For the first time in 70 years, the US Supreme Court may decide next week whether to examine the question of the right to bear arms, something which is fiercely upheld by millions of Americans.
The US capital of Washington, which is trying to stem a wave of violence in its seedier neighborhoods, has lodged a case with the nine Supreme Court judges seeking to maintain its three-decade ban on individuals carrying handguns.
But since 1976, it has banned residents from carrying handguns, although they are allowed to keep a rifle or hunting gun in their homes, providing it is locked and not loaded.
I guess in Washington DC they have a problem reading the Second Amendment. Here, I'll help them out:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I'll even be nice and break it down for them:
"A well regulated militia" is an example of how people have the right to own firearms. It's not the only example, but it's a good one.
"being necessary to the security of a free state", means that for law and order to be accomplished, the public being armed is one of those crucial things that helps keep chaos from happening.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" I know it's difficult to think people have a problem with this sentence, but the words are as clear as day. The right of the PEOPLE, meaning the general public, AKA American citizens.
"Shall not be infringed". That means that Congress, the President, or any city or state may not pass a law that disallows the rights of a person to own a gun.
It doesn't say anything about a handgun or rifle, so Washington DC is completely in the wrong here.
"Faced with the evidence that handguns pose a particularly serious threat to public safety, the council chose to ban handguns because it concluded that less restrictive regulations would be ineffective," the city said in its petition to the court.
So since alcohol and cars are related to almost 40,000 deaths a year, WAY more then handgun deaths, then perhaps we should outlaw Jack Daniels and Honda Accords? People would laugh in your face if you suggested that, but yet here we are dealing with people dumb enough to think that a ban on a person's Constitutional rights is an ok thing to do.
"Whatever right the second amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die."
And how many of those citizens would be alive today if they had the option to arm themselves with a handgun to protect themselves and others?
It's simply a knee jerk reaction that has perpetuated for the past 30 years and unfairly targeted the citizens of Washington DC.
We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say about this shortly.
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment