Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Supreme Court Decides on DC Gun ban


Washingtion DC is the holder of the strictest gun control law in the nation. Right now, the supreme court is deciding on its constitutionality. There are a couple of things that strike me about this story. First is the fact that according to news reports, anti-gun protestors are holding signs saying that no ban allows criminals and terrorists to have easier access to guns. Think about their premise, they say that one of the most violent and crime filled cities in the nation needs to keep it ban on guns. I don't think after 32 years the ban on guns has done anything more than take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. This is the best example on how gun control only works for the people that wouldn't use them in a criminal way to begin with, neutering our ability to defend ourselves and taking away the fear within a criminal that they might get shot in the commission of a crime. We've tried it their way, now lets try handing guns out. I bet crime goes down.

Secondly, the news story on MSNBC says that the Supreme court has not decisively stood on the 2nd ammendment in 216 years. It shows the bias that for some reason, a constitutional amendment needs to be first agreed to by the supreme court before it can be enforced. The purpose of the court is to judge new laws on whether they are constitutional, not whether the constitution is constitutional. The reason it hasn't been decided on is because until the last 35 years or so, there was no question on whether it was a right or not.

3 comments:

Andrew Slominski said...

It's pretty funny really. Gun Control does not equal Crime Control. The Roman Empire had no guns at all, but did they not have crime?

jrchaard said...

And Gun Control only controls the ownership of guns for those that would not use them illegally anyway.

jrchaard said...

And Gun Control only controls the ownership of guns for those that would not use them illegally anyway.