Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Should the Supreme Court uphold the District of Columbia's gun-control law?
Yes: Constitution says right-to-bear-arms applies only to militia
By Kristen Rand
Special to McClatchy News Service
Article Last Updated: 12/17/2007 11:48:07 PM MST

WASHINGTON - Sometime next year the Supreme Court will decide whether the District of Columbia's 30-year-old handgun ban is constitutional under the Second Amendment. The court should uphold the district's law banning handgun possession by its residents for both constitutional and public safety reasons.
The overwhelming historical evidence and weight of judicial precedent support the position that the Second Amendment was intended and designed to protect a militia-based right.
The amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms only within the context of the constitutionally mandated militia, thus guaranteeing states armed militias to provide for their own security.
There is also strong scholarship to support the argument that James Madison wrote the amendment primarily to allay southern fears that Congress would undermine the slave system by disarming the militia - thereby denying the southern states an effective means of slave control. Under this longstanding interpretation of the amendment, the district's handgun ban would survive.
The second reason the court should uphold the district's handgun ban is that it has saved countless lives and repealing it will certainly result in increased gun death and injury.
Few know that Washington has the lowest suicide rate in the nation. With guns in only 5 percent of its homes, the district has not only the lowest
firearm suicide rate in the country but also the lowest overall suicide rate.
Nevertheless, in a nation that loses nearly 30,000 citizens a year to gun violence, with hundreds of thousands more wounded, the district, like other jurisdictions with tough gun laws, is still held hostage by states with much weaker laws.
In 2006, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the majority of guns traced to crime in D.C. came from Maryland and Virginia. North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia also supplied significant numbers of illegally trafficked crime guns, usually handguns. None of these states' gun laws come close to the district's stringent regulations, which also ban assault weapons and tightly control ammunition.
Instead of facing repeal, D.C.'s laws should be a model for the nation. How is it possible to think that Americans are free when they must fear being gunned down at their local mall, church, school or workplace because most of the U.S. refuses to implement effective gun laws?
The most recent installment of ''I can't believe it could happen here'' saw innocent holiday shoppers running for cover when a troubled teenager opened fire with an AK-47 assault rifle inside an Omaha, Neb., shopping mall, killing eight and wounding five.
A few days later, a heavily armed man used an assault rifle to kill four people at a missionary training center and a church in Colorado. Authorities said he had nearly 1,000 rounds of ammunition and signaled his intention to kill more.
Proof that strong gun laws work is found in Great Britain and Australia. In response to a mass shooting of 16 schoolchildren and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, Great Britain enacted a handgun ban not unlike the district's.
Since the ban's implementation, Great Britain has not experienced another mass shooting. Moreover, the British Home Office reports that ''there were 50 homicides involving firearms in 2005-06, down 36 percent from 78 on the previous year and the lowest recorded since 1998-99.''
Likewise, after 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed 700,000 firearms determined to be designed to kill many people quickly. Australia has not seen another mass shooting while its firearm homicide and firearm suicide rates have declined.
The Supreme Court should uphold the district's landmark gun law. It is hard to fathom that the founders intended the Second Amendment to prohibit the implementation of laws that work to ''ensure domestic tranquility'' and ''promote the general welfare,'' two chief purposes for which the Constitution was conceived
---
* KRISTEN RAND is the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center (www.vpc.org). Readers may write to her at VPC, 1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Suite 1014, Washington, D.C. 20036.
Instead of facing repeal, D.C.'s laws should be a model for the nation. How is it possible to think that Americans are free when they must fear being gunned down at their local mall, church, school or workplace because most of the U.S. refuses to implement effective gun laws?

My response:

The author is clearly an Idiot or a liar. Well let me back peddle a little; she is a liar.

Notice how she states opinion as fact:

"The overwhelming historical evidence and weight of judicial precedent support the position that the Second Amendment was intended and designed to protect a militia-based right. "
The overwhelming historical evidence; what overwhelming evidence? Where is the citation, foot note, validation; strange there are non. This is a deliberate perversion of the text of the second amendment and a total disregard for any supporting writings by the authors; whats worse she knows it. She is clearly too sharp to so totally misinterpret the text of the amendment.

The amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms only within the context of the constitutionally mandated militia, thus guaranteeing states armed militias to provide for their own security.
Notice how she plays the race card, while stating lies as fact.

There is also strong scholarship to support the argument that James Madison wrote the amendment primarily to allay southern fears that Congress would undermine the slave system by disarming the militia - thereby denying the southern states an effective means of slave control. Under this longstanding interpretation of the amendment, the district's handgun ban would survive.
Really, strong scholarship? Again where is the citation, foot note, validation?

