Will you ever see a gun control story like this on the tv news?

Question

"Man fatally shoots an alleged intruder
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

An eastern Kentucky man fatally shot one of two alleged intruders who claimed to be police officers, according to sheriff's officials.

The other suspect was arrested and charged with burglary and impersonating a police officer, a sheriff's report said.

Jason Daniels, 23, of Ashland, shot Robert Lewis Chapman, 50, of Greenup in the chest, shoulder and wrist Wednesday night, the Boyd County Sheriff's office said..."

http://news.nky.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20070309/NEWS0103/703090376

"Peace lover" you are absolutely wrong on so many accounts I can't even begin with. However, to start I will give you one logical inconsistency with your assertion that you must overcome: Explain to us why would the authors of the constitution spell out "individual rights" in a document and then stick the right of a government to keep and bear arms smack dab in the middle of that document? Or perhaps you can show how the other nine amendments in the bill of rights don't apply to an individual, but to the state?

Answer 1

NEVER.
There is an obvious bias in news reporting today and they selectively report the news which supports their typically secular, liberal world view.

Answer 2

Peace Love and Harmony, what is the relevance to the fact that the supreme court has never overturned a gun control law based on the second amendment? How many cases have they heard on gun control laws? One or two in the 217 years since the bill of rights was ratified? How many times has the Supreme Court said that the 2nd amendment did NOT guarantee and individual right to bear arms? Not once! In fact, on at least 3 occassions have they said that the right was an individual right.

The first is US v. Cruikshank - 1875. This case arose from gangs of white men attacking blacks. The victims alleged that the gangs had deprived them of their constitutional right to bear arms. The supreme court found that the second amendment specified "the right to bear arms for lawful purposes" but that the amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed by Congress (ie, it is impossible for one citizen to violate anothers 2nd amendment rights because the amendment restrains the government, not individuals.) The also noted that the right to bears arms is "not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." That is to say that the right to bear arms is an INALIENABLE right. It existed before the constitution and still exists without the constitution.

The second case is Presser v. Illinois - 1886. This case involved whether a private militia could drill in march with arms in public streets, counter to a local law which prohibited it. The militia said the law was violating their 2nd amendment right. In this case the Supreme Court confirmed the finding in Cruikshank that the 2nd amendment constrained the federal government to from infringing the peoples right to bear arms for lawful purposes, but also found that "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the STATES CANNOT...prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government." In other words the 2nd amendment would constrain both the federal govt. and the states from prohibiting the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The third is US v. Miller - 1939. In this case, a bootlegger was found carrying a sawed off shotgun in violation of the national firearms act of 1934. In this case the Supreme Court found that the 2nd amendment would limit the type of arms that citizens could keep and bear to those type which have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." It is important to note that the plaintiffs were NOT members of a militia, in fact they were criminals. However, the court did not say that the plaintiffs had not right to bear arms because they were not part of the militia, the court said that they had no right to bear this specific arm because it was not a milita type arm. It was made clear that individuals did have a right to bear arms that "is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

It seems it is not the NRA that is "brainwashing" people into believing that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right, but rather gun control groups have brainwashed you into believing that it doesn't.

Answer 3

those 2 wikipedia pages have countless counsel approximately distinctive college shootings, a lot of that have minors getting gets. Columbine is in all probability the main fashionable, 2 somewhat disturbed young ones get weapons and kill people they do unlike. you ought to for an arguement look at a rustic like the united kingdom, there replaced right into a school taking photos by an grownup in 1996 in Dunblaine, scotland, yet if you consider that then there has no longer been a gun attack in the united kingdom on a school, there have been knife assaults, one handed off a quick time after, no person died, and a 13 youngster in leeds immediately or the day ahead of this stabbed a 14 3 hundred and sixty 5 days old. this might prepare that with gun administration and young ones no longer getting weapons that it extremely is extra stable for them to circulate off of the rails and kill somebody.

Answer 4

For PeaceLoveand harmony -

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.

This guarantees two things. A state militia and the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

You should be glad the entire Constitution isn't interpreted like you interpret the Second Amendment. You would be dead or in jail for what you say.

Answer 5

any student of history can tell you that the way tyrants rise to power is by taking away firearmsfrom the people! We need to cease gun control and restore the rights of the people to bear arms

Answer 6

Are you kidding, the media is so rightwing they have helped the NRA brainwash people into thinking the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own guns.


IN FACT, the United States Supreme Court has never struck down a law controlling gun ownership based on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

That's right, the U.S. Supreme Court has never found a gun control law unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment.

FACT!

Answer 7

Sounds like he had pretty good gun control....a tight pattern mid-torso. You're right, it'll never get picked up nationally, but I'm sure it aired regionally.

Answer 8

Because it completely re-enforces our Second Amendment Rights ...........

Answer 9

We don't need gun control.....we need bullet control!

I did see this story on CNN, Fox News didn't cover it.