so the right to bear arms is being challenged?

[lizard81288]

he U.S Supreme Court is to examine the question of whether it should hear arguments on the right to bear arms.

For the first time in seventy years, a case has been lodged to ask the Supreme Court to decide if local citizens should be able to own and carry guns.

The U.S capital of Washington has lodged a case in the Supreme Court, seeking to maintain its three-decade ban on individuals carrying handguns.

Since 1976, Washington has banned residents from carrying handguns, although they are allowed to keep a rifle or hunting gun in their homes.

The National Rifle Association has been fighting the law by saying the second amendment guarantees the right of every American citizen to own any gun, with few restrictions.

But Washington, the home to the president, has recently interpreted the amendment to mean that there is a collective right to bear arms for those who are part of a police or security force.

The court has still to decide whether to hear the case, but if it does, a ruling will probably not occur until the November 2008 presidential elections.

To date the Supreme Court has rarely considered the issue of the right to bear arms.






The people say its the military malisha is the one with the right to bear arms, not the common people,
so what do u think will happen?

[_M_]

I personally believe it's a right of the people to bear arms. As most of you already know. But, the constitution is meant to be amended, so if someone really wanted to take away the right from the country instead of just a few cities then they should propose an amendment to give the right to bear arms to protectors of piece and the military and not the people.

People will say crime will go down if you ban certain types of firearms: wrong! Since the 90's "assault weapons ban," was there even a drop in crime rate? I honestly don't know but my money's on NO.

If the justices were to put a ban on handguns in, say, the whole state of Maryland, that only prohibits the use and sales of legally bought and owned handguns. Criminals do not own legal firearms, because criminals don't have the right to own one. If they do ban handguns, all the criminals, the people actually committing the crimes, will see it as an opportunity to commit more crimes knowing that the chances of the person they're about to rob, rape, or kill having a firearm for protection are slim.

You take away guns, you take away the ability and right to protect you, your family, and your home.

[lizard81288]

You take away guns, you take away the ability and right to protect you, your family, and your home.

You know whats sad about that?the criminals, if their still alive, can sue you. if your dog/or pet attacks an intruder, even if they had an intent of killing you, they can sue as well for man vs beast, and man always wins.

i think if ur dog, or you hurt someone for defense, they should not be able to sue you. i think thats stupid.

anyways i hope they do not rule in favor of the gun ban

[Panda Man]

A guy broke into someone's home and couldn't get out, and sued the owner of the house for wrongful imprisonment :\

[_M_]

You know whats sad about that?the criminals, if their still alive, can sue you. if your dog/or pet attacks an intruder, even if they had an intent of killing you, they can sue as well for man vs beast, and man always wins.

i think if ur dog, or you hurt someone for defense, they should not be able to sue you. i think thats stupid.

anyways i hope they do not rule in favor of the gun ban

Yeah those frivolous lawsuits are abundant back in CA where I used to live. Actual convicted felons were getting paid for falls and dog attacks on the property where they were gonna rob.

I've talked to alot of cops back in L.A. where they had to arrest homeowners who were protecting themselves and their families because they shot an armed intruder. I found out a loop hole: if you defend a home intruder with a non-propellant based weapon like a bow-and-arrow or crossbow, you cannot be charged with bogus charges like discharging a firearm in city limits or something else (can't think of anything)

[lizard81288]

Yeah those frivolous lawsuits are abundant back in CA where I used to live. Actual convicted felons were getting paid for falls and dog attacks on the property where they were gonna rob.

I've talked to alot of cops back in L.A. where they had to arrest homeowners who were protecting themselves and their families because they shot an armed intruder. I found out a loop hole: if you defend a home intruder with a non-propellant based weapon like a bow-and-arrow or crossbow, you cannot be charged with bogus charges like discharging a firearm in city limits or something else (can't think of anything)

cool. i didn't know that.
*makes mental note*

[Corey]

A guy broke into someone's home and couldn't get out, and sued the owner of the house for wrongful imprisonment :\

Owned.

[Ahkei]

That's bullshit!

[WolfCoder]

It's still not as frivolous as the judge who sued for the loss of his million dollar pants.

[Josh]

You know whats sad about that?the criminals, if their still alive, can sue you. if your dog/or pet attacks an intruder, even if they had an intent of killing you, they can sue as well for man vs beast, and man always wins.

i think if ur dog, or you hurt someone for defense, they should not be able to sue you. i think thats stupid.

anyways i hope they do not rule in favor of the gun ban

Actually in several southern states, if someone is illegally in your home, you have the right to use force to protect yourself. And some states are even looking at legislation to take away more rights from the person breaking into your home.

I completely disagree with taking away firearms. I have heard too many stories of people who had to sit and watch their families get killed because they didn't have any firearms to defend themselves with.

[Dr Mario]

I completely disagree with taking away firearms. I have heard too many stories of people who had to sit and watch their families get killed because they didn't have any firearms to defend themselves with.

Two problems with that line of thought:

1. Anecdotal evidence is worthless in empirical cases.

2. Statistically, having a firearm in the house is more likely to result in a friend or family member getting shot than it is to result in an intruder being shot.

A sad state of affairs, but the truth nonetheless.

[Elmdor Rizer]

Eh, I might be a bit simple-minded, but I like to believe that violence breeds violence. It doesn't actually apply to the right to bear arms, but I do think that nations with a long tradition of people owning firearms have a much higher amount of people getting shot. It makes sense, see. So, yeah, things should improve in the long run.

Yeah, I'm so fucking tired right now, english failing.

[Dr Mario]

Eh, I might be a bit simple-minded, but I like to believe that violence breeds violence. It doesn't actually apply to the right to bear arms, but I do think that nations with a long tradition of people owning firearms have a much higher amount of people getting shot. It makes sense, see. So, yeah, things should improve in the long run.

Yeah, I'm so fucking tired right now, english failing.

There's more to it than just gun ownership. There's the culture behind it and a bunch of other factors. Hence why Switzerland (which has the highest ratio of guns/homes in the developed world) has a lower violent crime rate than both the US and UK.

[Huey Kruthas]

but I do think that nations with a long tradition of people owning firearms have a much higher amount of people getting shot. It makes sense, see.

Of course it makes sense, that would be like saying that nations like Yemen, which don't have automobiles, have a much lower rate of death due to collisions.

If someone wants to kill another person, they will. A big ass kitchen knife is just as effective at the job. The only time owning firearms really makes a difference is in cases of children.

However, that is all a moot point. The main reason I care about it is because the trend seems to have tilted towards rights being taken away from Americans. At this rate, how many rights will we have left?

Not too many.

Besides, I own quite a few guns which have sentimental value. My grandfather gave me a gun from his days in World War II. The government is going to tell me I don't have the right to own it any more? Bullshit.

One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

[Evans]

Isn't there a difference between right to bear and right to keep?