You Liberals Were Right

[Harry Boy]

They're messing with our constitution again, the bastards want your gun but the "poor victim of racism and bigotry gang banger" will keep his.

We want freedom.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[Real World]

I'd expect the ban to be deemed unconstitutional as it should be. Regulation is fine, but banning is wrong.

[Harry Boy]

Originally Posted by Real World

I'd expect the ban to be deemed unconstitutional as it should be. Regulation is fine, but banning is wrong.

Imagine telling the Wash DC gang bangers they can't carry a gun

[DarrylS]

The constitution usually rules, so expect it to be overturned.

[Real World]

Originally Posted by Harry Boy

Imagine telling the Wash DC gang bangers they can't carry a gun

I'm all for gun control. I think it only makes sense. The only issue I have is that it be sensible, and that any law abiding citizen have their constitutional right to bear arms. Anyone who doesn't do it legally, should be punished to the furthest extent. I don't own a gun, most of my friends and family do own them, I've shot them, and I don't want them. They're dangerous IMO, and where I wouldn't say I'd never own one, I have absolutely no desire or plans too. No thanks. However, that doesn't mean law abiding citizens shouldn't.

[fleabassist1]

Let them have their guns... enforce the laws if they are found guilty of a gun crime. If they kill someone, they should be hanged.

[Patters]

I suppose if we look at gangs and individuals as a well regulated militia, then the DC law would be unconstitutional. Hopefully, though, the SC will not be as ridiculous as the right wing, and will instead evaluate the law in light of current reality. Hand guns should not be outlawed nationwide, but there are areas where it probably makes sense to restrict them in order to reduce crime. One has to believe that forefathers had common sense.

[Patters]

Originally Posted by fleabassist1

Let them have their guns... enforce the laws if they are found guilty of a gun crime. If they kill someone, they should be hanged.

That's the typical right wing way. Let's not try to stop crime before it happens. Let's simply punish the criminal. A lot of good that does the victim!

[sdaniels7114]

"A well regulated militia..." has to mean something. It has to qualify the rest of the Amendment somehow or it wouldn't be there. Some have argued that the intent of the founders was to prevent the federal government from banning state militias, IE no federal restrictions on the National Guard, and never intended for this to be a restriction on the individual states from having any sort of law they wanted; but its by no means clear. I see this SC being more than willing to ignore those four words at the beginning of my post though. So I'm not really sure what Harry's so concerned about. I see the DC restriction on borrowed time. It doesn't seem to have done a whole lot to reduce crime. So there's not a whole lot to get upset about either way.

[Harry Boy]

Criminals don't care about laws thats why they're criminals, the Gang Bangers would love to see a Law that would take the "good guys" gun away that would mean the Gang Banger and the Scumsucker that comes through your bedroom window at 3:00 AM won't have to worry about anybody shooting his filthy face off, BUT, he'll have his little gun.

THE BAD GUYS WANT THIS LAW PUT INTO EFFECT IT MEANS LESS GUNS THAT MIGHT SHOOT THEM.

FOOLS