- ‹ previous
- 2861 of 8827
- next ›
Supreme Court Overturns DC Handgun Ban
So much for that vaunted era of good will on the Roberts court. The media have been suggesting all year that after all its splintered, contentious decisions in 2007, the Supreme Court's conservative majority has been working hard to find some common ground with the liberals and to just get along better for the good of the country. The story line seemed to hold up all term, as the court issued one 6-3 or 7-1 decision after another. But today, the court issued a whopper of a 5-4 decision that split entirely on ideological grounds. Saving the biggest case for last, the court ended the term by releasing its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court upheld a lower court ruling invalidating the District's strict ban on handgun ownership.
The case was unusual in large part because the court hasn't ruled on a Second Amendment case in 70 years, but also because the Solicitor General—the legal arm of the Bush administration at the court—supported the District, while the Vice President entered into the case on his own to recommend overturning the city's gun ban. During the oral arguments in the spring, the justices spent a great deal of time mulling over whether early settlers in this country would have needed guns to protect themselves from grizzly bears or for hunting, a sign that the right to bear arms extended beyond the well-regulated militia identified in the language of the Second Amendment. So it's no surprise that hunting figures prominently in the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, who has, of course, spent a great deal of time hunting with the vice president.
Scalia suggests that the District and its supporters (including Justice Stevens, at whom he makes several caustic digs) are foolish to think that the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment applies only to a military context, given how much hunting those drafters of the Constitution did. He writes, "[I]f "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that "to bear arms" is not limited to military use."
In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer points out that nothing in the District's handgun ban would have infringed upon city residents' ability to go hunting. Indeed, unless they really intend to use handguns to shoot rats and pigeons in the alley, D.C. residents have to leave town to find game worth killing anyway. But the practical concerns of the District didn't carry much weigh with Scalia, who not only struck down the handgun ban, but also found that requiring guns in the home to have trigger locks was also unconstitutional.
The court's majority did throw a bone to the law enforcement community, which had feared that if the found that the Constitution protected an individual right to bear arms, rather than a collective one, it would severely undercut efforts to keep guns off the street and out of the hands of bad guys. Scalia tries to allay those concerns by writing, "The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
On a practical level, the decision simply means that for the first time in 30 years, D.C. residents will be able to get a license to keep handguns at home. Since it's clear that huge numbers of city residents are already keeping guns at home illegally, it's hard to see how this is going to have much of an impact on things one way or another, though perhaps the rats should start to worry.
Photo by flickr user dubswede used under a Creative Commons license.
Free people have the right to keep and bear arms those in a police state do not. Let me give you anti gunners some one to look up to:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall." ? Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
? George Mason-- June 16, 1788
Debates in Virginia onvention on Ratification of the Constitution
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
--Richard Henry Lee-- 1788
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
--Tench Coxe-- June 18, 1789
"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,"
BTW: Here is my personal position on the entire controversy.
1. Hand guns and long guns should be legal to own, (not machine guns or assault rifles) and provided that the owner take instruction and pass a competency test (just like driving a car) and~ that they NOT be Dick Cheney.
2. Each legal gun should be data-based by scanning the spent bullet into a national computer (just like finger-prints).
3. States and municipalities should be free to enact local laws which further regulate the possession and use of guns, just the same as states and municipalities can ban alcohol. Residents who don't like that idea could move to Utah or Kansas.
As far as hunters: I am one of the few vegetarians who have no special gripe with food hunters. I actually think they are intrinsically closer to being vegetarian then the people who shop at Safeway or McDonalds (they just don't realize it?or do realize it but refuse to admit it).
However, if the states or municipalities need leave to disregard the Supreme Court-Jesters, they can simply ban the bullets, which are NOT constitutionally protected. Since Anton Scalia is all hyped up about his newly developed "originalist" technique, that is to say that he has transposed his thinking back (hundreds of years) and deliberately pre-supposed NOT what the drafters of the constitution SAY but what they must have MEANT, then I say to him. . . Bully old man! Everyone is free to own all the MUSKETS and LEAD-BALLS they like!
