wayneco
Regular Member
imported post
Frootbattery on the Heller vs DC case from north of the border
--
The pretext and punch line of this rant is that our constitution is an old and tired document and private gun ownership will lead to vigilantism. I guess using that logic that pens lead to letters to the editor!
Because our constitution is 220 years old, is that supposed to mean it somehow doesn't matter? Last time I looked (when I read my pocket copy of it this morning as a matter of fact) I didn't see an expiration date on it, I'll have to check again to make sure.
Second, defending oneself from an attack is not vigilantism. I suggest they look up the word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante
http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1102723
Opinion/Editorial
Home News Opinion/Editorial A step back in Washington
A step back in Washington
Posted 1 day ago
Guns don't kill people; people kill people. But when you provide the people with ready access to a gun, it can be readily argued you up the ante.
And that, unfortunately, is what the U. S. Supreme Court did recently, in overturning a 32-year-old Washington law that prohibited residents from keeping a handgun, or a shotgun or rifle without trigger locks, in their homes. It was the toughest gun law in a country of gun owners.
And now it is gone.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favour of the court challenge. The court recognized a U. S. constitutional right for people to keep guns in their homes for self defence.
Washington has one of the highest rates for violent crime in the U. S. -- quite ironic considering it's the U. S. capital. And now the gun laws there are much more liberal than they were for the past three-plus decades.
This could feasibly lead to an increase in the number of handguns in the wrong hands in Washington -- be it an outright criminal or gang member, or just an irate citizen. The decision revolved around the Second Amendment in the U. S. constitution, a document written nearly 220 years ago.
"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."
Gun lovers see the decision as a victory. But they certainly have a skewed view of reality, judging from comments from Robert A. Levy, a person who helped bankroll the case.
"It's a good day for D. C. and a good day, I think, for the country," he said. "I think the city will be a safer place because of this . . . it will give citizens the right and ability to defend themselves. Right now, all we have is criminals who think have carte blanche to do whatever they want."
Perhaps Mr. Levy has forgotten about the police.
Vigilante justice has no place in modern society. But then again, people like Levy hold beliefs that are two centuries hold.
Frootbattery on the Heller vs DC case from north of the border
--
The pretext and punch line of this rant is that our constitution is an old and tired document and private gun ownership will lead to vigilantism. I guess using that logic that pens lead to letters to the editor!
Because our constitution is 220 years old, is that supposed to mean it somehow doesn't matter? Last time I looked (when I read my pocket copy of it this morning as a matter of fact) I didn't see an expiration date on it, I'll have to check again to make sure.
Second, defending oneself from an attack is not vigilantism. I suggest they look up the word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante
http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1102723
Opinion/Editorial
Home News Opinion/Editorial A step back in Washington
A step back in Washington
Posted 1 day ago
Guns don't kill people; people kill people. But when you provide the people with ready access to a gun, it can be readily argued you up the ante.
And that, unfortunately, is what the U. S. Supreme Court did recently, in overturning a 32-year-old Washington law that prohibited residents from keeping a handgun, or a shotgun or rifle without trigger locks, in their homes. It was the toughest gun law in a country of gun owners.
And now it is gone.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favour of the court challenge. The court recognized a U. S. constitutional right for people to keep guns in their homes for self defence.
Washington has one of the highest rates for violent crime in the U. S. -- quite ironic considering it's the U. S. capital. And now the gun laws there are much more liberal than they were for the past three-plus decades.
This could feasibly lead to an increase in the number of handguns in the wrong hands in Washington -- be it an outright criminal or gang member, or just an irate citizen. The decision revolved around the Second Amendment in the U. S. constitution, a document written nearly 220 years ago.
"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."
Gun lovers see the decision as a victory. But they certainly have a skewed view of reality, judging from comments from Robert A. Levy, a person who helped bankroll the case.
"It's a good day for D. C. and a good day, I think, for the country," he said. "I think the city will be a safer place because of this . . . it will give citizens the right and ability to defend themselves. Right now, all we have is criminals who think have carte blanche to do whatever they want."
Perhaps Mr. Levy has forgotten about the police.
Vigilante justice has no place in modern society. But then again, people like Levy hold beliefs that are two centuries hold.