The Courts have Struck Down the DC gun ban. Do you agree with the ruling?

Question

"The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if it were not read to protect individual rights as well"

I agree. Banning individual gun use is unconstitutional.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html

Answer 1

I agree there should be no gun ban.

I think many confuse the intention of our rights to own weapons. It was our founding fathers intentions that as we have freedom to vote for our government officials we also need to be armed so that our government does not become tyrannical or turn against the wishes of its citizens.

Just a little food for thought. That also applies to taxation without representation" How many of you taxpayers out there actually feel your government does anything in the best interest of its people today. ??

Answer 2

Regardless of how I feel about gun ownership, the Second Amendment is quite clear. The law clearly violated constitutional rights.

If, however, the Amendment is to be taken literally...it is also quite clear that private gun ownership should be in conjunction with a "well organized militia". That clearly is not the case in the US today. There really is no such thing as a well organized militia...just individuals who own guns for private protection, hunting or target practise. I think we will see a whole lot more about this, as the wording of the Amendment can well eliminate the current ownership laws.

Answer 3

we can get to ensure how biased sotomoyor would be in this concern. maximum predictions see the autumn of the chicago ban. yet chicago will nonetheless enforce it. And daley will purely have some ineffective human beings vote for him. dropping the olympics and his handgun ban will specific harm his re election if he wasn't having ineffective human beings vote for him. As for sotomoyor. whilst it got here to heller 9/9 supported the terrific suited to maintain and undergo hands however the determination replaced into 5/4. Her former replaced into between the 4 that replaced into not in prefer of heller so no internet loss. And sotmoyer not vote casting in prefer of repealing the ban is a given provided that she does not have self assurance you may own a gun or maybe have the terrific suited to look after your self yet I doubt she would be waiting to objective to rock the vote provided that this concern replaced into reported plenty in her thoughts.

Answer 4

I agree with the ruling.

I love that the government tried to say the second amendment didn't apply because DC isn't a state....

Answer 5

Every person has the right to defend themselves be it with a gun, a baseball bat or anything else. No one can take away my right to have a loaded gun waiting for that robber. They might try to make it illegal but that isn't going to stop anyone
from protecting themselves.

Answer 6

Absolutely!!!! The only question I have is they say they'll still vigorously enforce their ban, ... aren't they in violation of federal law!!!! The DC authorities need to be prosecuted if they choose to ignore the federal court, just like anyone else would be!!!!

Answer 7

If guns are legally banned, the only people who are left with them are people who got them illegally. Who does that protect? Its our right to own guns.

Answer 8

Absolutely.Any freedom given up is nearly impossible to reclaim

Answer 9

Why on earth is it that the Country with the most crazies wandering around, with many of them in uniform and wandering around other countries, wants to give these crazies the right to carry arms.

Fu cking nuts...