The failures of the government are many: Schools that are unsafe and provide and inadequate education?. Third world students scoring better than American students, social programs that warehouse a disenfranchised people I.E., the projects, lack of jobs, out sourcing our needs to sweat shops around the world, inadequate police forces, a welfare system that feeds the cancer that it is trying to fight. Sounds like tyranny to me.
With or without guns the criminal element will be there, it does not matter if the crime is committed with a gun, a knife, a bat, or brute force. I would rather be one the side of the 2,000,000 people who use fire arms every year to defend themselves than a sheep waiting on big brother to send help after the slaughter. The U.K. and Australia had sweeping gun bans and the desired results have yet to materialize. In fact their crime rates have increased including gun crime.
Cocaine is illegal but you can still get it if you so desire, for the same reason the people you least want to have guns will still have them. The only way that gun bans will work is in a police state that deprives us of the basic liberties that this nation was founded on. Could that be what King George had in mind, then Hitler, and Stalin? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin
Free people have the right to keep and bear arms those in a police state do not. Let me give you anti gunners some one to look up to:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall." ? Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
? George Mason-- June 16, 1788
Debates in Virginia onvention on Ratification of the Constitution
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
--Richard Henry Lee-- 1788
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
--Tench Coxe-- June 18, 1789
"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,"
BTW: Here is my personal position on the entire controversy.
1. Hand guns and long guns should be legal to own, (not machine guns or assault rifles) and provided that the owner take instruction and pass a competency test (just like driving a car) and~ that they NOT be Dick Cheney.
2. Each legal gun should be data-based by scanning the spent bullet into a national computer (just like finger-prints).
3. States and municipalities should be free to enact local laws which further regulate the possession and use of guns, just the same as states and municipalities can ban alcohol. Residents who don't like that idea could move to Utah or Kansas.
As far as hunters: I am one of the few vegetarians who have no special gripe with food hunters. I actually think they are intrinsically closer to being vegetarian then the people who shop at Safeway or McDonalds (they just don't realize it?or do realize it but refuse to admit it).
However, if the states or municipalities need leave to disregard the Supreme Court-Jesters, they can simply ban the bullets, which are NOT constitutionally protected. Since Anton Scalia is all hyped up about his newly developed "originalist" technique, that is to say that he has transposed his thinking back (hundreds of years) and deliberately pre-supposed NOT what the drafters of the constitution SAY but what they must have MEANT, then I say to him. . . Bully old man! Everyone is free to own all the MUSKETS and LEAD-BALLS they like!
The failures of the government are many: Schools that are unsafe and provide and inadequate education?. Third world students scoring better than American students, social programs that warehouse a disenfranchised people I.E., the projects, lack of jobs, out sourcing our needs to sweat shops around the world, inadequate police forces, a welfare system that feeds the cancer that it is trying to fight. Sounds like tyranny to me.
With or without guns the criminal element will be there, it does not matter if the crime is committed with a gun, a knife, a bat, or brute force. I would rather be one the side of the 2,000,000 people who use fire arms every year to defend themselves than a sheep waiting on big brother to send help after the slaughter. The U.K. and Australia had sweeping gun bans and the desired results have yet to materialize. In fact their crime rates have increased including gun crime.
Cocaine is illegal but you can still get it if you so desire, for the same reason the people you least want to have guns will still have them. The only way that gun bans will work is in a police state that deprives us of the basic liberties that this nation was founded on. Could that be what King George had in mind, then Hitler, and Stalin? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin
It's nice to know that 56% of the Supremes can read and understand a simple statement in the Bill of (individual) Rights!
Also that they were able to figure out that assigning a power for state governments to arm their militia would have been TOTALLY out of PLACE in a Bill of INDIVIDUAL Rights (save that last of the 10 which mentions the States as well as the People).
As for the other 4..., they must simply see their role as one of preserving GOVERNMENT Powers OVER the Citizens, ignoring the fact that our founding documents make clear that power comes from the bottom up. Not the top down.
Also interesting to note that they were also four of the five who said there is essentially no limit on government's power to take private property in the Kelo decision a couple years back.
The stupid libs wanted to take this to the Bush Supreme Court. What did they expect. Before, it could be argued, now it can't. It is clear now. Obama will lose in November because he has these stupid libs as advisers. Dumb, dumb.
