|
Washington D.C. gun ban: Should a city have the right to pass a law banning guns?
Comment: Taking guns out of law abiding citizens hands will NOT keep them out of the hands of criminals! by Stephen
Comment: If they can ban your right to have a gun then they can also ban your freedom of free speach, assembly, and religion. by Steve
Comment: I think this is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. No one has the right to take away firearms, especially cities. It is the 2nd amendment of this nation’s constitution that gives people the right to bear arms. Our nation was based on this and we are going to change it now? It does not only apply to militias. When the constitution was written who was the militias? They were common people trying to defend themselves. How are people going to defend themselves if everyone wants to take away our protection? How will this save lives when criminals will still find a way to get them? The black-market will explode. I think people should have their choice to own a firearm or not. If they choose not to then that is their own choice. A gun ban is not the right way to go. by Hannah
Comment: Our Country is already in dismay from people trying to circumvent the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Some go too far, others not enough. If this city or any city feels the need to Ban Guns, then they should have strict guidelines on registration and possession of them. by M
Comment: A municipality should con-
cern itself with the smaller
more mundane issues of govern-
ment: ie.traffic, water, elec.
etc.. It is extremly presum-
tious to usurp federal respon-
sabilites such as constitution
al rights. Deny rights to the
criminal, not the legitimate
gunowner. by Robin
Comment: The 2nd Amendment says that the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It should be understood that there should be no gun ban imposed upon the people limiting the law abiding citizens as to what they can own. The gun bans in place in Washington D.C., San Francisco, and others cities of the like, should have never been passed. In my opinion, they are in violation of the peoples' 2nd Amendment right. I enjoy exercising my 2nd Amendment right and implore more citizens to join in. by James
Comment: This country does not even favor the one in which I grew up, in many ways, and this gun nonsense is an example of why. The 2nd ammendment gives THE CITIZEN the right to bear arms. To say it was referring to the militia is ridiculous. The militia bearing arms should be understood without having to spell it out. ALL MILITIAS bear arms. That should just go without saying. The court must think all our citizens are stupid. In my opinion, the citizens are not the ones being stupid here. by Elizabeth
Comment: ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REGULATE HAND GUNS OR ANY FIRE ARM AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!! by WILLIAM
Comment: ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REGULATE HAND GUNS OR ANY FIRE ARM AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!! by WILLIAM
Comment: i beiieve in the second amendent. they would have to pry my guns out of my dead hands if they want to take them. if the ban is put thru only criminals would have guns by ken
Comment: Absoloutely Not!!!!!!! Banning guns does not protect anyone but the criminals. Do people think a criminal will obey a gun law and break all other laws. by John
Comment: I strongly disagree with banning guns. No one has the right to take away firearms, especially cities. It is the 2nd amendment of this nation’s constitution that gives people the right to bear arms. Our nation was based on this and we are going to change it now? It does not only apply to militias. When the constitution was written who was the militias? They were common people trying to defend themselves. How are people going to defend themselves if everyone wants to take away our protection? How will this save lives when criminals will still find a way to get them? The black-market will explode. I think people should have their choice to own a firearm or not. If they choose not to then that is their own choice. A gun ban is not the right way to go. by Hannah
Comment: There will always be illegal sales of guns regardless of the laws and therefore law- abiding citizens should have the means and right to protect themselves from such people. by Sheila
Comment: Every lawabiding American should have the right to defend themselves and family! by william
Comment: I believe that I have the right to keep a gun for protecting of self & home. That is one of the freedom that I have for which I serve in two wars for. by Dallas
Comment: NO! A city should not be able to ban all guns. People should be able to own a gun (at-least a shotgun or rifle) to protect thier own family, home and property. by Lester
Comment: Day by Day We keep losing our RIGHTS,,, When WILL IT STOP !!! This is suppose to be the LAND OF THE FREE. LOOKS MORE LIKE RUSSIA!Day by Day Again Just MY APINON R MY RIGHT... by Randy
Comment: What right does any city, state or Federal Governmant have to restrict "Our" rights as stated in the US Constitution? The answer is simple, they don't have this right> DC is the murder capital of the US, why because the citizens can own hand-guns to dev=fend themselves. Australia took away the guns from all their citizens and the home invasion with weapons rose 400% in the first year. Why? Because the criminals(who didn't obey or care about the new law) knew those they were robbing couldn't shoot back because the government had taken all their gun. Do the research on Canada, England and any other country where the guns have been taken and see the rise in crime especially crimes against citizen with a gun. Then look at the cities,states or countries where the people are allowed to own a gun and keep it loaded and available, crime has gone down. Our own state of Florida, since the Castle Doctrine was passed has gone down, why? Because crimminals know that that next house or business they invade might just have someone with a gun and is not afraid to use it in their own self-defense. We also have the reason the constitution gave for having this "right". For defense against a tyrannical government and taking away the citizens right to bear arms is the first step towards that end. Ask the Germans and Poles what happen when Hitler took all the guns from its citizens. by Fredrick
Comment: Talk about a dumb move by the government. This is as stupid as the anti alcohol ammendment. Is government so stupid as to think that if they ban guns, everyone will abide by the law? People lose their driver's license in court and continue to drive because they could care less what a court says. People are ordered to stay away from a spouse, yet they ignore the order and the results are usually tragic. Does anyone in their right mind believe a criminal is going to obey a gun ban, knowing that he or she will have an advantage over unarmed citizens. And, what of the "Stand your ground" law in several states? If someone defends their property or family with a gun, will they be prosecuted? With all the problems in the states to worry about the government now wants to take away our best defense tool. The implications are mind boggling. by Bill
Comment: When we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Self-protection is just that, self protection. The police may not always be present when your life is at risk. For this reason, we should continue to be able to protect ourselves. The bad guys have the courts in their corner; we should have the law in our corner. by Al
Comment: Most of the greatest human rights tragedies in the world's history have begun with a disarmed populace. by sam
Comment: The first thing a tyrant does to gain control is disarm the population. Our right to bear arms is so we can protect our country and protect ourselves against our country should the government become tyrannical. While the language of the Constitution may be archaic we are still the only country in the world with rights guaranteed in writing. by Susan
Comment: I wish everyone would research the Second Admendment. I get so mad at the news media because I know you have researched it and know the truth and you ought to tell the truth. The People Do Have The Right To Bear Arms. by Ronnie
Comment: No city or state should be aloud to take away a person's constitional right. There are enough gun laws on the books now. All they have to do is enforce them. by David
Comment: Free people should have the right to have a firearm.
