Oral Arguments, Supreme Ct. 2nd Amend

[JspyEDC]

If you are so inclined, here are the oral arguments from Wednesday's Supreme Court hearings re: DC v. Heller (Wash. D.C. case concerning right to keep and bear arms...)

Decision is supposed to handed down around June, but the oral arguments are extremely fascinating, and sounds like the Court is all over 'an individual's right' to keep and bear arms.

This could eventually bode very well for all of those ridiculous 2.5 and 3" knife laws handed down by some states..., not to mention Gun Laws.

link to the arguments:

[url=rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc031808_2amendment.rm]rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc031808_2amendment.rm[/url]

[dedguy]

I will never understand while something as dangerous as a gun is allowed to be owned and carried (albeit with a license in most places) that knife laws are so restrictive pretty much everywhere. It just doesn't make sense. It's like allowing cars but outlawing bicycles.

[JspyEDC]

I will never understand while something as dangerous as a gun is allowed to be owned and carried (albeit with a license in most places) that knife laws are so restrictive pretty much everywhere. It just doesn't make sense. It's like allowing cars but outlawing bicycles.

The second amendment isn't about the right to keep and bear guns, it's about the right to keep and bear ARMS, which includes both knives and guns. If you ever want to be allowed to keep and bear knives, you better hope we have the right to keep and bear guns as well. This could have MAJOR affect upon our knife rights in ALL states.

It's not about which is dangerous and which is not... Any weapon can be dangerous and/or lethal. It is up to the Court to decide if WE (all Americans) have the right to own weapons or not.

[stoneman]

It's funny that nobody seems to remember the reason for the right to bear arms being in the constitution in the first place. IIRC it was so that every man could be armed if a militia or military service was needed to defend their state/country. Of all of the arguments I've ever heard this point never seems to be brought up. In most cases guns are being used against their own countrymen and not on an invading military power. So many ppl are quick to defend a law they do not truly understand. A lot has changed since the constitution was written and it wouldn't hurt for those ideas to be revisited/rethought (not abolished). I'm in no way a gun basher. Please don't misunderstand my post as bashing to gun owners/carriers. When I was 16 my biggest concern wasn't my drivers permit, it was getting my hunting licence. I thoroughly enjoy bonding with my father through firing guns, hunting and fishing since as long as I can remember. In Canada the laws are much different ( in no way better) than in the states, but ppls opinions are the same, either strongly for or strongly against gun ownership. I live in a country that was founded on hunting and trapping, and yet when I leave my house with a 12 guage and dressed in orange (deer hunting) I get looked at like some sort of crazy person. I think everyone needs to just chill out a little bit. Guns and knives are tools and I believe have their place in society as much as 100 yrs ago, just a slightly different place. Gun and knife ownership should not be the issue, it should be the use of these tools that is questioned. You should be punished for hurting someone, not for having the ability to do so. We need to come up with ideas other than strictly banning items, this never works( ex: prohibition, prostitution, drugs, even cigarettes have a contraband market) Up here in Canada we foolishly believe gun-registry is the answer, as if the criminals will register thier illegally obtained fire-arms before using them LOL. I don't have all the answers obviously but am sick and tired of the law abiding masses being punished for the actions of a few nutbars.
There was a reason for gun ownership way back when, and I believe there still is today, in the hands of a capable and responsible adult. Drunk driving deaths are on the rise, do we take cars away from the masses for the sake of a few crazies? Guns and knives will be misused, but so will cars, umbrellas, baseball bats, pens, rocks and just about everything else under the sun.

Sorry for the rant but I just recently had a discussion about guns with a very uninformed person the other day and had a little leftover venting to do.

[WOTANSON1]

What I found interesting is that even the liberal justices seemed emphatic that yes, indeed the 2nd amendment gave the right to bear arms... to the people. Not one of them thought it was a Militia issue. So I'm hoping the peoples rights will not be infringed. It's encouraging but the fat lady ain't sung yet.

Cheers,
Rob

[shu]

IIRC it was so that every man could be armed if a militia or military service was needed to defend their state/country.

Actually closer to the truth might be so every man could be armed to overthrow their state/country... the key word in regard to State security is 'free'.

[yablanowitz]

Does anyone else remember the Congressional committee investigation into the meaning of the Second Amendment back in the 80's? They set out to prove that the Second Amendment meant...well, frankly, that it meant anything but what it said. After spending a few hundred thousand dollars investigating, they came to the inescapable conclusion that the founding fathers intended for the common people to have the weapons to defeat whatever army the government had. The intent was that we have an armed populace, and NOT for sporting reasons.

Of course, those findings were disguised in a three hundred-sixty+ page blizzard of legalese and basically buried in the records and ignored. Another example of our tax dollars at work.

[JspyEDC]

Does anyone else remember the Congressional committee investigation into the meaning of the Second Amendment back in the 80's?

That's why this case is so significant. The true interpretation of the wording of the 2nd amendment is finally in the hands of the Supreme Court Justices for a definitive decision, which then becomes "the law".