This case will do away with California's defacto ban on hand gun permits.
You are wrong
A: Who are you talking to, Frank?
B: What are they wrong about, and how do you support your argument that they are wrong?
C: Where did you learn your debating skills?
The Court treats the District's trigger lock requirement as categorical and not including a self-defense exception. It does not address whether the trigger lock rule would be constitutional if it had such an exception, though it suggests it would by referring to the right to have a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States(like the First Amendment, e.g. right to privacy for abortion), but strongly suggests it is. So today's ruling likely applies equally to State regulation just like in "Roe v. Wade").
Am I the only one that finds it really stupid discussing what the f"ounding fathers" had in mind to solve a modern problem?
Come on, the constitution was written when the deadliest firearm was a one shot rifle and ak47 where pretty rare!!
And remember almost all the "founding fathers" owned slaves. So lets bring back slavery
The city is full of illegal guns owned by criminals. It makes no sense to remove the right to own a legal firearm.
Better, mandatory 15 year sentences for an illegal gun and 25 for an illegal gun used in a crime. No pussyfooting around.
My right to defend my home is made more important in the face of a massive criminal underclass that is armed to the teeth.
Come on, the constitution was written when the deadliest firearm was a one shot rifle and ak47 where pretty rare!!
Sorry.
I have, and can show you, an original New York newspaper from the year 1802 (Jefferson was president), which displays ads of items for public sale. It was printed on hemp paper, so it's in better shape than a paper printed in 1972!
Lispenard & Hart of #12 Broad Street, NYC were offering for public sale:
2 pair - 9 pound cannon
8 - 6 pounders, double fortified
4 - 4 pounders, double fortified
and 200 casks of gunpowder.
Just so were straight on what the most devestating weapons of the day were, and what restrictions the Founding Fathers thought were appropriate on them.
If interested, I'll scan and post a copy of that paper for anyone who is willing to examine the facts of early "gun control".
PLS: The founding fathers thought freedom of speech and the press important too. I suppose you want those in play now too?
Why don't you actually read the entire decision, and maybe you'll understand better.
You gun-toting fools. Lets give every nation the nuclear bomb, then we'll be safe, right? Who cares WHAT the founding fathers thought about guns. We're here now.
There is a difference between owning a single handgun and owning a nuke, no? Or, why do lefties only speak in hyperbole?
"And remember almost all the "founding fathers" owned slaves. So lets bring back slavery"
Sorry.
The Constitution was PROPERLY and LEGALLY Amended to outlaw slavery.
Until such time as the Constitution is PROPERLY and LEGALLY Amended to eliminate the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, this argument doesn't wash.
Lets give every nation the nuclear bomb, then we'll be safe, right?
Probably the Iraqis & the Iranians would be safer if they had them.
No?
Who cares WHAT the founding fathers thought about guns.
As Eric Blair estutely asked previously: Do you want to put the rest of the Bill of Rights in play too?
Just because the Constitution was written a long time ago?
How 'bout the elected government those old fools wrote into the Constitution?
Maybe we should just let the ruling class have it's way, and not have to mess with getting voted into their offices?
PLS,
Slaverly was abolished by the 13th Amendment. That's the proper way to update our constitution. If we as a country decide handguns or other such ordinance should be banned, there should be an amendment. I don't blame the libs for not wanting to do this, since such an amendment would likely fail miserably. Better to legislate unconstitutional laws into existence and hope there are enough judges who share your ideological bent.
Interesting that the first clause of the Second Amendment should be ENTIRELY ignored in decision.
You know the one... "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [...]"
The constitution is not the fricking holy grail. Parts of it that are good, are good, and we should keep them and uphold them--like freedom to speech, right to an attorney. But we live in the 21st century. No, a handgun is not as devastating as a nuclear bomb, but its the same principle. If nuclear bombs were prevented from being dispersed--as the US is attempting to do right now in relation to Iran--the threat of a nuclear bomb attack would be greatly diminished.