The crooks will have them no matter what the law says.
Law-abiding people with out firearms only make a good target.
by Wayne
Comment: People need the right to protect their family and property. I have been burglarized several years ago. The person has been convicted and been in prison for several years,he keeps sending word back to me that he's coming after me when he gets out.He will be released next May.If they banned guns I wouldn't be able to protect myself and my family. by michael
Comment: no state government should have the right to take away our ability to protect ourselves in our homes if they allow such a ban to continue it promotes the out-landish crime rate in the area that they currently have now if there are no guns in the house the criminal is basically safe they only need to out run the cops not the homeowner a gun lives in my house and is the best home invasion system there is availible so if they keep the current ban take the guns away from local law enforcement as well. Then I bet you that the ban will be abolished if they had no way to protect themseves either. Leave the ability to protect our families in our hands as response times are as slow as they are and never a cop when you need one maby they'll arm us with a copy of the ban to sling at the envaders...not as effective as hot lead by preserve civil freedom
Comment: I would think that the Constitution superceding a cities jurisdiction is not the question. The question could be raised as to the intent of the founding fathers when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Personally I think that is an argument in favor of allowing assault rifles. (standing militia). With this particular Supreme Court I do not see them backing states (cities) rights over this particular issue. by Pete
Comment: Most of the common folks in this country, do not live in gated properties and have body guards to see them home. Put the gun control folks where we live and ask again. by Amy
Comment: There are more than enough gun control laws to let criminals hurt and maim unarmed citizens already. by Ed
Comment: No, because the criminals will know that no one has a
gun to defend themselves.
Guns are not the problem. The problems are:
1. Criminals behind the gun
2. Enforcement of the laws that are already on the
books. period!
by Jeff
Comment: A person should be able to have a firearm to defend himself and his or her family, people having firearms keeps crooks out of your house and the government from running amuck. And if firearms are banned then only criminals will have firearms. by David
Comment: We should have the right to resources that will help us protect oursleves. by Mac
Comment: its about time the community finally has someway to keep the checks and balance to these "lawful" gun nuts! just look at the incidents around this area that had a argument/domestic disturbance settled with a gun! by "lawful citizens"... besides if these gun nuts are really believing what they spew out to the public, about the constitutional right to "overthrow a government they do not agree with" isn't that treason? terrorism? and for the comment "protection for myself and my family" if that person is that paranoid and schizo...isn't that person mentally unstable and should be committed to a mental health clinic rather than have ownership of a gun? by h
Comment: A city should not have a right to ban guns, although used in many crimes, a guns can be used in self defense, are protected by our bill of rights, and criminals can find ways of getting guns illegally leaving perfectly legit citizens defenseless. by Christopher
Comment: It's our constitunal right to bear arms by jim
Comment: The district court was wrong. Te second admendment says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. People include men weomen and in that day children.Not only did they need arms food gathering but also for the protection of themselves and their families. This need for protection still remains today.Look at the recent roberies and robery attempts.The police can't do anything to prevent the crime only the owner or person on duty can prevent this crime from being sucessful. Same for the recent increase of home invasions: same solution-protect your self,your family and your property!!!! by Mike
Comment: This comes from a city with one of the highest crime rates. This proves banning guns does nothing. by Donald
Comment: If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns! from PENSACOLA, FL by PATTY
Comment: a city should never be allowed to sit itself up above the constitution from pensacola,fl. by vivian
Comment: Gun laws are confusing enough. Federal laws only should apply. from Cantonment Fl by Bob
Comment: The 2nd amendment is not a cities right to change nor a state's for that matter. It is clear and has been upheld in federal court that the right DOES extend to individuals; as they were who made up the militia. Be afraid of a government that is so afraid of it's citizens it wants to disarm them! from FWB/FL by Bill
Comment: The 2nd amendment is not a cities right to change nor a state's for that matter. It is clear and has been upheld in federal court that the right DOES extend to individuals; as they were who made up the militia. Be afraid of a government that is so afraid of it's citizens it wants to disarm them! from FWB/FL by Bill
Comment: In this country all free men have the right to keep and bear firearms to defend themselfes. from Milton by David
Comment: Any law abidding person should have the right and means to defend themselves from the criminal element. from Milton, FL by James
|
