MyFox
 

Demboy08's Blog

by Demboy08 from West Allis

Last Post 55 days, 21 hours Ago


Gun Control and The Supreme Court
Jun 27, 2008 | 12:28 AM
Category: Political
Report This Post

Since the Supreme court ruled that individuals do have the right to bear arms today I thought It would be a good time to discuss gun control. First, the the supreme court decision District of Columbia v. Heller. It affirmed than individuals have the right to bear arms and not just militias which is how some interpreted the constitution. While I think it is a victory for gun-rights advocates it is both a narrow ruling and only addresses complete gun bans like those in D.C. It leaves other gun-control measures alone and goes out of the way to affirm certain restrictions and regulations on guns as legal while not allowing complete bans like in D.C. I see both sides of the gun control issue.
There are some valid reasons to allow individuals to bear arms and some reasons not to allow them to bear arms. One of the original ones that citizens would be able to overthrow the government if the government was too abusive is not really valid anymore. No citizens can come close to matching our government in advanced military hardware, heck the only ones who could afford the high tech weaponry our government enjoys today are people like Bill Gates unless average citizens can afford Abrams tanks I doubt any average citizen could possibly win a war against the federal government. Than there is hunting which is an enjoyable sport for many, but if crime could be averted by gun control I doubt hunting would truly be a good enough reason to let everyone have guns. I mean sports vs. crime I think crime would win as more important. I think that it is also silly to try to divine the founders intentions because the founders "intended" alot of things that we don't like such as having slavery in the constitution as well as only a fraction of the population eligible to vote. That brings us to the Best reason why we still need to allow everyone to own a gun. Self defense. Now I agree with this one in certyain circumstances. If you live ina  poor neighborhood and are in vulnerable to crime on a daily basis it makes perfect sense to own a gun. As long as we don't spend enough money on our police force to protect us and continue to have violent crime the only choice is to have citzens armed even with all the problems it creates. I live in a neighbrhood with virtually no crime so I have no good reason to own a gun but there are many people who afre not so lucky. We need some restrictions to make sure that the people who arfe buying the guns are those who need it for self defense and protection against criminals and not just commiting the crimes. This issue will probably persist as long as violent crime persists as both a antidote and cause but I think with this supreme court decison clarifying the second ammenment it will be a bit less ideological.         
45 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 45
Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
 Last
Jay_Kumar read my blog
Jun 27, 2008 | 9:27 AM

Chris Rock on Gun Control:

voodoodog read my blog view my photos
Jun 27, 2008 | 12:48 PM

Gun control means using both hands.
DfDeportation read my blog view my photos
Jun 27, 2008 | 2:57 PM

Today, Howard Kurtz reminds us why his media column is a must-read at the Washington Post. After Barack Obama’s “inartful” flip-flop on the constitutionality of the DC gun ban and his reversal on supporting it, Kurtz expected to see the facts of the issue laid out properly in media reports today. Unfortunately, his peers around the nation apparently decided to ignore reporting for some first-class misdirection — and Kurtz calls them out on it:
But even though the earlier Obama quote and the “inartful” comment have been bouncing around the Net for 24 hours, I’m not seeing any reference to them in the morning papers. Most do what the New York Times did: “Mr. Obama, who like Mr. McCain has been on record as supporting the individual-rights view, said the ruling would ‘provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.’ ”
Supporting the individual-rights view? Not in November.
Even the Tribune–the very paper that the Obama camp told he supported the gun ban–makes no reference to the November interview. Instead: “Democrat Barack Obama offered a guarded response Thursday to the Supreme Court ruling striking down the District of Columbia’s prohibition on handguns and sidestepped providing a view on the 32-year-old local gun ban. Republican rival John McCain’s campaign accused him of an ‘incredible flip-flop’ on gun control.”
So McCain accuses Obama of a flip-flop, and the Trib can’t check the clips to tell readers whether there’s some basis in fact for the charge?
USA Today takes the same tack:
“In a conference call put together by McCain’s campaign, R
DfDeportation read my blog view my photos
Jun 27, 2008 | 2:59 PM

cont..
“In a conference call put together by McCain’s campaign, Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas said . . . that Obama has been changing his position on the gun issue and said the Democratic senator has done some ‘incredible flip-flopping’ on key issue.”
And? And? That’s all we get? He said/he said journalism?
Kurtz kindly references me as one of the conservative blogosphere that actually produced the comparison, as well as many other great bloggers on the right, and even my friends at Newshoggers on the Left, who didn’t buy “inartful” for a moment. Kurtz wonders why the journalists in America’s newsrooms didn’t bother to research what Obama had said. Many of us believe we know the answer already, of course, but at least Kurtz has the spine to scold even his own paper for not sufficiently reporting a major reversal on a major public-policy issue.
Will Kurtz’ colleagues respond?
DfDeportation read my blog view my photos
Jun 27, 2008 | 3:05 PM

