Here's your "conservative" President..(PV)

[daveofspades]

The Department of Justice, a part of the Executive Branch under the control of Bushy, has declared that private gun ownership is a "threat". The story is here.

So, explain to me why I should vote for yet another Republican who will betray all that I believe in simply because he's not "as bad" as the Dem?

[jtkratzer]

Well, I read this, the first paragraph, and I don't think I need to read any more of it:

Since "unrestricted' private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.

First off, who the hell defines unrestricted private ownership as what we have today? So California, New Jersey, New York, Chicago...these are all places where private gun ownership is unrestricted?

Secondly, I don't see anywhere in the 2A writing that says anything along the lines of "Here's what we think is ok for now, but if you guys want to change it a little bit or all together f*ck it up later, go ahead."

[jackbauer]

Originally Posted by daveofspades

The Department of Justice, a part of the Executive Branch under the control of Bushy, has declared that private gun ownership is a "threat". The story is here.

So, explain to me why I should vote for yet another Republican who will betray all that I believe in simply because he's not "as bad" as the Dem?

You need to read the whole story you cite, my friend. This is an "incremental" battle and it is clear, even in the WND story, that the administration is arguing against the DC gun ban. The administration does not endorse any "new" restrictions on guns but only renews its support of existing restrictions on machine guns (yes, I know...but one thing at a time here) and felons.

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by jackbauer

You need to read the whole story you cite, my friend. This is an "incremental" battle and it is clear, even in the WND story, that the administration is arguing against the DC gun ban. The administration does not endorse any "new" restrictions on guns but only renews its support of existing restrictions on machine guns (yes, I know...but one thing at a time here) and felons.

It also says that the DC ruling went to far to ban handgun ownership altogether...

I disagree that a gun ban, like DC's, can't be overturned by using the Second Amendment.

[east_stingray]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

It also says that the DC ruling went to far to ban handgun ownership altogether...

I disagree that a gun ban, like DC's, can't be overturned by using the Second Amendment.

I don't remember which thread I posted this in, but DC is one of the only cases where the second amendment directly prohibits a ban. DC is not a state and is under the direct control of the federal government. The second amendment has not been "incorporated" to apply to the states, so it only applies to the Fed. DC is one of the only places where a ban is unconstitutional. City bans are constitutional so long as they don't violate the state constitution.

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by east_stingray

I don't remember which thread I posted this in, but DC is one of the only cases where the second amendment directly prohibits a ban. DC is not a state and is under the direct control of the federal government. The second amendment has not been "incorporated" to apply to the states, so it only applies to the Fed. DC is one of the only places where a ban is unconstitutional. City bans are constitutional so long as they don't violate the state constitution.

If that's the case, why haven't we seen more bans? Why was the ban in San Francisco overturned?

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

If that's the case, why haven't we seen more bans? Why was the ban in San Francisco overturned?

Because the frisco ban over-road the state. Can't do that.

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Because the frisco ban over-road the state. Can't do that.

Does that mean Chicago is hopeless?

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

Does that mean Chicago is hopeless?

I don't think there is anything specific in Ill. law that say specifically that Chicago can't do what they do.
They upheld the Morton Grove ban too.

[VaGunNut]

Originally Posted by east_stingray

I don't remember which thread I posted this in, but DC is one of the only cases where the second amendment directly prohibits a ban. DC is not a state and is under the direct control of the federal government. The second amendment has not been "incorporated" to apply to the states, so it only applies to the Fed. DC is one of the only places where a ban is unconstitutional. City bans are constitutional so long as they don't violate the state constitution.

What about that pesky 14th amendment?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Isn't the second amendment a privilege/right reserved for the people?