How did DC ban guns? Why can't liberals legislate rather than manpilulate the judicial system?
2007-03-13 02:04:06 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
DC did not ever ban guns. They banned handguns. Rifles and shotguns in the home were legal - if registered.
The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to have a handgun. States can regulate what type of guns are legal to own.
If you gun nuts want to go by strict interpretation of the Constitution, you would have to be in the National Guard to have a gun in your home. That is our militia today. In colonial times, all men and boys were considered part of the state militia and therefore were expected to own a gun in order to fight when called. Today, the National Guard is issued guns and the Guards do not have to buy their own weapons. Therefore, you are not in the National Guard (state militia) and you do not get to keep a private weapon.
Let that be your civics lesson. Case closed.
2007-03-13 16:12:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
tbugs, I think it is you who is in the need of a civics lesson. The 2nd amendment does not give militia or the national guard the right to bear arms, it gives the PEOPLE the right to bear arms.
This has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1875 case US v. Cruikshank when it said... "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." How is does a State have the right to bear arms "for lawful purposes" and how would a State have that right outside the bounds of the Constitution? It doesn't. What the court was saying is that the people have and inalienable right to bear arms, neither created by nor dependant on the 2nd amendment.
In Presser v. Illinois (1886) the Supreme Court said "It is undoubtably true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitue ...the reserve militia of the united states...the states cannot...prohibit the people from bearing arms, so as to deprive the united states of their rightful resource in maintaining the public security..." Again it is a right of the PEOPLE and the States as well as the federal government cannot prohibit the people from bearing arms.
Even if your argument that the right extended to militas not the people (which as we can see above is falatious) then the right will still extend to the people. The national guard according to the US Code is only the organized part of the militia. The unorganized militia is all able bodied males between 17 and 45 who are citizens of the US. I hope you are not saying the 2nd amendment gives a right to certain males but discriminates by age and gender.
2007-03-14 16:55:46 · answer #2 · answered by dsl67 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
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 whole 2nd amendment suggest that it was meant for just members of a militia.
I for one don't feel that it should be that way, guns are necessary for people to hunt. Hunting animals helps control the wildlife population, without that the DEC would have to run controlled hunts too control the population and the meat would be wasted.
2007-03-13 09:16:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Just consider the source. The Liberal Left's way of thinking is that it is not up to you or me to think. It is their job to think for us, defend(or not) us, and buy all of our goods and services for us. All we have to do in return is continue to allow them to raise taxes on a regular basis. (Oh yeah and give up our firearms so that when they show their true intentions we can not revolt)
Sorry, I got a little off track. The short answer is that the libs did a great job of the old "bait & switch". Which means they brainwashed the sheople masses into voting away their right to own firearms. Just look at the AWB of '94 if need proof of that. There were no real Assault Weapons listed in that ban. It was all about the cosmetics of the firearms. But I can still show you people in my own family that will tell you a civillian model Bushmaster is a "MACHINE GUN" just because that is how the libs in Politics, and the media described it.
2007-03-13 09:29:50 · answer #4 · answered by leec1972 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
thomas jefferson stated at the time of the writing of the constitution that it should be an evolving document, REQUIRING constant revision to accomadate the changing of times that would inevitably occur. had the constitution been written in the 1400's, our founding fathers in the 1700's would most certainly have removed, or changed, many of the provisions that would have have been outdated in the 300 years leading up to "their" modern times. the need for a standing militia or the right for citizens to bear arms is out dated. we have a standing military force which replaces that need. paul revere will not ride again, and citizens will not have to defend this country in lieu of such.
2007-03-13 20:06:52 · answer #5 · answered by sheri c 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the big word in the admendment is "and" the right to raise militia's and own arms. The DC law was overturned by the Court as a violation of the 2nd Of course themindset was different then it was written, it was about being able toraise militiwas in England tried again to take us over or another govt. . With the crime today Idoubt there would even be a 2nd admendment. It's like saying pornography is a right to free speech. Does anyone really think our founding fthers had that inmind when they fored these admendments.
2007-03-13 09:20:37 · answer #6 · answered by 79vette 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
'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.'
I believe the first four words cinch it for the liberals.
2007-03-13 09:08:58 · answer #7 · answered by tn5421 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
why the hell are some trying so hard to destroy the second amendment?? are they stupid or do they have an agenda? if the second amendment is destroyed the remaining amendments are worthless, how do we protect them?it damn sure is not by voting because the Zionist choose who they want to run for office and since they own both party's what difference who wins ? only the people can preserve our constitution and country,question is will we???
2007-03-13 09:31:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a strict interpretation.....during the time of the writing the militia was the people...the ordinary citizen.....they have forgotten that.
2007-03-13 09:13:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
The constitution clearly says we have the right to bear arms. There are some who are trying to create confusion about this, but it will not work.
The day we lose our right to bear arms is the day we are no longer a free country.
2007-03-13 09:12:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