Young Writers Society

From Breitbart.com:

Jun 26 12:14 PM US/Eastern
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense in their homes, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

This is very good.

I'm very mixed on this ruling; very mixed. What I don't like about it is that the Supreme Court has substituted its judgment for the judgment of the legislature. Its true that the DC government is often times ineffective, corrupt, and stupid, but it's still the elected government of DC.

But, I think the ruling will end up being far less reaching than people expect. The Roberts court has shown a tendency to rule cases as narrowly as possible, and I'm betting that's the case here. What it certainly won't lead to is a deluge of handguns into DC if for no other reason than that's already happened.

Anyways, I'm just waiting right now to read what the Washington Post editorial board thinks about it. It's also important to note that it's going to be at least a week before we find out how far the Supreme Court went. For right now, all I know for sure is that the DC gun ban, which was the most restrictive in the United States, was struck down. If that's all the Court did, then that's not much at all.

Well, for the first time, something good has come out of that body of power-hungry idiots (most of them).

The SCOTUS has way too much power, and it shouldn't be doing all that it is. I think in Laura Ingraham's book, Power to the People, she talks about that.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Why are we even ruling on this? What is so hard to understand about that anyway?

I was so happy when I heard this ruling.


That's all really.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Why are we even ruling on this? What is so hard to understand about that anyway?[/quote]

Did that remind anyone of that Family Guy sketch?
No?
Just me?
Ok.

Out of curiosity, can the decision by appealed?

Yes, by a constitutional amendment. Of course, since both parties hardly want a polarized debate during an election year, no one's going to bring it up for a long, long time, no matter how hard the NRA and it's associated special interest groups push... unless of course the people as a whole are that passionate about it. This, I doubt.

khfan890, the Supreme Court (and the rest of the American government) has as much power as the American people are willing to give them. Remember that while we may not have a direct democracy by any means (nor am I suggesting that this would be a great thing), the citizens theoretically have the power to make any decision in the government go their way against the collective will of the current government apparatus. I say theoretically, because the voting public obviously has no claim to competence at all, if you try and reconcile a few figures (approval rating vs. incumbent electability is an amusing one).

Point is, we shouldn't have to moan inconsolably at the failings of the government, because this isn't an autocracy just yet, and the public can't just absolve itself of all responsibility. The original Constitution was never meant to be absolute and complete. If there are gaping holes that the federal government is ignoring but the people hold to be obvious, then there are ways for the people to make themselves heard (constitutional convention), but while getting the states to listen is a bit easier than the federal legislature... it's not that much easier.

I'm confused. Are people in America allowed guns? If so, it's crazy. Look at all the school shootings, why they haven't introduced gun laws is beyond me, this stuff just doesn't happen here or in the UK because we have gun laws.

They have gun laws, but you can't deny people the right to bear firearms.

Snoink wrote:They have gun laws, but you can't deny people the right to bear firearms.

Yes you can. It's illegal to own a gun here, and it's very hard to get one if you do have permission, because there's a lot of procedures to go through. The world is a much better place in countries where firearms are illegal.

LOL, that is a good debate for the debate section. For your country, wherever it is, I'm sure you can deny people the right to bear arms, but not here in America. In any case, I'm glad I'm here and not there. I love target practice. <3

And yeah, it might simply be symbolic, but at least it's symbolic in all the right ways, no?

The world is a much better place in countries where firearms are illegal.

One of the problems with making firearms illegal is that criminals tend to ignore gun laws. In fact, criminals don't follow laws by definition. The only people that do follow them are those that are law abiding citizens who need protection from criminals. So if a criminal has a gun and his victim has no gun, for which person is the world a better place?

Griffinkeeper wrote:

The world is a much better place in countries where firearms are illegal.

One of the problems with making firearms illegal is that criminals tend to ignore gun laws. In fact, criminals don't follow laws by definition. The only people that do follow them are those that are law abiding citizens who need protection from criminals. So if a criminal has a gun and his victim has no gun, for which person is the world a better place?

But it is so much harder to get hold of a gun. You need to get a gun license and go through a whole lot of trouble if you want one. The government are not going to give a gun to somebody who hasn't proved that they will act responisbly wih it. I admit that some people can get hold of gus, look at the Gangland wars, but overall gun crime is heavily reduced by making it almost impossible to get hold of firearms.

Where do you live, by any chance? The reason I ask is because there's a marked difference between a lower amount of crime and being told that there's a lower amount of crime. In a nation where there are stringent gun control laws, it will be in the interest of the government and the media to say that there have been noted beneficial results. Similarly, there'll be more reported gun crimes in a nation that is still undecided.

Gun distribution is a pretty simple model of supply and demand. The criminal demand for firearms can be given as a stable factor, but if the government controls the supply through perceived cost (not physical money, but time and processing), then there'll invariably be a black market that chargers nominally higher physical prices, but ignores the legalities behind it.

Criminals won't be denied crimes any time soon.

Okay, we have some very well meaning, but niaeve young people here (no suprise, its called 'YOUNG Writers Society.'

I'm writing to you from a war zone. Unfortunately, there are some bad people out there. And good people have to do bad things to bad people. Since the bad guys have guns, you have to be able to blow them away, lest yourself or innocents get blow away.

Its illegal for iraqis to have more than 1 AK-47 per household here, and they still manage to have three when I walk in.

Listen, the world might be a better place if guns didn't exist, but now that they do, it is impractical to take guns away from all the good people and expect the bad guys to do the same.d

But it is so much harder to get hold of a gun

But you can still get one. And if somebody wants one bad enough, they'll get it.

Listen, the world might be a better place if guns didn't exist, but now that they do, it is impractical to take guns away from all the good people and expect the bad guys to do the same.d

You bitter, gun-clinging, religion-clinging jerk!!

Lol, I agree with ya, warrior, 100%.