Posted on 01/05/2008 9:26:51 AM PST by Clint Williams
The District told the Supreme Court yesterday that even if the Second Amendment affords an individual right to possess firearms, the city's ban on handguns is...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I forgot to identify the picture which is a little irritating to me when someone posts something I have no idea what they mean.
That’s the prop police car from the movie, “Transformers”. In the movie the car changed into one of the robotic bad guys.
Why would you need a law that created a RIGHT to own arms for military service? The government could provide arms - or even require you to provide you own arms.
Where does the need to create a RIGHT to have arms for that purpose come in?
The “collective right” seems like a clever idea to deny an individual right, but when you follow the “collective right” out to it’s conclusion, you come to a dead end.
Say what? The District is going to argue that their total ban on handguns AND requirement to store long guns dissembled is not depriving "the people of reasonable means to defend themselves"?
Such juvenile arguments and outright lies may even lead to a smackdown from Ginsberg.
The District’s legal arguments appear to be the following:
1) “People” in the 2nd Amendment means “the government”, unlike every other use of the word “people” in the Constitution.
2) If that one gets laughed out of court, then states and localities may violate the 2nd Amendment, unlike every other Constitutional amendment.
3) If that absurd proposition doesn’t get anywhere, then D.C. should be still able to prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves in the most dangerous city in the nation, because somehow being the most dangerous city is evidence that the gun ban “works” and prohibiting self-defense does not prohibit self-defense.
The left wing of the court will have to flat-out lie to write an opinion that the D.C. gun ban is constitutional. I can’t imagine how the District could win this case.
Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm
Turbo, you just answered your own question. I think they will.
Court Prohibits Blacks From Owning Guns
Semper Fi
An Old Man
I agree. If they would just make it illegal to shoot an innocent person the problem would be solved, right?
These people just don’t know how to get to the root-cause of a problem
As far as Liberal Elites are concerned, no person (other than security for Liberal Elites) should be permitted to even touch a gun or any other item that can be used only as a weapon.
As for rights, Liberal Elites don't believe in rights for anyone else. Only the Intelligencia has rights.
1. If the District is prohibited from forming a Militia, then the arming of the 'Police - Militia' as they claim, would be prohibited also.
2. If the District justifies the keeping of rifles and shotguns secured in the home as meeting a Second Amendment Right, It is in fact admitting that the Right exists. And, their claim that "weapons, such as shotguns and rifles, fully vindicate residents’ interests in self-defense". Interests in self defense? How about the NEED for self defense, or RIGHT of self defense. How can a disassembled or padlocked weapon meet that NEED?
3. “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.”
If this were applied to education, such as:
“A well Educated citizenry, being necessary to the success of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
Could this then be construed to mean that only books issued by educational institutions organized by the State could be kept by the people when they are officially students? Any reasonable interpretation would agree that 'a well Educated citizenry' which utilized books in schools would not over-rule the second part - that 'the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed' which stands on its own and is not dependent on the first part.
4. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" does not say nor imply that the people referred to would be only Militia members. If they had meant to restrict it to Militia members, they would have been written it as: 'the right of Militia members to keep and bear Arms '.
X = NOT X
This is the most basic outcome that you can have in a proof by contradiction. Normally, that is when the proof is complete. These people are STARTING with that supposition.
“the ultimate resolution of the problems of gun-created crimes ...”
Culture-related crimes
They should ban motorcycles too because they cause lots of deaths each year and take up operating table space at the DC hospitals that could have been used to save the lives of countless others. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
/sarc
Only an idiot would presume that the Founding Fathers would address INDIVIDUAL rights in every single one of the Bill of Rights EXCEPT the 2nd Amendment.
“The “collective right” seems like a clever idea to deny an individual right, but when you follow the “collective right” out to it’s conclusion, you come to a dead end.”
Bingo! We have a winner!
“The “collective right” seems like a clever idea to deny an individual right, but when you follow the “collective right” out to it’s conclusion, you come to a dead end.”
Bingo! We have a winner!
Unfortunately, There are those on the court who put their own political sentiments above their individual integrity. That is what the whole “collective rights” fig leaf is about; giving them a fig leaf to hide behind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.