Foxnews.com: In Second Amendment Case, High Court Majority Appears to Support Individual Right to Own Guns
Some quotes from the Foxnews.com story:
"The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns."
"But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation. Justice Breyer said: 'Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?'"
Does it make it unreasonable to say "no hand guns here?" I say yes, since the handgun ban is one of the reasons why crime is so high in D.C.
Of course, a bunch of commies decided to show up and protested the individual's right to protect oneself and property with a handgun. These are often the same people who argue that we have the right to kill our unborn children but we don't have the right to own a gun.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence made an appearance and chanted "guns kill." While their goal of preventing killing is a good and noble one, guns don't kill because people have to pull the triggers. People kill. If they want to ban guns then I guess we need to ban cars, knives (stabbings), baseball bats (beatings), feet (you might be kicked to death), electricity (including lightning), physicians (even physicians make mistakes), pools (kids are much more likely to drown in a pool than be shot by a gun in the home), rope (people might be strangled) and buildings taller than 1 story (one might jump or be pushed). And , of course, if we ban guns I know that the criminals will be sure to turn their weapons in and play nice. Then we could all get into a hippie circle and sing Kumbaya!
No comments:
Post a Comment