The NRA officially runs the government. Long story short, the individual right to bear arms, an interpretation I have no problem with at the federal level, has been extended to the states and local governments through the process of incorporation by the Supreme Court. So where does it stop? Can states ban cop killing bullets? Does it mean that we can’t keep guns out of the hands of felons or the mentally ill? Do you have the right to own a bazooka?
We have an individual right to keep and bear arms, sure. I get that and I’m for that. When I was growing up, there were many times when we’d hear a noise and my stepdad would head outside with the gun to check it out-that right is there for a reason. However, there have to be limits on any right, and how far this is going is beginning to scare me.
And let’s be serious…if the gun industry wasn’t worth billions, the folks running the NRA and the other gun rights organizations wouldn’t give spit about it.
Does that mean they are going to start the “let’s tote our guns to church law” again here in Arkansas? I never knew Arkansas was “further South” then Louisiana until I moved here! Scary isn’t it?
So you think a law-abiding citizen living in Chicago or D.C. shouldnt be allowed to own a handgun to protect themselves or family? Not to mention Chicago’s crime rate has actually increased since they passed the gun-ban, and its become pretty apparent that these gun laws do little to prevent crime. Just think about it, if a criminal knows that someone doesnt have a gun in their home the likely hood of them breaking in to that home increases.
Commonsense, I think that the Supreme Court has opened up a dangerous legal Pandora’s Box in this case. For one thing, they’ve for all intents and purposes moved us to a doctrine of total incorporation when considering how the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are applied via the 14th amendment. I don’t think that’s a correct interpretation of constitutional law as I don’t see that you can make an argument that the second amendment is “necessary to protect the guarantee of ordered liberty”. However, that in and of itself might not be all that bad in practice IF the Court sticks to the rational basis standard for interpeting limitations on the 2nd amendment rights. If they apply a strict scrutiny standard, then we’re basically abandoning any sanity in the discussion of gun laws. That’s what I want to see-sanity restored to the gun rights discussion.
C-Rey, if they try to resurrect that stupid bill, we will be there to fight it-cross my heart.
Oh and commonsense, legal mumbo jumbo aside, statistically you’re more likely to be a victim of an accident involving a gun in your house than you are to be a victim of random crime…and again, statistically, you have more to fear from your friends and family then total strangers and random criminals. You know, the people more likely to have access to the gun.