[Simon G]

Well fellas, you've got to go a lot further afield and frther back in history to discover the origins of RKBA!

This unalienable right, given by God, (Luke 22:36) is a concept that has existed in English Common Law since the dawn of time!

It was first guaranteed in the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, when King John's rule was brought under the rule of law. This ensured that no soverign had absolute power and this could only be enforced with the right of free men to bear arms in the defence of person, home, shire and country.

The concept was not challenged for over 400 years, till the English Civil war, when certain members of society were prevented from wearing arms in public. This was denounced and reaffirmed as a right in the 1689 Declaration and Bill of Rights. Where did you think the 2nd Ammendment came from....? In 1765, American colonists still considered themselves loyal subjects of the British Crown, with the same historic rights and obligations as subjects in Britain. So it stands to reason, that those rights that were considered as unalienable would naturally transfer, regardless who governed.

The fact remains, that in locales where RKBA is supported, society is safer. The numbers bear that out easily. There are a lot of good people alive today because of RKBA and an awful lot of bad people who will never be bad again! Yes, it really is that simple. As long as predatory criminals and political tyrants exercise their version of power and control, RKBA is not only desired, it should be demanded.

One thing to note. In the UK, it only took 50 years to dismantle and ban and restrict RKBA. Thousands of years of rights and responsibilities were wiped out by the stroke of a pen, by pseudo intellectual liberals. Our society is now paying the cost for their misgivings. Guard and promote RKBA vociferously, for if you don't, in a blink of an eye, you will be duped into surrenedring that right and once that one is gone, the erosion of all civil liberties becomes a much easier task for a draconian government.

The great principles of freedom and the rights of man are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence. -- Sir Winston Churchill, address to the Americans, 1946

Oh, and RKBA is not just about guns and it certainly isn't about sport or hunting!

[EarthDog]

Fingers crossed. You can never tell what the Supremes will come out with.

[kimjune01]

The second amendment isn't about the right to keep and bear guns, it's about the right to keep and bear ARMS, which includes both knives and guns.

Does that include Rocket launchers? Why or why not? What is "arms"? I, too, am fascinated by the argument

[WOTANSON1]

Does that include Rocket launchers? Why or why not? What is "arms"? I, too, am fascinated by the argument

That is a very good question my friend, IMHO I read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to mean just that. Whether that includes the implements to wage war is a whole new kettle of fish. I would read it as firearms.
Cheers,
Rob

[yablanowitz]

That was why they chose to bury their findings back then. The investigating committee figured out the founding fathers intended individual citizens have the means to defeat the standing army. If that army has tanks, we should have anti-tank weapons (or tanks of our own). Those men who had just fought a bloody war to end British rule wanted the citizens to have the weapons to overthrow any other tyranny that came along, including a federal government gone wrong.

[Chucula]

If we lose the right to bear arms, I may have to run for president. The dang government people are messing with semantics and avoiding the obvious truth--people are the problem, not guns.

[WOTANSON1]

That was why they chose to bury their findings back then. The investigating committee figured out the founding fathers intended individual citizens have the means to defeat the standing army. If that army has tanks, we should have anti-tank weapons (or tanks of our own). Those men who had just fought a bloody war to end British rule wanted the citizens to have the weapons to overthrow any other tyranny that came along, including a federal government gone wrong.

I agree with you to a point. Most of our founders believed that any standing army was the greatest threat to liberty and envisioned a people's militia of trained citizen soldiers ready to wage war when called upon. The aspect of a tyrannical government was always in the forefront of their thinking hence the second amendment right for the people to bear arms and to have a regulated militia. I personally believe that we as Americans have the right to purchase the same arms as the military without restrictions, but I am powerless to influence the Supreme Court, they will do whatever they **** well want to regardless of the will of the people. So any arguments are a moot point, for now.
Cheers,
Rob

[Ian UK]

Good luck with this I can see how bad things are over here in the UK, everyday we are losing civil liberty's in the name of "our best interests" when they are NOT :mad:

April the first, we can no longer buy Samuria swords, Co2 guns are getting harder to get, only this week our local council (elected by us the people) removed our right to complain about the service they provide???? :mad:

Protesting at the house of commons is banned within a certain area (dont recall what area, but its big) They have banned hunting foxes, fishing will be next, so fight it while you still can!

Good Luck

[Simon G]

only this week our local council (elected by us the people) removed our right to complain about the service they provide???? :mad:

Where?!!!!! :eek: :mad: :mad:

[kimjune01]

Being powerless as an individual, I am just waiting for a Magna Carta #2, where the combined forces of the people overwhelm the powers of the government

[Bolster]

That was why they chose to bury their findings back then. The investigating committee figured out the founding fathers intended individual citizens have the means to defeat the standing army. If that army has tanks, we should have anti-tank weapons (or tanks of our own). Those men who had just fought a bloody war to end British rule wanted the citizens to have the weapons to overthrow any other tyranny that came along, including a federal government gone wrong.

Exactly. Well said.