US democracy at work

[gilleshk]

Unbelievable, the Bush posse on the Supreme Court have basically overturned a gun ban in Washington DC... 15 minutes after that, the Rifle Association of Illinois filed a suit to overturn the ban in Chicago...

Communities have elected officials who implemented these and now they are being overturned by appointees from a moron president who actually applauds this event.

30 000 gun deaths a year and how many from terrorism? They make us take off our shoes, belts and no water on airplanes but allow anyone to carry guns...

What a place...

What's next? Roe vs Wade?

[MrLister]

Not that I want to get into the pro/anti gun debate, but to be fair, "the right to keep and bear arms" is part of the US Constitution and the reason the USA exists as it does today.

I don't think a total ban is strictly the answer, rather heavily enforced gun controls and licenses. You don't let people just hop into a car and drive it, without many lessons and a license, likewise people shouldn't be allowed to just buy a gun and start shooting at things.

I'd assume, like everything in life, moderation and self control should be in action, it's not all black and white, legal or illegal. I mean, we wouldn't want to ban beer because <0.008% of the beer drinking population manage to get drunk and hurt themselves...

[KnowItAll]

I agree with Hampton and will go one step further and say that I think that the Supreme Court came to the right legal conclusion.

I am of the opionion that courts and judges should remain neutral to public opinion and interpret the law. Opinions can be expressed in the elections and the elected officials can move to change the law if the opinions are strong enough.

I'm not sure where abortion is brought up in the constitution.. so, I'd hesitate to make a comment on what I think about the court overturning it.

I'm also of the opinion that the war on terrorism does not have much to do with death of american people. It is oil related. Unfortunately, that would not go down well with majority of the people in the coalition countries - including the UK and Australia. So, they have to create the axis of terror and bomb a few brown people to make it look like they're doing something about terrorism.

[chowfun]

I agree with Hampton and KIA. The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution rather objectively and struck down the ban on handguns in DC. They did not rule out reasonable regulations on gun ownership.

USA has had guns since inception. Clearly, there are far more law-abiding gun owners than the criminals who decide to use this tool for murder.

gilleshk - I cordially invite you to visit a legal gun range in Nevada and try target practice for an hour. I have found that people who are fervently anti-gun have never actually held one in their hands before, nor have they met the numerous responsible gun owners around the country.

[gilleshk]

I have held and shot rifles, hand guns, shot guns and I don't need that to make me feel manly and I don't need one to make me feel safe either.

There's a wide difference between calling for a ban on all guns and overturning a law that was enacted by elected officials. Some of these like the Chicago one have been in the books for a number of years. A law that was enacted by elected officials being repealed by judges that are NOT elected but appointed.

Law is often a matter of precedents, the current judges have decided to ignore those and cover themselves with the Constitution which is a couple of hundred years old. It's about politics not the law.

And keep in mind the language of the Constitution is: The precise language of the Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The intent behind the constitution wasn't necessarily to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to own guns.

[Claire ex-ax]

I have found that people who are fervently anti-gun have never actually held one in their hands before, nor have they met the numerous responsible gun owners around the country.

I'm anti-gun and have held one or two in my hands. Shot many guns including a Colt Python .357 Magnum (4" barrel) and a break-action double-barrelled shotgun (grew up in the country).

Was at Bisley the day a man committed suicide there. A local farmer blew his head off with his shotgun, an accident - he rested the gun against the kitchen table but had forgotten to break the barrel. Same thing happened to a friend's father - Neil was arrested for his father's murder till the evidence proved it was an accident.

But that's not why I'm anti-gun and anti-knife - and against the mentality that killing people solves problems. I cannot figure out any logical reason why anyone would want to kill another person. I don't want to kill anyone, not even the person who killed my husband and two boys. Killing someone shouldn't be easy. It should be damned hard and not just because it was dark and they rang your doorbell.

[gilleshk]

Frankly although I am very much anti gun, I respect the right of the people to bear arms if that's what they want... The bigger issue here is having a group of non elected official overturn a law that was enacted by elected officials in order to better their community while ignoring recent historical precedents.

The same thing could happen to Roe vs Wade. The Supreme Court is not a body made of perfect human beings. They interpret the law according to their own set of values and politics. That's why the appointment of these judges is so critical when it does happen. It's a chance to shape the values of a country.

One can argue that since the president was elected than it remains democratic. So what's more democratic? If the will of the local people is not to allow handguns in their community, they must comply because of an archaic statement in the constitution that doesn't even necessarily apply today since there are no militias?

I think it's absolutely outrageous...

[Sleuth]

The Constitution is specifically designed to prevent one branch of government from having more power than the others. There is a mechanism to overturn this ruling, but amending the Constitution is difficult.
And if you let DC or Chicago overrule the US Constitution on guns, where would you draw the line?
What does a ruling by the Supreme Court have to do with US democracy anyway?

[Skyhook]

Chris rock might have the answer, make bullets $5000US a round.



In my opinion fire arms should only be possessed by the authorities paid by our taxes to protect us, farmers who need a stock rifle to put lame animals down, but hand guns should be banned within the public domain.

If we acknowledge that we live in modern civilized countries, there shouldn't be any need for the public to own hand guns, or any guns in high density city ( non rural ) area's.

[hullexile]

The decision was 5-4 wasn't it? So far from clear cut.

I am a simple person, definitely not a supreme court judge, but for the life of me I can't see how the right to bear arms by a well regulated militia translates into a general right to bear arms. Perhaps if anyone who wanted to own a gun had to spend two weeks military training each year so they could claim to be part of a regulated militia that might cut the numbers down a bit.