DC was Denying Citizens Their Constitutional Rights
The founding fathers enacted the Second Amendment as part of a larger Bill of Rights because they wanted to spell out individual rights that would be free from any governmental restrictions -- infringements such as the kind that we saw in Washington, DC.
The founders clearly stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” -- a right so important that they also spoke in terms of the whole population being the militia. Just months after ratifying the Bill of Rights, they passed the Militia Act of 1792 requiring virtually all able-bodied males to keep military rifles and the ammunition for them in their homes.
The historical fact that gun control was not considered to be a legitimate power for government officials was recognized even years later. The Fourteenth Amendment was justified by its sponsors in the Congress as, among other things, a way of overriding state (Jim Crow) gun laws intended to keep blacks in de facto slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment was explicitly a vehicle to incorporate the Second Amendment to apply to the states.
In our time, there has been a tendency for courts to ignore the plain intent of the framers -- both of the Constitution and of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the courts are not the last word on what the law of the land is.
Clearly, Abraham Lincoln was not of the opinion that the Supreme Court was the supreme law. The Dred Scott decision meant that fugitive slaves would have to be returned. Instead, Lincoln directly defied the Court and ultimately issued the Emancipation Proclamation. That is the way our system is supposed to work. All federal officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not just judges.
Recently, there has been some sign of backing away from judicial tyranny by the courts. In the U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez case (1990), the Supreme Court did acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. In the U.S. v. Lopez decision (1995), the Court held that the Congress had no jurisdiction to legislate a gun ban in school zones.
The District of Columbia was correct in following suit, protecting the rights of its citizens to defend themselves.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
America is my and we the peoples country. Anyone that disagrees with laws that are founders/ fathers created should get out. No one is begging you to stay here. I believe in Germany they have gun control . They will welcome you with open arms
The US Constitution is so frequently called upon for support for free gun ownership and yet it appears those who use it to defend their arguments seem to have forgotten to read it. The protection afforded by the Constitution is not for personal unsupervised ownership of guns , but the right to formation and governance of militia (National Guard, Army, ...). Specifically:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The logical extreme of this so-called right? Personal nuclear firearms ? Mandatory gun ownership? School children required to wear holsters as part of their school uniforms? Some of this is already happening ... Because of guns, America is the least safe country in the world.
If nothing else, handguns should be eliminated. I challenge anyone to explain why handguns (concealed guns) are needed - except for law enforcement or for personal use to defend against other handguns. If handguns were banned, then only criminals would have them for a while, making it easy to pick out the ones the police should shoot. Home owners could still have a personal Uzi at home. Still, far fewer people would die given the majority of deaths are passion-related - killed by someone you know and/or love.
I have lived in 2 countries where guns were banned and can attest to the safety and calm it affords the citizens not to have to worry about being held up at gunpoint, shot by a road-rager, killed by an angry spouse. Americans deserve a hand-gun free country.
Two words: Kennesaw, Georgia. In 1982 they enacted a law requiring every head of household to have a gun. They haven't had a homicide in twenty years. Show me another town of similar size in the U.S., especially one that bans handguns altogether, that can make that claim.
"Still, far fewer people would die given the majority of deaths are passion-related - killed by someone you know and/or love."
Wrong. The majority of handgun deaths are gang related. You could argue that rival gangs' hatred of each other is "passion" but that's not what the statement implies. Get rid of gangs, and you go a long way toward eliminating handgun violence.
"except for law enforcement or for personal use to defend against other handguns."
So handguns should be eliminated, except for self defense use? I'm confused. Isn't that the major reason gun rights advocates are for handguns? It's sure the reason I carry one. And I like how you assert that it's bad to have handguns, but an Uzi is OK. That's rational.
Get your facts straight - gang related handgun deaths accounted for less than 20%. Crimes of passion and against acquaintances accounted for more than 60%.
The defense comment was sarcasm .... Of course hand guns can be removed from the population as they were in the UK through buy-back and other aggressive programs. Its the will to fix the problem that is needed. It is absurd to suggest that all citizens should pack guns to make things safe.
You still haven't provided a good reason for handguns - or Uzi's (part of the sarcasm). A rifle or shotgun is respectable. The rest are stupid.
So it's OK to defend my home with a rifle or a shotgun, but not a handgun? So my 30.06 rifle, which when fired at an intruder would likely go through him, a couple of walls and possibly one of my children is a more sensible choice for personal defense than a .40 caliber handgun with jacketed hollow points that are designed not to go through a person? Not to mention the fact that rifles and shotguns require two hands to shoot and I might need one of those hands or may sustain an injury to one of my hands. So how exactly is a rifle or shotgun a better choice again? How does it make more sense?
The fact is you are basing your opinion on possibly fear and definitely ignorance of handguns and the tactics involved with their use. They are without a doubt the best defense against a violent attacker for the very same reason they are the number one choice of them. They are small, easy to operate, lightweight, and can fire several rounds in succession with the need to cycle the action to load another round. If you fire at a criminal and miss with a shotgun or rifle and have to load another round, chances are he is going to have that weapon and use it against you in no time. On the other hand, with my gun, I have 17 chances to hit that bastard before he has a chance to get my gun. And it only takes me about 1.5 seconds to load another 16 round magazine and try again - about the same amount of time it takes to chamber another round in a shotgun or bolt action rifle.
And to respond to the title of your last thread: "But who wants to live in Kennesaw?" If you mean the actual town, maybe you have a point, maybe you don't. I'm sure the folks there would say the same thing about Bombay. But if you mean in a place that has a crime rate so low and hasn't seen a homicide since 1989, I think you'd find plenty that would love to live in a place like that. So what's your problem with it? Don't like living in a safe community?