valor10

Okay. So, without starting another poll Swampcollie, if it came to a vote in your county to ban gun hunting and make it bow only, what's your vote? No variables. Healthy deer heard. They just want to eliminate gun hunting in your county. What say you sir?

GMMAT

There were steps put in place (via Article 5 of theUS Constitution)to alter the constitution. You know....."amendments". The second amendment was ratified as part of a 10 part amendment,known in popular terms as the "Bill of Rights". It's been done (amended and ratified) I "think" 27 times.

So.....the 2nd amendment wasn't originally part of the original doctrine.

If the proper steps are followed.....I'll accept the process outcome. It's the American way.

For ****s and giggles.....it would have been nice to ask a black MAN (prior to 1869) and ANY woman (prior to 1920) what they thought of our forefather's "foresight".

Constituitonal amendments have their place.....and if the proper channels are followed....I'll live with (AND accept)them......bar none.

bigcountry

Isn't it rather ironic, that a majority of those who are anti-bowhunting due to they think the animal suffers too much are also anti-gun, for even home protection?

I have yet to meet to a liberal anti-hunter who is pro-gun. Usually its across the board.

GMMAT

I know many of them

HuntinGUS

I would never hunt again if it meant giving up my second amendment!

Loose that one and all of the rest WILL follow.

quiksilver

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

John - I just read 150+ pages last night of the Heller case, as well as each respective dissent- and honest to god, this stuff is mind-blowing.It's unbelievable how tight this case really was.

The Second Amendment provides: “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."

Let me start off by saying that there is nothing more frustrating than hearing gun advocates - egregiously misuse the terms "right," "freedom," "carry," and "gun" from a constitutional perspective. These terms are far from being absolutes.

Justice Scalia prefaces the entire opinion by reiterating that the "right" to keep a weapon is not absolute, and is subject to whatever necessary limitations (i.e. mentally ill or criminals). Likewise, these "rights" stop at the school door or in certain buildings or when certain conditions present.

9 of the greatest legal minds in the Union. 5 votes required.

As many of you know, the crux of this case turns on the meaning of "keep and bear," but not in the context of 2008. Instead, the heart of the matter centers around the original framers' intent for those particular words. We wind the clocks back to the late 1700's and try to putHumpty Dumpty back together again.

The Petitioners proffered a very strong argument, alleging that the definition of "keep and bear" is relegated strictly to militia service.
The Respondents alleged that the definition of "keep and bear" extendsbeyond militia serviceto personal protection.

Simple, right? Hardly.

We can all agree that the framers carefully chose their words... The language of every sentence was carefully calculated, and parsed withaneye into the future.

The Petitioners hung their hat on two arguments:

First, they pointed out that two states (Pennsylvania and Vermont) specifically had express language inserted in their respective "Declarations of Rights" that provided for the right tobear arms for"self-defense" and "hunting." Such language was conspicuously and intentionally absent from the Second Amendment, as we know it. This is the only time that "hunting" arises in the context of the second amendment. Personally, I agree with Justice Stevens' dissent, and find this to be a defining material omission.

Secondly, during the ratification process, there was significant tension among the colonies to retain the right to raise a State-Army as a check-and-balance on the Federal Government. A federal army posed a direct threat to state sovereignty. There is voluminous support for this, and it is largely undisputed.

The Respondents were able to construct an argument, citing Blackstonian principles and old English law dating back 17th century Protestants, whereby the terms "keep and bear" were used not only in a military context, but also for personal protection. The majority followed. Through portions of the opinion, it feels as though Scalia is grasping at straws, trying to forge a valid argument where none realistically exists. Other times, he cites persuasive authority and several uses of the term in a non-military context.

Both sides tabled very strong arguments, but at the end of the day, we were trying to add a subtextual interpretation where no facial language existed.

I'm a strict constitutional constructionist, and am keenly aware that the U.S. Constitution was modeled with English and existing state legal principles in mind. Being cognizant of this, I can't help but note the framers' intentional variance from the PA and VT Declarations of Rights. I can't help but believe in my heart that the framers were simply paying homage to state sovereignty, and offering a built-in check against the Federal Government.