Why do you even want a handgun? To go hunting? Please. Handguns are used only for PEOPLE. Just because some old dead dudes thought it was a good idea to make guns available--oh yeah, weren't we living on a DANGEROUS FRONTEIR where protection was actually necessary, not a civilized police-guarded state? There's a reason that America has much higher murder rates than other actually developed nations. Because we're run by a bunch of egotistical gun loonies who like to think that having a powerful piece of metal makes them a stronger, safer, better person.
Interesting that the first clause of the Second Amendment should be ENTIRELY ignored in decision.
Who says it was ignored?
Fact is, it is what's called "a preamble", not a limiting clause. It's purpose is to state one reason why the following statement Right is being protected. It does not impose a limit on the Right, which Shall Not Be Infringed.
At least not under the standard rules of English grammar.
Here's an excellent discussion of the language involved (by language experts):
h_t_t_p_:_/_/www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
And another:
h_t_t_p_:_/_/www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3230
Hey Sensible explain Canada to me then.
"The constitution is not the fricking holy grail."
No, but it DOES happen to be the highest law of the land.
If it's so severely out of date, and a suitable majority of today's Americans believe we should start doing away with the Rights it preserves for us, then By God, AMEND it to remove the Rights!!
The Old Fools left us a mechanism to do it, so put your views to the test and push for an Amendment to strike the #2 point in the Bill of Rights!
Go For It!
Just because some old dead dudes thought it was a good idea to make guns available--oh yeah, weren't we living on a DANGEROUS FRONTEIR where protection was actually necessary, not a civilized police-guarded state?
Actually, one of the primary reasons they wanted to reserve this right for their descendants is that they had recently suffered attempts by an oppressive government to disarm them.
And believe it or not, you are NOT living in a civilized, police guarded state!
Just ask the Supreme Court. You have NO Right to expect personal police protection just because you pay taxes and call 911. Their decisions on the matter couldn't be clearer.
h_t_t_p_:_/_/www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
There's a reason that America has much higher murder rates than other actually developed nations.
Another fallacy.
A number of nations with MUCH stricter laws than the US, including outright bans on ALL firearms ownership (such as Jamaica instituted in the '70s), have considerably HIGHER murder rates than the US.
h_t_t_p_:_/_/www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=441
Just the fact that humans feel it is necessary to have handguns and nuclear bombs is sufficient proof that we are not evolved enough as a species to justify having them.
Lets do-se-do around the constitution shall we...
["The constitution is not the fricking holy grail."]
How utterly "George Bush"!
"The Constitution is just a God-damned piece of Paper!"
Therefore, Bush's government shouldn't consider itself bound by the limits it places on their powers, and they can arrest whoever they want without showing probable cause..., force the Telecos, the banks, the libraries, to turn over whatever records they demand and generally just do whatever the hell they claim they need to do.
Yeah, That's how we ought to let our government operate!
Sorry, but I like the old fashioned concept that the Constitution is the agreement under which We, The People grant certain SPECIFIED Powers to the Federal Government, and those are THE ONLY powers they are to exercise.
Thank you, "Uh..., NO!" for the grammar lesson.
First off, the "preamble" was ignored, insomuch as the recent decision focuses solely on a person's "right" to bear arms without any regards to the purpose of WHY that right "shall not be infringed."
Second, a preamble is "an introductory [...] section of a [...] formal document, setting out its intention, scope" (OED). Therefore, the preamble does hold weight when interpreting the entirety of the Second Amendment. When the Amendment was designed, there was no formal or institutionalized military, therefore, in order to maintain security, it was necessary for civilians to keep guns. It's YOU who suggests that "It's purpose is to state ONE reason;" based on what?
And in regards to the sites you suggested, I would love to read Roy Copperud's full interpretation, because while he may seem unbiased, Schulman certainly is biased and his cut-and-pasting of Copperud's points seems sketchy at best. (Try reading his points without reading Schulman's slanted questions.)
"A number of nations with MUCH stricter laws than the US, including outright bans on ALL firearms ownership (such as Jamaica instituted in the '70s), have considerably HIGHER murder rates than the US."
Jamaica is tradionally considered a developing country and thus not part of what the original poster wanted to compare with. Correlation between homicide rates and percentage gun overship is almost one in developed countries.
