Denying constitutional rights in order to make the citizens more safe is a good thing?

I thought the left was vehemently opposed to this concept as in:

GWB Violates the constitution in order to make the citizens of America safe and that infuriates you and makes you want to impeach him.

It is no wonder the left can never get elected on their policies and have to use smoke and mirrors to get elected.

Both the residents of high crime areas and those who have devoted thir lives to reduce crime (who do know a thing or two about it) are devastated by this ruling.
I'm sure all those who think this ruling is great will be moving to D.C. to demonstrate for eveyone how crime prevention should really be done in inner cities.

Oh, I forgot,, We don't lisen to experts. What's a litle expertise and experience in the face of an ideology imposed on the unwilling. from afar? Not to worry, someone else will have to deal with the consequences, and htose pontificating will continue to pontificate without being hampered by the messiness of real life, as it is lived by others.

In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and highest gun ownership also have the lowest crime levels. One of the most interesting comparisons is that of Washington, D.C. with its gun bans since the 1970s, and the D.C. suburbs in Virginia, which has very little gun control. Even though gun ownership is high and there are few gun control laws in the Virginia suburbs of D.C., gun control has reached extreme levels the crime rate is much higher across the state line where gun ownership is almost non-existent.

Jeremy D. Banks Phd.

Virginia. Population 7.6 million…….murders……..399. Violent Crimes…..21,568.
DC Population 600,000 …….murders…….162. Violent Crimes……34,423.

If we extrapolated this out we would get roughly 2000 murders and 400,000 violent crimes in the DC area with NO handguns because they are banned.

Dang it! I hate it when I add the truth to a conversation.

It's the mayor of Wash DC whose hands are tied now, in fighing the horrific crime, which he was geting a handle on, prior to this. .

Going a little overboard aren't you.

This ruling was about the District of Columbia who literally took the right to bear arms away from nearly everyone with the exception of police and security guards.

Gun-control advocates, acknowledging the decision as a defeat, pointed to language in the 5-to-4 ruling, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, upholding “reasonable” restrictions as their basis for defending gun laws wherever they could.

There are still going to be restrictions. Its just that perhaps some of those might have to be rethought. Much as the Roe v Wade made every state rewrite their laws concerning abortion this too will have states scrambling to redo their laws but in the end it will still allow for restrictions and regulation.

DC simply denied citizens the right to own a gun.

This amendment does not answer specifically the quesiton of maintaining arms in the home, because , in the opinion of many like I, it didn't address the question.
This was about States, not inidivuals.

I think it is correct to INFER that people had and have the right to own guns and have them in the home, but wheher or not that means the right can't be restricted goes a step too far for this Amendment. That question has never before needed to be answered, because , like at the time, it was answered through legislation and local regulation. or lack of same. It was up to states and lccal communities.

It isn't about the right to guns, it's about the right to regulate and/or restrict.

Those who see this right as absolute, themselves make exceptions for criminals, the mentally unbalanced, etc. Yet, nowhere in the Amendment does it list acceptable exclusions. This begs the quesion: why can some exceptions be implemnted through legislationa while others not, and who decides?

My trouble with the SC ruling is that it ruled on individual rights based on an Amendment about States, and thereby intruded itself on questions traditionally. from the beginning, settled through legislation.

The NRA is now threatening to sue everyone n sight. Who will answer for the consequences? The leigslatures have had their hands tied. Who?

Thomas Jefferson.

Even Thomas Jefferson stated………..Let them take arms. Where do these arms come from if we do not grant them the right to have them?

I answered your question.

If the purpose was to protect the state, then how that relates to gun posession by individuals has to be inferred. Were guns worn in churches, or by the man at he pulpit? (hint: it varied according to CHURCH RULES) It was common for bars to made cowboys leave their guns outside. In effect, there have always been absolute bans under certain cirucmstances.

In the interim, guns have never been banned outright, nor does anyone propose to do so. We have continued in the TRADITIONAL way, allowing gun ownership, but implimenting restrictiosns AS CIRCUMSTNACES DICTATE.

This SC ruling broke with tradition to achieve political ends. Breaking with tradition is remarkably activist for conservatives.

PS If yo're going to read history, read more of it than just what suits.

The Virginia Plan was generally favored by the large states and those laying claim to western land. It sought a strong national government with two legislative houses elected on the basis of population. The New Jersey Plan, favored principally by the small states, called for equal representation of the states in a single legislative body. The Connecticut Compromise, which broke the deadlock, proposed a lower house, elected in proportion to population, and an upper house, in which each state, regardless of size, would have equal representation.

These states who consented to a national government were extremely suspicious of the other states whom they felt would, could or most certainly wanted to lord it over them given the chance. Though the war with England was concluded there was indeed a fear of an attack in which the milita would be used to fend off the English, yet the need for a well regulated militia was also the states compromise in order to be willing to agree to a new nation in which certain states rights were surrendered in order to have a cohesive national government.

The concept of a universal militia, consisting of all free white men bearing their own arms, originated in England. The requirement that subjects bear arms and serve military duty, dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. At that time, it was customary for a soldier to purchase, maintain, keep, and bring his own armor and weapon for military service.

Thus the origninal intent of the framers of the constitution and the Second Amendment was framed in this context. Their original intent was heavily influenced by existing traditions dating back 500 years that called upon all men to maintain their own weapons in defense of their state, or nation as called upon by the government (king).

So while I know the anti gun people look for any and every means to find a reason to throw out the 2nd amendment they continue to fail to even understand the basic historical events leading up to and surrounding the 2nd amendment which sheds much more light on the original intent then does someone trying to interpret their intent 200 years later.

I totally agree with this analysis. In view of the concerns of the time, and while abuses by European governments were still fresh in memory, the most logical deduction is that this was meant to protect the stated from outside threats.

I don't think it says anything at all, one way or the other, about individual rights.
That was left to lthe legislative process.

The SC ruling was very political and reflects a double standard.
Conservatives traditionally insist that individuls have no rights unless specifically named. They base their anti-abortion stand on this. Yet, when it comes to guns,
they insert such a right, forgetting all bout original intent in order to do so.
The SC ruling was definitrly political, intended to achieve certain outomes, regardless of consequences or principles.