated. In terms of arming the passengers it may not have made a difference but I think it would have. They certainly would not be any worse off for it if they had been armed. It's not a thought I'd have ever had if it had not been for 9-11.
| ||
6/30/2008 8:18 am |
.....I recall not just one panel but the whole top half of the fuselage being blown off of an Aloha Airline flight between Hilo and Oahu. It landed safely albeit to the discomfort of the passengers. ....Wouldnt it be grand to have a car that runs on water. Oh yeah? what if we have a drought?
| ||
7/1/2008 12:46 pm |
I do remember the Aloha Airline incident. Haven't looked it up but it was maybe 20 years ago?? The reason I recall the incident is because we had one of the LARGE satellites at the time and one of my favorite things was to watch the live news feeds long before the event was on the news. Watching that plane come in and land was amazing. And it was a large section of the top, I think a movie was later made of this.
| ||
 |
 |
 |
| Become a member to comment on this blog | ||
 |
|