DC Asks Supreme Court To Back Gun Ban (Ignore That Dastardly 2nd Amendment Alert)

Washington Post ^ | 09/05/2007 | Robert Barnes And David Nakamura

[BlueMondaySkipper]

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.

[goldstategop]

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

[Still Thinking]

What I find hilarious is their concession in their brief...

They had a concession in their briefs?

[goldstategop]

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

[tpaine]

-- 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.

[rellimpank]

—bflr—