Justices Appear Skeptical Of D.C.'s Handgun Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031801354_pf.html
I have to say, from both a legal and common sense, that I agree with the
idea that if you ban guns, the only people who will not have guns are
the law abiding citizens.
Just parsing the language of the amendment, it's obvious what the statue
meant. The definition of the word militia is sort of irrelevant.
"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"
The first half is only there as justification- "for this reason, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They could have said "Just 'cuz we say so, the right..." or "A well
regulated fleemflop..." It doesn't matter. It still says that the
right shall not be infringed.
Getting to the more nitty gritty, did the DC gun ban change anything
when it was enacted? More crime, less crime, etc?
posted @ 3/19/2008 08:28:00 AM
3 comments
links to this post
3 Comments:
From Family Guy:
"Hey, the second amendment, do you think thats worded clearly enough?"
To which Jefferson replies,
"The right to bear arms? Of course it is! Every citizen has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall -- how could that possibly be misconstrued?"
The gun ban is 3 decades old. During that time, DC was the murder capital of the country. I think that's pretty solid evidence against.
But not really. One could always argue that it would have been worse without the ban.
That wacky Jefferson. With the moving on up and the black wife and the string of laundromats.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home