Skip to comments.
DC Asks Supreme Court To Back Gun Ban (Ignore That Dastardly 2nd Amendment Alert)
Washington Post ^
| 09/05/2007
| Robert Barnes And David Nakamura
Posted on 09/04/2007 11:38:59 PM PDT by goldstategop
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 last
To: papasmurf
Let's not forget that the constitution is in place to limit the powers of
government, not citizens. The Constitution says nothing about me having the right to breathe, but I most certainly do.
Even if you were to take the position that the 2nd ammendment was referring to a collective group rather than the individual, there is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit the individual ownership of guns.
41
posted on
09/05/2007 8:53:12 AM PDT
by
BlueMondaySkipper
(The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell)
To: saganite
Of course one could observe the government is under NO OBLIGATION to protect specific individuals from harm. Unless the District has reversed its stand on that, self defense is still up to the individual concerned. That means to make one's right of self defense truly effective, one to have a weapon readily available. Which the District's handgun ban policy denies.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
42
posted on
09/05/2007 9:00:31 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
What I find hilarious is their concession in their brief...They had a concession in their briefs?
43
posted on
09/05/2007 9:04:28 AM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: Beelzebubba
Which makes it useless for defending yourself in YOUR OWN HOME. That's what's makes that regulation unreasonable. No government should ever punish people for defending their lives and property. We're not talking here about carrying a loaded gun in public. That is the provision the federal District Court found to be overly broad, irrational and unconstitutional.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
44
posted on
09/05/2007 9:05:45 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: OldArmy52; y'all
-- any knowledgable Liberal can tell you that the Amendments (free speech, assembly, religion, arms, etc) applies only to States, not to individuals.
There are no individual rights in the Constitution. It is just a document guaranteeing rights to various governments.
Obvious to any Liberal or insane person. It surprising how many FReepers will argue that the Bill of Rights Amendments (free speech, assembly, religion, arms, etc) did not originally apply to State or local governments..
-- And that they still have the 'majority rule' power to write legislative prohibitions on individual freedoms.
45
posted on
09/05/2007 9:20:50 AM PDT
by
tpaine
(" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
To: goldstategop
46
posted on
09/05/2007 10:26:04 AM PDT
by
rellimpank
(-don't believe anything the MSM states about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson