2A Supreme Court Review or Not?
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:36 pm
After watching one of the few conservative personalities on TV last night I was introduced to the fact that, somehow, the supreme court may or may not decide to review the 'DC' gun control laws as per this link. http://www.rationalreview.com/2am/
To me the 2A is just plain old common sense, which most ALL liberals (that created the DC, criminal favoring gun laws) seem to be devoid of.
At first I thought this was a gag, but then realized quickly that it wasn't.
I don't know about the rest of you, but just the thought of our Gov't as it stands, weighing in on the 2A gives me chills up and down my spine.
On one hand, a supreme court decision to strike down the idiots (DC) gun restrictive laws would be a very positive thing for the USA as a whole for fighting crime among other reasons, as DC's murder rate is one of the highest in the nation and has been fostered by these so called gun laws. This would no doubt lead to precedent for the rest of us in some capacity.
On the other hand, opening up that possible vulnerability of putting our beloved 2A in the hands of those we barely trust or don't trust at all to begin with, seems unconscionable to me, or has it always been that way?
And, God forbid, what would happen if the 2A was ruled only to apply to the 'militia'?
What are your thoughts on this?
To me the 2A is just plain old common sense, which most ALL liberals (that created the DC, criminal favoring gun laws) seem to be devoid of.
At first I thought this was a gag, but then realized quickly that it wasn't.
I don't know about the rest of you, but just the thought of our Gov't as it stands, weighing in on the 2A gives me chills up and down my spine.
On one hand, a supreme court decision to strike down the idiots (DC) gun restrictive laws would be a very positive thing for the USA as a whole for fighting crime among other reasons, as DC's murder rate is one of the highest in the nation and has been fostered by these so called gun laws. This would no doubt lead to precedent for the rest of us in some capacity.
On the other hand, opening up that possible vulnerability of putting our beloved 2A in the hands of those we barely trust or don't trust at all to begin with, seems unconscionable to me, or has it always been that way?
And, God forbid, what would happen if the 2A was ruled only to apply to the 'militia'?
What are your thoughts on this?