 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
The 2nd Amendment Survives :)
Discussion is locked
28 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
Bad News: There are still four Associate Justices of the Supreme Court who can't figure out exactly what the Constitution means. 
Good News: Precedent has been set, just as in last year's Heller decision about the D.C. gun ban. Now, any time someone wants to challenge the Second Amendment, he or she will have to consider the meaning of the phrase stare decisis before proceeding. 
Bad News: We're still one heartbeat of Chief Justice Roberts and/or Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, Breyer and Alito from another tyrant in black robes assuming a position on the Supreme Court.
Lesson: Elections have consequences. Remember that on November 2nd.
- Collapse -
That's why such rulings are decided by majority. It matters not that the decision wasn't unanimous.
Mark
- Collapse -
that the Court may shift and the minority become a majority at some point.
- Collapse -
It matters not. The ruling stands. As I understand High Courts, such rulings can only be challenged on points of law. May be that's different in your country.
But what if the decision wasn't unanimous? If it was unanimous would that protect it for ever? If some point of law against the decision was proved, then even a{n} unanimous decision could be changed.
Mark
- Collapse -
I am a little queasy about an Amendment which is written as a prohibition on Congress making Federal law, is again being applied to local government. But that ship sailed long ago.
- Collapse -
though, like I said, that ship has sailed.
- Collapse -
to these cases. It doesn't deal directly with rights under the Bill of Rights, it references "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," but that's not necessarily what the Second Amendment is about. The Second Amendment (like all of the Bill of Rights) is specifically a prohibition on Congress from making certain kinds of law.
I know people have tried to extend that to Congress conferring rights to the people, but Congress cannot create new rights. all they can do is not infringe on rights people already have.
You could argue that states should not infringe those rights either, but that is not a matter for Congress to decide, IMO. Otherwise it seems like a violation of State's Rights.
- Collapse -
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[4] One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:[5]
? 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. ?
Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:[6]
? 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Amendment_USA
Source Wikipedia
- Collapse -
Expect more of this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_chicago_gun_ban
- Collapse -
I am a former police officer and have responded to numerous shootings, robberies, homicides, you name it. While gun crimes are violent, controlling guns is not the answer. Getting the legal system to do their job is. That means if a person does a robbery with a gun then the punishment should fit the crime. Having plea bargains and what not only hurts the justice system.
Gun control doesn't work, it just makes for easier victims. Look at England, Austrailia and the other countries that ban guns. Crime is rampant. Or better yet look at WA DC, when the DC gun ban was in effect DC was the murder capital of the US.
To punish a law abiding citizen by controling their rights and freedoms doesn't solve anything. Gun crimes are actually in the minority compared to other weapons. Bladed weapons and physical contact (beating, strangulation, etc.) still are higher in numbers than gun crime.
I'm not trying to start a political issue here merely stating that the public as a whole would be better served by punishing the offenders. Of course making prison tougher would be a step in the right direction. I am all for more supermax prisons.
- Collapse -
about the UK, then I leave this to the rest of you.
Gun crime is not rampant. Sure, there is crime involving guns, but it rare enough that it still shocks to see it. That is telling.
Mark
- Collapse -
I think there's a big difference. I also suspect there's a big difference in the percentage of crimes that are reported depending on whether or not a gun is involved.
- Collapse -
"Gun control doesn't work, it just makes for easier victims. Look at England, Austrailia and the other countries that ban guns. Crime is rampant"
The clear inference was that even with gun control, crime is rampant. Not true.
Mark
- Collapse -
From the point of view of being murdered, I'm happy to live in the Netherlands. See how low it ranks?
And, totally unrelated, same for the health care. A study released this week shows that for half the per capita money of the USA we do far better: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/site_docs/slideshows/MirrorMirror/MirrorMirror.html
In fact, the Netherlands rank 1, the USA ranks last, in practically all respects.
Kees
Kees
- Collapse -
Of course, there are statistics about crime that look at it in different ways, Kees. There are other types of crime.
One way of looking at a bigger picture might be people victimized by crime (as a % of the total population).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims
- Collapse -
places that have strict gun control laws, like Detroit, Washington DC and New York City have higher gun crime rates. Whether it's because of the laws or in spite of them I can't say, but clearly they are not working.
- Collapse -
This is violent crime and not crime committed while using a gun. Make your own judgment about what this has to do (or doesn't) with gun control.
- Collapse -
Never believe what they say. Ohh wait... They're the Government now.
Mark
- Collapse -
I don't have valid statistics to support or refute reported crime rates but I'm just not seeing any evidence that banning or controlling gun ownership by the public lessens the occurrence of violent acts. There's a reason that some people earn the label of "criminal". They scoff at law in general so banning anything won't prevent them from acquiring what they want.
- Collapse -
Wasn't pillage and plunder a way of life for many before firearms were even invented? What did gun control do for them 
- Collapse -
I think you can make a quite strong argument that gun control now would be equal to bow&arrow control then. In fact, doesn't the Robin Hood legend include it being illegal to bowhunt? or was that just in the "king's forest" grounds?
Before the bow and arrow, there were atlatls and spears .
Before that slingshots, all were weapons to harm and kill without coming with hands grip of your victim.
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic