?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

gun control

The majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian use of weapons." - Justice John Stevens (as quoted on the front page at nytimes.com)

Hmm. When he puts it that way, yeah, they kinda did.

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
tirianmal
Jun. 26th, 2008 10:04 pm (UTC)
Yep. While I don't often side with the NRA types, in this at least I do.

The liberal side of the court needs to realize that the framers very much intended that the average citizen would (always?) be allowed to carry weapons ... because you never know when you'll need to defend the country from enemies foreign or domestic. So while the question of regulation is open, sweeping bans like the one in DC were clearly over the line into abridgement of the freedom to bear arms.

So yeah, Stevens (and the other three) has it very much wrong ... IMO.
navrins
Jun. 26th, 2008 10:35 pm (UTC)
Yup. That's exactly what they did. They chose to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate lots of things, because they really didn't like the idea of officials regulating civilians.
mathhobbit
Jun. 27th, 2008 11:41 am (UTC)
It's already written up in Wikipedia. I think that's scarier than handguns.
navrins
Jun. 27th, 2008 03:22 pm (UTC)
What Stevens said is scarier than handguns?

Or the fact that it's already written up in Wikipedia is scarier than handguns?
mathhobbit
Jun. 27th, 2008 09:38 pm (UTC)
Already written up in Wikipedia. Whatever else may be imperiled, we seem to have free speech for now.
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )