The source link below will bring up what I thought was an interesting read, especially since it has to do with a very pivotal decision that could be made in the near future here.
Anytime the supreme court officially "considers" something, they are forced to make an end all be all decision about it at the end. That's why I think it's a bit unfortunate that they are "considering" anything about gun control, I would prefer the laws stay where they are on that topic. However, the court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment (most commonly known as the "right to bear arms") since its ratification in 1791.
I think we are in a good place with gun control. You can still get a gun fairly easy if you aren't a criminal... and if you are a criminal, even easier to get one (unless you go to the store or something). Assault weapons are banned, which makes sense.. you can't walk down the street with a loaded rifle. You can get a concealed pistol licence which allows you to carry a loaded handgun on your person. I think these laws are great, mainly because they make us feel safe, and they are a nice compromise.
Now, I think we can all agree that no amount of law-making is going to stop a real criminal from getting his hands on a gun. An idiot? Sure, they won't ever get one if they have a record, as they shouldn't... Every time you hear about some really fucked up gun accident, I will bet anyone that the story involved an idiot of some kind... well duh, right?
Another item that caught my eye was this:
"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate... to say 'No handguns here?'"
Well, I was doing some thinking on that statement, and it seems to me that handgun's should be REQUIRED by all law abiding, tax paying citizens in high crime areas. I challenge any stupid fuck wad to cross the line with me when I have a gun or three in my house locked and loaded.
...oh right, back to the story...
So, this was all sparked by the handgun ban which Washington D.C. has in effect for people within the "district/city limits" or whatever you want to call it... basically you can't take a handgun into D.C. You can't have it on you, at home, in a box, etc. No hand guns in the area. Rifles are allowed, but must be unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock.... which definitely brings into question what the point of having that rifle as a method of home defense is as it is so obviously not in a condition where it could be used quickly.
So really, this is about Washington D.C. and whether or not they are preventing people in that area from being able to protect themselves... which of course rolls up to a full review of the Second Amendment.
How very nervous this makes me...
Now, I know that some of my dearest friends don't like guns. My mom definitely doesn't, and I can respect that. I don't think anyone who is afraid of a gun or what it can do should own one. You have to be confident, calm and reasonable when using a handgun, and some people just cannot be that way. There are rules to handling and using them, and in a perfect world... everyone would learn those rules and follow them. I am someone who follows rules that are of such a serious nature, of such a nature that some one's life could be forfeit should I get lazy or stupid. But, the few out there who do not follow the rules, always seem to fuck it up for the rest of us huh?
I dunno... just my $0.02...
-link
Labels: current events, thoughts, world news