I don't think you could find an impartial adjudicator who would disagree that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to maintain a citizen militia. However, when you're vacating the plain language of the Amendment, by implying that they meant to create some type of contructive right to self-defense, it just never sits well. From a constructionists' perspective, this decision, in its mode of execution,leaves a lot to be desired. I feel that the framers bent over backwards to AVOID using the words "self-defense" and here we are, 200+ years later, putting words in their mouth.

5-4. Game over. Razor tight.

BobCo19-65

Voted #2. It's simply priority.

brucelanthier

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603656.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Deadly Consequences -- But the Right Call

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, June 27, 2008; A17


Few landmark Supreme Court rulings have been so widely predicted as yesterday's decision striking down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The mere fact that the court agreed to hear the case was a pretty good indication that the justices were itching to make some kind of big statement about the Second Amendment. Questions from the bench during oral arguments in March left little doubt as to which way the wind was blowing.
This case, for me, is one of those uncomfortable situations in which my honest opinion is not the one I'd desperately like to be able to argue. As much as I abhor the possible real-word impact of the ruling, I fear that it's probably right.
The practical benefits of effective gun control are obvious: If there are fewer guns, there are fewer shootings and fewer funerals. As everyone knows, in the District of Columbia -- and in just about every city in the nation, big or small -- there are far too many funerals. The handgun is the weapon of choice in keeping the U.S. homicide rate at a level that the rest of the civilized world finds incomprehensible and appalling.
I realize that the now-defunct D.C. law was unusually comprehensive and restrictive and thus, in the legal sense, offered a bull's-eye for the pro-gun lobby. I also know that the law was easy to attack on grounds of efficacy: Given all the handgun killings in the city, was the ban really having any beneficial impact?
But come on, it's not as if the law was making gun violence in the city any worse -- and it's not as if striking down the law, and perhaps adding hundreds or thousands of weapons to the city, will make things any better. The law was flawed, but it was a lot better than nothing.
I'd like to be able to thunder about the injustice committed by an activist, archconservative Supreme Court that seeks to return our jurisprudence to the 18th century. I will, almost certainly, about some future outrage. But this time, I can't.
The big problem, for me, is the clarity of the Second Amendment's guarantee of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The traditional argument in favor of gun control has been that this is a collective right, accorded to state militias. This has always struck me as a real stretch, if not a total dodge.
I've never been able to understand why the Founders would stick a collective right into the middle of the greatest charter of individual rights and freedoms ever written -- and give it such pride of place -- the No. 2 position, right behind such bedrock freedoms as speech and religion. Even Barack Obama, a longtime advocate of gun control -- but also a one-time professor of constitutional law -- has said he believes the amendment confers an individual right to gun ownership.
And even if the Second Amendment was meant to refer to state militias, where did the Founders intend for the militias' weapons to be stored? In the homes of the volunteers is my guess.
More broadly, I've always had trouble believing that a bunch of radicals who had just overthrown their British oppressors would tolerate any arrangement in which government had a monopoly on the instruments of deadly force. I don't mean to sound like some kind of backwoods survivalist, but I think the revolutionaries who founded this nation believed in guns.
Did they believe in assault weapons? Of course not. Would they be appalled that drug gangs are often better armed than the police? Of course they would, and surely they'd want to do something about it.
I believe the Constitution is a living document that has to be seen in light of the times. I believe the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, was right to infer an implicit right to privacy, even though no such thing is spelled out. I think the idea that the Founders' "original intent" should govern every interpretation of the Constitution is loony -- as if men who wrote with quill pens could somehow devise a blueprint for regulating the Internet.
But I also believe that if the Constitution says yes, you can't just blithely pretend it says no. Yesterday's decision appears to leave room for laws that place some restrictions on gun ownership but still observe the Second Amendment's guarantee. If not, then the way to fix the Constitution is to amend it -- not ignore it.

Germ

I think you don't know diddle

It could have been 9-0,8-1,7-2,6-3. It does not matter, Game is over

right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

It states PEOPLE

bigcountry

Sure you do Jeff. And besides, it furthers your arguement on this subject.