DemBoy and the other Leftist/Stalinists will continue spinning and attempting to erode and eliminate our rights according to the Constitution. They will continue doing this by trying to get you to believe this was a "narrow" ruling, leaving the door open for "other" gun restrictive measures. Typical Leftist horshi**! Attempting to rule by JUDICIAL TYRANNY....
craftyguy read my blog
Jun 27, 2008 | 10:07 PM

if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns..if guns kill people why are there no guns in prison??anyone who is competent and can pass a test on safety should be able to own a gun if they desire...its better to have a gun and not needing it then needing one and not having one ...and if you check statistics guns save more lives then they take.
DfDeportation read my blog view my photos
Jun 28, 2008 | 12:08 AM

So, if guns kill people and people don't, does that mean I can blame all my mispelled words on my pencil?
ArtistEd read my blog view my photos
Jun 28, 2008 | 12:56 AM

That's correct DfD, chalk it up to the pencil.

And leave it to the lefties to conclude that the government needs a Constitutional right to bear arms. After all, I am sure that's why communists and national socialists gave themselves the exclusive right to keep and bear arms. That, of course, is the goal of the dems, obviously. Look who voted in favor of the government having that right and who voted in favor of individual citizens having that right. If Obama wins and has the opportunity to pick Supreme Court Justices, they're not going to be the ones he pretends to side with in this case or the Child rape case, but lefties like Ginsberg et al. Then they could have a free reign to get rid of the 2nd amendment as well as erode the 1st amendment through the phony Fairness Doctrine.

Demboy: "One of the original ones that citizens would be able to overthrow the government if the government was too abusive is not really valid anymore"
Of course it is, look what a puny insurgency can do in Iraq before the surge, but in America, the insurgency would be massive, with a good many of the military deserting and fighting against an unconstitutional government. Don't forget that military personnel have sworn to uphold the Constitution also.
Do you really want to take individual citizens guns away and give us no chance whatsoever against a repressive government?
Demboy08 read my blog view my photos
Jun 28, 2008 | 11:58 AM

The insurgents have military hardware from a variety of sources mainly the U.S. and the Baathists and they rarely actually fight the U.S. in the open. When they do we win easily. It os the IED's which have been so successful against our troops. If you want to go out an by an IEd to fight the government in this hypothetical future war that would make more sense. I doubt that even with large numbers of people deserting it would make a difference. Even if everyone had expensive assault rifles. U.S. military equipment is based upon being able to destroy large armies with few soldiers so mass desertions would not change that much. RPGs and any other heavy duty rocket launcher can't touch an M-1 Abrams and it would take alot of firepower to even touch a Humvee. Bottom line, if other countries top of the line armies wouldn't touch our army than what are alot of civilians with pistols, shotguns, machine guns and rockets going to do?
drk12 read my blog view my photos
Jun 28, 2008 | 1:04 PM

I didn't know that crime only occurred in poor neighborhoods? I guess nobody told that to the Manson family members when they went on a killing spree in the canyons above Beverly Hills.
Demboy08 read my blog view my photos
Jun 28, 2008 | 1:11 PM

I do not think the U.S. public would have a chance fighting its government anyways so it doesn't really matter. I think that killing someone with a gun is a lot easier than with any weapons that came before it so though guns don't kill people guns make it a heck of a lot easier to kill people. Also most gun deaths come from legally purchased guns using "straw purchases" where a criminal pays someone who can legally buy a gun to get it for them.
Demboy08 read my blog view my photos
Jun 28, 2008 | 1:13 PM

I did not say all crime occurred in poor neighborhoods just the vast majority of it. One of the reasons the Manson affair was such big news was because it was not in a poor neighborhood. It was the exception not the rule.
DfDeportation read my blog view my photos
Jun 28, 2008 | 2:35 PM

Ted Kennedy used a bottle of booze and a car to kill Mary Jo. A lot easier than a gun...in a wealthy neighborhood...
ArtistEd read my blog view my photos
Jun 28, 2008 | 3:26 PM

I guess for some, there just isn't anything or anyone worth risking their lives for. They would just give up because the odds are too great.
Happyg read my blog
Jun 28, 2008 | 8:53 PM

I've long held the position that this war on terror won't be over until our soldiers come home and take out the left side of the House and Senate. The enemies from within our borders need to be nuetralized. You see Demboy, it's not that the US public would be fighting our military, only a few wing-tipped tofu eating EDIT.
Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
 Last


Write your comment below:




Demboy08

I am a Freshman at UW Madison. I believe in real solutions to real problems. I didn't see the Republicans offering any of them so I a gave the Democrats a chance to do something. I believe both parties are too polarized now to get things done so I think moderates are needed. I am a moderate liberal. I spent months deciding who to support in the presidential election but I finally have decided to vote for Senator Barrack Obama. I love studying world problems, playing tennis, playing video games and now blogging.

Member Since: 5/30/2007


 

View All Photos


RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?