The founding fathers weren’t idiots. They had enough powers of foresight to realize that things would change in the future, that’s why they incorporated a method of amending the Constitution. If today’s weapons technology is so different from what was available when the Constitution was ratified, it should be amended, not legislated or litigated away.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

I cannot disagree more. When the constitution was written, private citizens owned cannons - the most powerful weapons of their day. Privately owned ships were armed to the teeth and could presumably have stood toe to toe with government-owned warships. So I think they wrote the second amendment in full knowledge of what it meant. I also disagree strongly with your view of the first amendment. The 18th century had printed materials every bit as offensive to people of the time as anything you'll find on the internet today. I think you give the founders far too little credit for their work.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

I think the Court will determine that the government has no place is restricting ownership.

What will end up restricting ownership is cost and the availability of technology.

To address the obtuse concerns of someone like Bill Gates having ICBM's in his yard, well, he won't. While the actual possession of those, let's say, doesn't have to be illegal, the sale of the technology to make them, and employ them, can be made illegal, and that wouldn't violate the 2nd Amendment...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Well it was an extreme and hypothetical example Steve. I'm not worried about any private missile silos, just pointing out that under Eric and DRGT's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the right to do so is protected.

Good points all, like I said, I'm not a gun control guy. Personally, I think the court may very well strike down the DC ban, effectively striking down all similar bans. I've never understood the logic behind localized bans anyway.

When you look at the issue at hand it is basically this.

Whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to government regulated bodies or to individual citizens.

If the court comes down on the side of the Individual as it should then there will be 1000's of laws challenged and thrown out as a result.

Most likely if there are any Old West shootouts it will at least weed out the idiots and maybe help the gene pool.

BUT will the laws banning ownership and possession by Felons be found unconstitutional in the ensuing legal issues?

Will the laws banning people who are mentally ill from owning and possessing be taken down?

__________________
Listener of the Wilkow Majority
Patriot, Conservative, Libertarian

But how likely would those shootouts be? In many states the gun control laws are incredibly liberal (by that I mean they do not limit guns much), and yet there are no shootouts, really.

Do we already restrict the rights of felons? Can they vote, hold pulic office, etc.? I think the answer to your question can be found in how much we restrict the other rights of felons, and why.

I must admit that your two questions are some of the most intelligent I have seen on this subject. Again, do we restrict the rights of the mentally ill? Should we? These are great questions.

I think that no matter what happens in this case, there will be big changes in how americans deal with guns afterwards. We will either have fewer hassles when buying guns, or certain more liberal legislatures will have a field day. Do you think that the liberals will spearhead a constitutional amendment to ban certain types of firearms? I think the answer is that in some constituencies, yes. In others, it would be political suicide.

Maybe I should don my tinfoil hat, but does it not strike anyone as odd that the decision from the court will come after the presidential election primaries are all but over?

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

What's more, if the SCOTUS should find that guns are not an individual right, would the anti-gun control folks band together to push through an amendment to the constitution making gun rights an individual right? Now that is a political movement that I could get behind.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Well shit, Ahmedinejad should just move here!


I'm not a big gun fan, but clearly gun bans have failed pretty miserably. I don't think people should own (or at least not carry, since we actually have a couple of guns locked away in a closet somewhere at home), but I grudgingly acknowledge that the argument for their right to do so is pretty damn good.

As such, on principle, I think this law should be stricken down. However, pragmatically, given it's failure, I also think it should be stricken. If a failed process is removed, then perhaps people will have to get creative about reducing murder rates. Gun bans seem like a bit of a cop out, at least in this country, since they don't seem to work very well.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Given the very conservative majority on the SCOTUS, I'd be surprised if there is any expansion of gun control as a result of their decision. I'd wager $1 (that's €0.000001 for you Europeans) that the handgun ban is struck down.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I agree completely. I have some ideas on how to reduce gun violence, but the conservatives out there would probably go apeshit over them. One way would be to end the War on Drugs. The violence related to the War on Drugs would pretty much end if we treated currently illegal drugs the same way we treat alcohol and tobacco, i.e. regulate it and tax the shit out of it.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Mhmmm.... We've had threads on this before. I think a lot of us on the site are in agreement on that.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Then we are of like minds? If so, good. I must say that as much as I like a good debate, I prefer when people can agree.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Yeah, I think the benefits of decriminalizing drugs would be huge in this country, and reach far beyond it's borders as well.

But we're going off topic.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Indeed.

Back on topic, do you think that the SCOTUS ruling would affect the National Firearms Act of 1934? Investors would stand to lose a lot of money if their fully-automatic weapons were no longer as rare as they are now, no?

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Actually I believe it will be 2-3 majority decision sptting the 2nd amendment…

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor