Fresno's district attorney, Elizabeth Egan, is among the legal gunslingers weighing in on the challenge to the District of Columbia's strict ban on handguns, a battle that begins Tuesday in the Supreme Court.
She is cited in today's story by The Bee's Michael Doyle as being among those challenging the D.C. ban, asserting in legal filings that "the anti-crime effects of citizen handgun ownership provide enormous benefits to law enforcement."
District of Columbia officials consider the gun ban a reasonable restriction that saves lives. "Handguns are the guns most liketly to be used in street crimes," D.C. attorneys noted in a legal brief. "Although only a third of the nation's firearms are handguns, they are responsible for more killings, woundings and crimes than all other types of firearms combined."
In her role as executive director of the American Constitution Society, a nonprofit legal organization, Fresno prosecutor Lisa Brown, also is cited in the story, saying "There is a difference in view, not only between sides in this case but within each side."
President Bush and Vice President Cheney disagree and it will be fascinating to see where the court comes down on this issue.
Should the Second Amendment be zealously guarded, giving gun owners few restrictions? Should cities and states be able to put restrictions in like California's ban on silencers and Florida's ban on armor piercing ammuntion? Should there be a compromise, as the Bush administration advocates, that would retain many existing gun-control laws?
Read the whole story right here. What do you think?
I feel that gun owners should be allowed to have a gun so long as it is kept locked up at home. There are too many hotheards that if they were allowed to carry it on their person might just use it in the heat of the moment. People kill people in many ways and guns are one way they do it. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and kids needs to happen snd if they are locked up r=there is less chance they will end up on the street.
Many opponents of the 2nd Amendment feel it's obsolete. They say that we have a military to protect us and law enforcement systems in place. So does the Chinese government. To see how wonderful their system is, just recall Tienemen square and the current Tibet crisis. If you think our government won't do that, just ask the family of Elian Gonzales, whose home was invaded under order from Janet Reno by a heavily armed squad of U.S. Government officials.
If the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary, then I guess internet blogs and discussion sites such as this have rendered the right to assemble as unnecessary. And while we're at it, let's do away with freedom of the press, since it's no longer factual reporting, but mostly opinionated and speculative discussion. If our society changes and evolves, is it okay to systematically dismantle the Bill of Rights "as needed"?
The first responder to a break-in is not always the police. Thieves target empty homes, but sometimes they break in while someone is home. That makes the homeowner/renter the first responder. You can know all about self-defense, but the thief with a weapon has the upper hand. I don't want an uninvited criminal in MY house to have any advantage over me. It's worth noting that the "visitor" has absolutely NO business being in my home. He deserves no attempt at justifying why he's there. BTW, my home starts at the sidewalk and fence line.
To protect innocent victims from these mass school shootings, allow teachers and professors who want to, to carry a gun. Provide training and annual refresher courses in how to use the weapon. The educators can then serve as the "well regulated militia" that can protect the innocent. When these imbalanced kids realize they won't be able to inflict the damage (and receive the TV coverage*) they seek, the campus violence will decrease.
(*many of these kids are loners or have expressed their need for attention long before their act of violence; that can be recognized and addressed in earlier grades)
Here's an incomplete list of crimes that can be perpetrated with or without a gun:
-murder
-robbery
-rape
-kidnapping
-assault
-battery
-wife abuse
...With or without a gun, these are terrible acts upon another person. There are already strict punishments in place for such acts. If the ninny criminal judges would simply dole out appropriate sentences instead of rehab programs and "since-this-is-your-first-offense" probationary rulings, we would have less criminal gun crimes, because the criminals would not be roaming among us looking for their next victim.
The right to own and carry a gun ("keep and bear arms") is not the problem that creates violent crime. It's our system's reluctance to punish criminals and make an example of them; criminals have no fear of our system and no respect for other people. That's the problem.
Interesting that so many well-meaning, politically wannabe-correct-sounding people always lead with nonsense like; "I think people should be 'allowed"...with an absolute disconnect to reality.
First, the 2nd amd doesn't say anything about "allowing"...it is factually a statement of RIGHT of the people of this country. In fact, the entire BILL OF RIGHTS comprise a complete statement of rights of THE PEOPLE of this country...and nowhere in them is the word, "allow".
Every idiot who wants to sound politically elitist and savvy loves to dis the 2nd amd as referencing the government's rights (proving their lack of education), yet will immediately turn-about with respect to the 1st, and 3rd-10th amendments, eagerly trumpeting them as INDIVIDUAL rights...hmmm....
Liberal fools love to yell out how they are free to say whatever they wish, whenever and where ever, even though FACTUALLY the 1st amd ONLY pertains to POLITICAL speech, not one's desire to use the f-word every other second...clearly the general trend is to very BROADLY "interpret" the entire bill of rights SAVE for that one...the 2nd. On that one, the misguided seek an outrageously narrow definition that, if they could, would completely ELIMINATE the "individual" from the matter.
Also, someone tell me WHEN, ANY government EVER wrote up a "bill of rights" for ITSELF? Someone, ANYONE, please tell me WHEN any government EVER needed a stated "bill of rights" in order to raise and maintain a standing army? Only a complete fool, a lying politician intent upon corruption, or a milquetoast psudo-elitist would even attempt to interpret the 2nd amd as anything other than an individual right.
The FACT is, every single "gun control ordinance" in this country is illegal and unconstitutional. The RIGHT of the people to keep and BEAR arms SHALL not (shall not being an imperative term) be infringed. It didn't say, may not, should not, will not, ought not...it is CLEAR the framers meant SHALL NOT which means absolutely NO!
There is nothing in the entire Bill of Rights that purports to "allow" the people anything, but what is stated are the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF A FREE PEOPLE!
As for the completely pathetic, nonsense that if "we allow" people to carry guns...well FOOL, what the hell do you think we're "allowing" now? Do you think the criminals are ALLOWED to possess and CARRY guns? Do you think there is some law that "lets" the rapists and murderers, child abducters, molesters, home invaders have guns? But THEY certainly have no problem having them, carrying them, and USING them...especially when they KNOW 99% of the people they assault will be UNARMED thanks to well-meaning fools who've "allowed" an increasingly oppressive system of government to twist our own constitutional mandate.
The fact is, an armed society is a POLITE society because every little shitbag with an inferiority complex who thinks to make himself important by going on a shooting spree, will KNOW before he gets started....anyone could have a concealed weapon...EVERYONE could have a concealed weapon...and I probably won't get off more than one or two shots before I'm gunned down....meaning I won't get the big splash I want before being capped off.
The purpose of gun control laws isn't and never has been about stopping criminals...it has always been about systematically disarming the overwhelming, LAW-ABIDING" citizenry as a means of securing a guaranteed tax-flow to support and ever more bloated, corrupt government that damn sure does NOT want the people to be able to stand up one day and say, "enough...I'm tired of being illegally robbed by a government that then redistributes my earned money to a ever-growing host of illegals, deadbeats, and panderers." And THAT is what the 2nd amd was written to REMIND our government of...that the people, by RIGHT can, and SHOULD be in full possession of weapons EQUAL to those of any modern standing army, so that THE PEOPLE will forever exist as the FIFTH ESTATE...the LAST LINE between a government run wild and an enslaved populace.
Unfortunately, I have little faith our modern, politically motivated supreme court will render a CLEAR and CLEAN interpretation that once and for all forces the government's hands OFF our constitutional right....they'll come up with some form of language parsing to create enough wiggle room for shitholes like washington dc to continue the systematic diarmament of americans...and why not, we've "allowed" them to get away with it for so long THEY (the politicians) now think it is THEIR "right" to STEAL OURS!
As a brilliant scholar and statesman once said: "A corrupt government, not having its duty before it, may attempt to tyrannize the people. Therefore, let the PEOPLE BE ARMED!" It is clear, when James Madison wrote those words he had no intention whatever toward ambiguity...and this CLEARLY shows the INTENT of the FRAMERS of our contitution.