Comments:US Supreme Court rules DC gun ban unconstitutional

Latest comment: 15 years ago by in topic The reasoning.

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Very nice -- 16:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome News for Freedom Loving People edit

It's too bad that it took so long for such a law to be constitutionally challenged at the SCOTUS. Can't wait to see what happens with the Sullivan Act and the Chicago gun ban laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildenja (talkcontribs) 18:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

And the rest of the civilised world will continue to think Americans are batshit crazy because they want to run round with guns. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
And as usual, we Americans won't lose too much sleep over their anxieties and assumptions.  ;) 19:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pleasantly surprised edit

I'm a bit surprised to see so many democrats supporting the decision[1]. And from most places I've read (e.g. fark, digg), it seems most support the decision and many ask the question why it wasn't unanimous.

I don't know how to site; feel free to fix it for me.

Brianmc, did what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The original poster linking to WTOP News had commented they were unsure if they had correctly cited the source. It was close, but not quite there. Usually you should not edit other people's comments on these pages, but there was an invitation to fixup what was a good contribution. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The reasoning. edit

"[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Come on now, the words "regulated" and "militia" are in the first clause of the second amendment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

you forgot "such as self-defense within the home." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'ld love to know how many people achieve to actulay protect their propety/familly with guns each years in USA. I never saw a title like :"Father saved is familly killing/chasing a thief". I am not afraid by guns (i know how to use these deadly tools as i made my military duty) but ban is a clear/simple thing in France and if you need one (for protection or in shoot club), you could have one but it's regulated (no military firearms).Jacques Divol (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
You know, this is COMPLETELY contradictory anyway! There are cases where the person defending themselves is found guilty for using the damn weapon on the person they were defending themselves against, so how is a gun helpful for self-defense? -- 00:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution edit

The above is a fascinating insight into the American reasoning behind gun ownership. A lengthy and detailed account of the historical context for the amendment, and the concerns it sought to address. Unfortunately it doesn't help address the image of Americans fervently asserting the NRA point of view that, "you can have my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands". I'd recommend that not only Europeans who are baffled by American gun-nuts read it, but that any American who wants to make a reasoned argument in favour of gun ownership also do so.

The theory, of an armed populace ready to organise and defend against a foreign or domestic threat, seems somewhat obsolete in the modern world. The technology available to the conventional military forces would result in a massacre if they took on an armed militia, and in any case there have been numerous recent events where the American populace should have been up in arms; George W. Bush being declared president despite losing the popular vote, the imposition of "free speech zones" to keep protesters away from government officials, and warantless wiretapping. You have to wonder, what would it take for gun owners to organise against the government and send a clear "no" message? Gun ownership has become a "bread and circuses" topic that distracts from so many things, like the current administration's efforts to bankrupt the country with insane military spending. Eisenhower warned Americans about the military-industrial complex, seems nobody was listening. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Common though the sentiment is, I'd say that the success with which Iraqi insurgents have resisted the US military occupation has obsoleted the "armed civilians can't resist a modern army" argument. You're thinking of the US Army "taking on" an armed militia on an open battlefield... Imagine instead that the federal government needed to fight a sustained guerrilla war against its own heavily-armed populace (300 million people, and 35-40% of households own guns, usually multiple guns--the entire US army is about one million strong) to take and hold its 3.8 million square miles of varied terrain. ... Regardless of how such a war might turn out, I prefer to live in a country where the people have that option, and where the government _knows_ that the people have that option. Those of us who value our gun rights on revolutionary grounds, we just don't want to sell out our great-grandchildren's ability to resist, simply because some people today are terrified of legally-owned guns. 12:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The U.S. military fighting guerilla warfare against the U.S. populace in an attempt to impose an unwanted martial law set by a morally bankrupt government? That sounds like it would make a hell of a good movie - you might even stretch it to two if you do it from both viewpoints. Although, speaking as someone who thinks private gun ownership is a bad idea, and coming from a country where the government's response to a crazy guy killing people was to actually get people to hand in their semi-automatic firearms and destroy them, I'd be worried that such a movie would just encourage the so-called "gun nuts" to believe even more firmly in their "Constitutional right". Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 14:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Preaching to the choir edit

I'm going to join the 'good-decision'-train here. Fephisto (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply