U.S. News magazine's opinion on 2nd Amendment

[thalife]

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/03/06/a-key-case-on-gun-control.html

hmmm

 

[pdm]

Article has glaring factual issues.

 

[Lugnut]

I thought some of the reader comments were VERY nicely presented. I can't understand why people can't figure out that the "militia" is NOT the National Guard or the military!

 

[Gabe]

If the court embraces an individual right to bear arms...[a] big question is how far that freedom extends.... [The] Supreme Court has recognized a government's ability to limit or regulate nearly every constitutional right.... It's a position the Bush Justice Department appeared to recognize when, in supporting individual gun rights, it cautioned the Supreme Court against defining that right so broadly that it effectively restricted the government's ability to place limits on gun ownership. Such a ruling, the Justice Department said, could invalidate existing federal laws, including the machine gun ban.

God, I hope the italicized portion comes to pass. Is this a conflict of interest, by the way, to have the government determine what the government is able to do to us?

 

[kevin9]

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/03/06/a-key-case-on-gun-control.html

And Ms. Emma Schwartz's opinion matters why?

 

[jdubois]

Is this a conflict of interest, by the way, to have the government determine what the government is able to do to us?

That's kind of the point of the three branches theory, and why it's important that they remain balanced and independent of each other. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Cheney...)

 

[rwl1955]

2nd Amendment

I thought some of the reader comments were VERY nicely presented. I can't understand why people can't figure out that the "militia" is NOT the National Guard or the military!

******
Because that`s what they`ve been told the Militia is. They`re sheeple remember?

 

[thalife]

"It's significant because either it's going to fuel attempts to restrict gun ownership or it could put a constitutional wet blanket on any effort to control gun ownership," says Martin Redish, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University.

isn't that what is going on now and has been going on for years? i don't think there's any bigger wet blanket than the brady bunch

 

[CTarNUT]

The purpose of gun rights is to allow u to defend ourselves from enemies which may one day include our own government. This being said, it makes no sense allowing the gub'ment to regulate our guns.

 

[Pilgrim]

The purpose of gun rights is to allow u to defend ourselves from enemies which may one day include our own government. This being said, it makes no sense allowing the gub'ment to regulate our guns.

Depends on if you're the government or not.

 

[MFP4073]

I can remember newscasts over the years when they were uncovering "militias" who were stockpiling guns and other weapons. The connotations of militias were always negative, presenting them as groups who were against society and the government.

Now suddenly the term militia means the National Guard / Military. Well which is it?

 

[atmay]

Well which is it?

Whichever happens to be convenient at the moment.

 

[MFP4073]

Whichever happens to be convenient at the moment.

Exactly.

 

[peterpressure]

But in the past few decades, more and more legal experts have supported the position that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to have guns. Although they remain in the minority...

orly? Minority you say?