Also remember that there is no mention of guns in the second amendment, the word is arms. Anyone who argues against personal nuclear (or biological or chemical) weapons (and I would hope that includes most people) will then have to accept that there is a valid discussion about which arms are included in this right. My personal opinion is that shotguns are, hand guns probably aren't and Uzis clearly aren't, but I am perfectly willing to accept that this is something that rational people can discuss.
Five of the Justices can read but are hamstrung by gun nuts. This is a great example of right wing hypocrisy: the right wing complains that the Federal government is too overpowering and should not take away states' right and then does just that when it suits their wacky world view. Bottom line: a community has a right to protect itself from guns nuts forcing guns and violence on citizens.
I would think pooticians would be leery of having guns in Washington considering the record of assasinations in the country
Let`s skip all that"bull-shit"
argument here,because it says:
....On a practical level, the decision simply means that for the first time in 30 years, D.C. residents will be able to get a license to keep handguns...etc. That`s sick !!
That said,my fears are based
on such facts as GOP-Huckabee
sick,reckless,inviting comment about presidential candidate
Barack Obama "being targeted
by some potential assassin".
Now that`s really outrageous, sick,offensive by any standard
So,is this new law designed to help,to enable someone to make it actually indeed happen ?
Well,his country must be sick!
Check out the US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311. All able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 are part of the militia, which has two classes: organized (the National Guard and Naval Militia) and unorganized (for the rest of us). Seems like it's a subtle way of justifying the draft, but it does also make me a militiaman. Can I have my gun now please?
Scandinavian Liberal, you come from a failed state. Our African Americans have a higher standard of living than you do. I don't mean to imply that the guns help them(e.g. drug and prostitution trade), but it is probably due to affirmative action. Any way, you come from a failed state and are insignificant in the world. America is 25 % of the world economy. We matter, you don't. So just shut up.
To imagine this new ruling will primarily safeguard individual's right to have handguns (as those early fathers protected themselves against tyranny) is ridiculous! It will simply put handguns in the hands of criminals. Who is the NRA hoping to protect? Themselves!
Well, unorganized certainly does not equate with well-regulated.
Dan Paashaus writes: To imagine this new ruling will primarily safeguard individual's right to have handguns ... is ridiculous! It will simply put handguns in the hands of criminals. Who is the NRA hoping to protect? Themselves!
Are you under the illusion that the DC handgun ban was preventing criminals in The District from acquiring handguns? REALLY...?!?!
That "criminals" were, just in this case, obeying the law? REALLY...?!?!
As to "Who is the NRA hoping to protect?"... you ARE aware that the NRA initially fought tooth & nail to PREVENT this case from being appealed to the S.C ..., AREN'T You?!?!
That they only hopped onboard with an amicus brief after it was clear that they weren't going to be able to stop it?
Peter, you are a consumate Troll!!
Knew I was going to have to go over "organized/unorganized" and "well-regulated." They actually don't equate. Look, if the 2nd Amendment meant to mean ONLY the organized militia could bear arms, it wouldn't later use the phrase "..the right of the PEOPLE..." Obviously "people" implies a broader class than "well-regulated militia." After all, just because there exists an unorganized militia doesn't mean the government can't regulate this militia - i.e., regulate which weapons can and can't be possessed by each class. Which means the States WOULD seem to be perfectly fine in banning handguns. Except apparently SCOTUS thinks that only allowing long guns is too constricting a regulation.
Remember, this case wasn't about owning all guns - residents of DC could still have rifles and shotguns, just with trigger locks employed. It was about having handguns. So it seems the case was really about how far the government can go in it's regulations, and apparently the majority believed the state had indeed overstepped its bounds.
Carlos writes: ...my fears are based on such facts as GOP-Huckabee sick, reckless,inviting comment about presidential candidate Barack Obama "being targeted by some potential assassin".
Hillary Clinton also brought up the issue.
...
So,is this new law designed to help,to enable someone to make it actually indeed happen ?
There IS no "new law".
And what do you think the chances are that someone plotting an assasination at that level is going to jump through all the hoops and fill out all the government paperwork to LEGALLY buy a handgun to use for such a high-profile, despicable deed?