Stating opinions and lies as fact does not make them fact.

The second reason the court should uphold the district's handgun ban is that it has saved countless lives and repealing it will certainly result in increased gun death and injury.
There is evidence to support the contrary where is the evidence to support the affirmation. If this cow had anything credible to back up her claim she would supply it. The absence is glaring.

Few know that Washington has the lowest suicide rate in the nation. With guns in only 5 percent of its homes, the district has not only the lowest
firearm suicide rate in the country but also the lowest overall suicide rate.
While I have seen evidence to suggest gun control greatly reduced the rate of suicide by firearm it also, very slightly and only in some of the studies conducted, reduces the overall rate of suicide. I'll give her this one; but I have to ask: Is it incumbent upon me to prevent those who wish to kill themselves from doing so. It is their life their body and not one drop of my business.

Also the addition of suicide by firearm rates is dishonest. If you don't plan on killing yourself there no need to concern yourself with the statistical likelihood you will kill yourself.

Nevertheless, in a nation that loses nearly 30,000 citizens a year to gun violence, with hundreds of thousands more wounded, the district, like other jurisdictions with tough gun laws, is still held hostage by states with much weaker laws.
In 2006, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the majority of guns traced to crime in D.C. came from Maryland and Virginia. North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia also supplied significant numbers of illegally trafficked crime guns, usually handguns. None of these states' gun laws come close to the district's stringent regulations, which also ban assault weapons and tightly control ammunition.
Yes of course the guns used in crime came from neighboring states. That is what happens when you ban something, you create a black market the items banned. Although it is interesting to observe that in places where importation via the black market of banned firearms is far more difficult than it is in DC the black market continues to thrive. Britain is a fine example. She also didn't bother to point out that of all the states DC has by far the highest rate of firearm deaths (31 per 100k)

Now she moves on to peddling fear; I thought only the GOP did this ****.

Instead of facing repeal, D.C.'s laws should be a model for the nation. How is it possible to think that Americans are free when they must fear being gunned down at their local mall, church, school or workplace because most of the U.S. refuses to implement effective gun laws?
Why be afraid, the odds of dieing in a firearms related homicide are like .00024%.. yeah I am terrified!

A few days later, a heavily armed man used an assault rifle to kill four people at a missionary training center and a church in Colorado. Authorities said he had nearly 1,000 rounds of ammunition and signaled his intention to kill more.
Proof that strong gun laws work is found in Great Britain and Australia. In response to a mass shooting of 16 schoolchildren and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, Great Britain enacted a handgun ban not unlike the district's.
Since the ban's implementation, Great Britain has not experienced another mass shooting. Moreover, the British Home Office reports that ''there were 50 homicides involving firearms in 2005-06, down 36 percent from 78 on the previous year and the lowest recorded since 1998-99.''
I wonder why she didn't mention how this one came to an end.

Likewise, after 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed 700,000 firearms determined to be designed to kill many people quickly. Australia has not seen another mass shooting while its firearm homicide and firearm suicide rates have declined.
112 people lost their lives. .00003% of the population. It may be callous but that seems a small price to pay that we may live in the freedom that the second amendment was written to protect. Of course the author omits any suggestion that there is some evidence that firearms save lives; as in the case in Colorado.

The Supreme Court should uphold the district's landmark gun law. It is hard to fathom that the founders intended the Second Amendment to prohibit the implementation of laws that work to ''ensure domestic tranquility'' and ''promote the general welfare,'' two chief purposes for which the Constitution was conceived
And lastly this nugget. Well she should strain her fathomer a bit more. The second amendment, despite her dubious claims, does not impede any purpose, goal, or intent of the Constitution; people do that. What it does do is ensure that the Constitution will be around for awhile. It protects us and our rights, all of them, from people like the author.

As a footnote I would like to point out that, as a national average intention death by firearm that does not include suicide accounts for less than half of all firearms related deaths. That half, 7.07 includes murders, justifiable shootings, and police shootings.

Murders commited by firearms for the two year period between 1998-2000 = 8,259; accourding to the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
* KRISTEN RAND is the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center (www.vpc.org). Readers may write to her at VPC, 1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Suite 1014, Washington, D.C. 20036.
Until I read this I could have sworn this article had been written by a high school student, except high school students do better research and provide documentation of where they got their facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,203 Posts
I can make up stories too
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top