Start A Petition


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: Supreme Court, 1939, 2nd amendment, district of columbia, ban handguns )

- 3836 days ago -
The Supreme Court HAS agreed to decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns in a case that puts justices squarely into the right-to-bear arms argument. Court has not heard a case involving the Second Amendment since 1939!!

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Lovebug Honey (35)
Tuesday November 20, 2007, 10:53 am
Yes lets go after the indidvidual with the gun instead of people like George W Bush and GHB Sr's Carlyle group, let's over look Lockheed Martin and Haliburton. Only big weapons of mass destruction are legal. and if you have guns , the neocons can't bomb us cos their afraid we will kill them.
A vote for Kucinich will make this even more possible.
I bet FOX news is jumping up and down all happy about this. Meanwhile every FOX employss since they work for the FBI can carry a weapon. Ooops they call their goons the police and they carry the guns and tasers.

I would even give up my right to speak or vote, before i give up my right to bear arms

If you think gun disarmament works, ask a poor black african how well it has worked for him

La Olsen (134)
Tuesday November 20, 2007, 2:42 pm
I think this is a start! Less guns=less violence!

Lovebug Honey (35)
Tuesday November 20, 2007, 2:52 pm
I guess i will put this in perspective.
If all citizens are to be disarmmed, who is disarmming them? Their government
Um who commits to wars? Governments1
Last i look there is violence and war all over the place and it is the governements doing it.
So the statement Less guns =Less violence is a lie!!!
Less guns more war more genocide of innocent people by their governments. Look at Africa, Look at Burma, Look at Pakistan, look at china

China has strict guns laws and they have govenment execution vans that drive around and kill people


Jaclin S (230)
Tuesday November 20, 2007, 2:57 pm
It seems to be just a vicious circle. Thanx for the infor Lovebug Honey.

Jennie B (14)
Tuesday November 20, 2007, 3:32 pm
This isn't 1776 when the Constitution was originally written and the "Right to Bear Arms" didn't refer to the kinds of guns that individual citizens can own today. Many types of guns are only used to "hunt humans"-these should be outlawed. There needs to be distinctions made between types of guns and gun usage. And people who have proven to be dangerous through an arrest record should lost the right "bear arms" or we have what happened recently in Austin when a man refused to "wait" until police arrived to take on the "bandits" next door and shot them dead. To some he is a hero, but to others he is a man who refused to obey police orders to let the policy handle the situation. These men weren't on his property and he went after them saying, "I'm going to kill you." No surprise the thieves were middle eastern. This is why there are laws and police-most citizens are too prejudice and untrained to use guns effectively and correctly without prejudice in a critical situation. They are more likely to hurt the wrong person, take the law into their own hands, or end up being arrested for killing someone after being warned. This isn't the wild west and a return to that is just scary-men who think they should be able to fire at will and make the decisions about who to shoot and when creates a lawless society. Guns belong in the hands of the police and certified hunters who are only going to kill approved animals during hunting season (I'd outlaw that too if I could!) Noted

serge vrabec (278)
Tuesday November 20, 2007, 10:09 pm
It is our brain that tells our little finger to shoot, I,m a little more worried about the condition of the american brain(seeing as we have the most guns and evidently aren't shy with them). If the brain is working properly i think the gun will be used responsibly. It doesn't look like our country will be attacked in the near future, but who knows? Strange times are ahead with the impacts of climate change coming. Mass migration will be emminent unless the world Govt's act quickly. I see how people act with a full stomach and plenty of water, i would hate to see how they act with a real emergency, i would not like to be in that situation empty-handed. However i do see Jennies point(s), they are valid. I'm just a little concerned about the changes in our constitutional rights with this current Admin. and our world political posture of late, I hope this will change as we all do with the next admin. A gun is always the last resort and always the endgame in polotics. Thx Kathy

The soft, the complacent the self-satisfied societies will be swept away with the debris of history - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Carolyn T (234)
Wednesday November 21, 2007, 1:13 am
Noted, Kactus. If you want to generate some hot conversation you just bring up guns here in America. The framers granted the right to bear arms to a well regulated militia. It did not say others might now own a gun, but the RIGHT TO DO SO IS PROSCRIBED. Neither could the framers imagine the ease of getting guns, the amazing array of guns the private citizen can get. Interesting to see the majority and dissenting opinions the Supremes will write on this. The decision will have a tremendous and far-reaching impact.

Heather H (25)
Wednesday November 21, 2007, 12:14 pm
As a DC resident, I'm blown away by this. I can only pray that the Court comes to the right conclusion.

Bonnie J (10)
Monday December 3, 2007, 3:18 pm
I don't have much faith in this Supreme Court, unfortunately. I actually don't have a problem with responsible, well trained hunters (yes, they are out there; I was one and was married to one) but I have a big problem with trophy hunting and drunks in the woods shooting at anything that moves. I don't have a problem with a family owning a shotgun to protect their home but they should be well trained and follow all safety precautions including locking up their gun and ammunition. I don't think people should carry guns in the street. I have big problems with an entertainment media that trivializes guns and violence. I have a big problem with people owning guns that are overpowered beyond sanity. I'm even more concerned about how these guns proliferate and how they get to this country. It's a big industry. And it's undoubtedly connected to the illegal drug industry and organized crime.

I, personally, think marijuana should be legalized and taxed - and grown as a crop. Other drugs should be fought on the consumer end - not by jail - but by education. If children understood how many other children died so that they can "party", it might change some minds. Of course, that would mean that all us should get involved with the local school system and other groups for kids. It means offering lots of alternative behaviors to getting high. How many of us volunteer for kids activities?

It might not stop robberies, murders, rapes and child abuse but it would sure slow it down.

And we need better schools with higher education for all.

I'm at the time of my life where I'm only interested in intelligent compromises. Banning handguns in cities seems rational to me, but when the NRA gets involved it will turn into a binary issue. "Do you have the right to protect yourself?" and that will trivialize all the factors feeding into crime and violence and poverty in this country.

And if I think this is a very tricky issue, just guess what this Supreme Court will do?

The top NRA representatives went to Congress in the past year or so to argue against a bill that would have required that people that have their guns *stolen* report the theft. Excuse me? Is that how guns are given to criminals? Cause that's what it sounds like to me.

I have friends who belong to the NRA (the base) and they're very responsible hunters (better to be a deer in this country than a factory cow or pig) and I think they get used by people who have a vastly different agenda.

The gun issue is just one thread of a tangle we need to set straight.

And I hope and pray that we can.


Bonnie J (10)
Monday December 3, 2007, 3:23 pm
Just a ps. I don't approve of what some other countries do. I'm not in favor of the war in Iraq. I think crime and guns in this country is a separate issue that can be decided by home voters. This is a specific issue - don't drag it off track by dragging in China or Iraq. I don't agree with that any more than I agree with the NRA dragging it off track by "Do you have the right to defend your family?".

This is a serious issue and it should be looked at in a calm, rational manner that produces ideas and solutions, not rhetoric.

Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.