J wrote: ...just because there exists an unorganized militia doesn't mean the government can't regulate this militia - i.e., regulate which weapons can and can't be possessed by each class. Which means the States WOULD seem to be perfectly fine in banning handguns. Except apparently SCOTUS thinks that only allowing long guns is too constricting a regulation.
Funny about that.
If you go back to the Miller decision in 1939 (the last time they commented on the 2nd Amendment), The Court spoke about the government's right to regulate the possession of short shotguns because they were NOT militia class weapons, and our right to possess militia-suitable weapons WAS protected by the 2nd.
Justice McReynolds, writing for the court: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
That statement would seem to argue that the government could NOT regulate in that arena.
More recently, gun-control proponents & politicians have used the "No legitimate SPORTING use" argument against whatever classes of weapons they sought to prohibit at the moment.
This case seems to have been argued, reasoned and decided on whether Americans have a right to possess weapons suitable for their personal defense from criminals.
The introductory clause was completely ignored by Fat Tony Scalia. The Founders did not use words frivolously. If they had meant the 2nd Amendment to mean uninfringable individual rights, they would have started it "A well-armed populace, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Of course, Fat Tony also was behind the worst Supreme Court decision of all time, Bush v. Gore.
Peter: Our African Americans have a higher standard of living than you do.
SL: Please think before posting. Any population group in the US would be thrilled with a GNP per capita of $57k (DK), $64k (IS) or $84k (NO) instead of the measly $46k of the US (SE and FI are similar to US). Look up GDP (nominal) per capita on the Wikipedia, the numbers above are from the IMF but you can get similar results from World Bank or CIA. And brag as much as you want about the size of the US economy, but remember that the EU is significantly larger (same source).
That said, I am living - legally and happily - in the US and has been for 12 years. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything that goes on here.
I did grow up in Denmark, a country that has free healthcare, free college, surplus on public finances and positive balance of payments. Probably doesn't sound like a failed state to many people.
GVC: Justice McReynolds, writing for the court: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
That statement would seem to argue that the government could NOT regulate in that arena.
SL: Isn't that statement exactly what the DC law was about: You can have a shotgun (relevant for a militia and therefore protected by the 2nd), but you cannot have a handgun (not relevant for a militia and therefore not protected)?
Scandinavian Liberal, your country has been taken over by third world Muslims. Denmark is a failed state. It has nothing to offer to the most successful country in the world, America. If you don't like it here , go back to Denmark and get yourself a hijab and a prayer rug. The Denmark that you left is gone, thanks to your liberalism. It will never exist again. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Scandinavian Liberal, for years, Danes lauded multiculturalism and insisted they had no problem with the Muslim customs - until one day they found that they did. Some major issues:
* Living on the dole: Third-world immigrants - most of them Muslims from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq - constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.
* Engaging in crime: Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.
* Self-imposed isolation: Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.
* Importing unacceptable customs: Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem.
Another is threats to kill Muslims who convert out of Islam. One Kurdish convert to Christianity, who went public to explain why she had changed religion, felt the need to hide her face and conceal her identity, fearing for her life.
* Fomenting anti-Semitism: Muslim violence threatens Denmark's approximately 6,000 Jews, who increasingly depend on police protection. Jewish parents were told by one school principal that she could not guarantee their children's safety and were advised to attend another institution. Anti-Israel marches have turned into anti-Jewish riots. One organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, openly calls on Muslims to "kill all Jews . . . wherever you find them."
* Seeking Islamic law: Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.
In Norway, we do not have this problem. We are not like the stupid Danes. I know, the Danes, they are as stupid as the third world Muslims in their country.
Whoever said we are not very evolved as a society is correct. What is a handgun for? To shoot someone. There have been so many studies that show that handguns in the home actually do not prevent crime or keep people safer, and the dangers of children getting hurt far outweigh the defend the home premise. I was an inner city school teacher. I went to many funerals of children who were shot by handguns. They were not these "criminals" you all like to imagine, just kids with the same hopes and dreams as any other kids. There will be more of these shootings now than before.If you have ever loved someone who was killed by a handgun, you understand why DC tried to regulate their use.