Thank You Supreme Court!

In this article written by Robert Barnes in the Washington Post. He discusses the ruling that the Supreme Court made over the D.C. gun ban. It was shot down in a 5 to 4 vote over the matter. With Justice Antonin Scalia defending the decision made by the majority and Justice John Paul Stevens leading the opposing view. The battle that per seeded between the two was both dismissive and caustic. Scalia made a 64 page opinion in which 56 of those pages viewed the historical context behind the ratification of the 2nd amendment. Stevens also came out with 46 page opinion in which he rebutted Scalia. The battle between the two that persisted after was basically just a line battle. Line by line the argued with one another till it finally end with neither on top. This ruling will be the foundation upon which all other gun laws will be held. That is why it was such an uproar, because every politician is freaked out about the possibilty of raving lunatics running around with guns. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!, they are already out there!

With the ruling that was made, several D.C. officials were disappointed and said that they will just put such heavy regulations on guns that it will be just like having a gun ban.

Really? Come on! I still do not see the problem with letting people carry guns. Ok just because you put these restrictions out there does not mean a thing. Yes a law abiding citizen will contend with the rule. Yet what about the people who break the rules, do you honestly think that give a care about your silly little restrictions? The only reason that these people probably dont have guns themselves, or even have the opinion to regulate them, is because they most likely all live in a gated community with a whole squad of guards at the gate. We should experiment with them and let them live in an apartment in the middle of a city. Now when the thugs come to steal from them, lets see if they want to regulate guns then!

Such a GRAY Area!

In the article provided by Awesome Library, it shows how big of a gray area the 2nd Amendment really is even though it seems straight forward. On this topic of gun control, it shows the argument of two major parties that effect the debate on gun control. One is the famous and well know NRA (National Riflemens Assosiation) and the other is Handgun Control (the Brady Center). The Brady Center is also in conjunction with the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. In the arguments made by each faction, you can see how each interprets the 2nd Amendment. But it still boils down to what the Supreme Court has to say about the amendment.

Each can bring up a point about what they think it says, but my heart still lies with how the NRA interrprets it. The other side can still not come up with a valid, solid argument on the subject. Honestly I have not seen an argument made by the opposing side that makes any sense. They pull up, or create statistics that can have holes poked in them, they can not hold up.

Yet from an unbiased view I can make, the 2nd amendment is a big gray area that can be interpreted in many different ways. This argument will never be settled or even comprimised on in the near future. There may be a lot of regulations put on guns, but they will never go away not matter what the law.

How stupid must you be?

This web page discusses the pro's and con's of having a gun in the home. It was created by the website Youbebate.com, and it allows for different contributors to debate about their view on the topic. Most of the arguments on this page are statistics that hold true for both the pro and the con side of the debate. Yet each stat that the con side uses to shoot down the pro side has more to it than it states. For example in this particular argument made by a contributer," Research indicates that residents of homes where a gun is present are five times more likely to experience a suicide and three times more likely to experience a homicide than residents of homes without guns." Another study could be done on these households, about whether the people had any imbalances. Chances are that there are factors that play into these statistics being true. I am not saying that the pro argument is sound proof, but it is more believable than the knit pickiness of the con side. I am sure that those stats came from unstable households.