“Since the two rulings, Supreme Court judges have been debating whether these decisions should apply nationally, therefore overruling preexisting state and city laws.”

There has only been 1 ruling…. DC v. Heller

“But choosing to only follow the parts of the Constitution that we like or that fit for a given debate is only going to cause more problems and open the courts up for more legal challenges.”

The rest of the Bill of Rights has already been applied to the states. So by NOT doing it, we would be picking and choosing. Please get your facts straight before you author a “news article” as a “journalist.”

Flag for moderation

First, and as an incidental comment, no one has a right to safety, much less a right to feel safe.

Second, the second amendment is not about hunting or even mostly about self defense in your home. It is about retaining the right to effective arms in the hands of citizens and declining to give government a monopoly on the means to inflict deadly force. The first shot fired in the American Revolution was fired when the British sought to deprive colonists in Lexington and Concord of arms.

The individuals who wrote our founding documents had just successfully overthrown a government by force of arms. They wanted to make sure their successors would have the means to do so again, should the occasion arise.

And never assume the occasion will not arise again. In the 1930s Germany was a civilized, western nation. By the mid 1940s Germany had become a place where wholly innocent persons were taken to the labor camps, the gas chambers and ultimately the furnaces. Arms to resist would have been welcome but they were forbidden to undesirables.

If ordinary people are forbidden arms, then only criminals and the government will be armed. And it is too often the case that the criminals and the government are not two different groups of people. Witness Pol Pot, Stalin, Idi Amin; the list could be very long indeed.

Finally, consider that over three quarters of the states now have large numbers of citizens carrying concealed weapons. Those states generally have much lower rates of violence than places that forbid the practice. Chicago is a poster city for the folly of forbidding the carrying of weapons.

Flag for moderation

I really must thank you for this article. It is inaccurate drivel such as this, coupled with THE SKY IS FALLING fallaciousness, that the right to self defense side has enjoyed so many pro-second amendment victories lately. Evidently your definition and my definition of “safety” differ greatly. My definition consists of taking personal responsibility for myself and the community in which I live, not waiting for the government to legislate me into a false sense of security. No matter how hard you try to return, that warm feeling of being coddled by mommy and daddy has ended. Since 1986 states have been issuing carry permits. Be it news to you, as of 2008 all but two states Wisconsin, Illinois and D.C. have a carry permit law in place. The sky has not fallen. Blood is not flowing knee deep in the streets. Though the liberal biased media would have us believe otherwise. It makes me sad that you cast aspersions at a law-abiding portion of the American public. It would be wrong to blame all Americans that drive a car for the irresponsible acts of drunk drivers; wrong to hold pilots of airplanes accountable for the few that choose to fly into government buildings. Blaming all gun owners and carry permit holders for the actions of a few unstable people is equally just as wrong. As for safety, your best defense is a good offense. Be responsible for yourself. Be capable of defending yourself if trouble does arise, and stop depending on police and the government to do it for you. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Flag for moderation

The authorette actually asks “If this ruling goes through, am I going to start seeing revolvers in class?” as if they’re are no revolvers already in her classes.

Hannah needs to realize that where ever she goes, guns are already there. Look around where ever you are….the mall, the campus, the bus, the market, the theater. Someone in your sight right now is armed.

Flag for moderation

“Even though the right to own a gun is constitutional, present debates begs the question of what the founding fathers really meant.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I agree that the present debates are often full of logical fallacies, but I’m guessing that you meant to use the term “raise the question.”

Flag for moderation

While many states do not allow carry on the streets, MOST states do.

Also, this flat-out freaking scares me for the Nation’s future.

“If that’s true, I’d rather have my amendment rights violated then make it easier for people to buy guns who shouldn’t be allowed to have them. “

You deserve to have ALL your rights violated if you are ok with just one of them. This is a spit in the eye to the concept of what it means to be an American. As much as your drivel upsets me, I still wouldn’t want the 1st Amendment to be violated to remove your right to pass on excrement from a bull.

And what is up with my verification? Two plus Four equals (hint: six) Are we really that stupid that we need the hint?

Flag for moderation

Just to let you know- the definition of criminal is someone who does not obey laws.

Therefore, if a person already breaks laws, nothing is going to stop said person from illegally obtaining guns.
That’s right folks, they can buy guns illegally, without government knowledge- fancy that!!!

So, the more gun restrictions in place would only lead to more criminals being the only ones with guns, besides the authorities, which may eventually loose that right anyway.

Flag for moderation

“How do we decide what is more important, personal safety or personal rights?”
By using a gun for self defense, I add to my personal safety and exercise personal rights.
Where is the conflict?

Flag for moderation

Right to safety??? That’s a new one to me. Safety is first and foremost a personal responsibility.

Flag for moderation

“Although the Second Amendment gave citizens the right to buy firearms, the federal government has allowed cities and states to write their own laws allowing or banning firearm ownership”

Utter unmitigated horsepoop.

No part of the Bill of Rights “gives” citizens the right to do anything. In US v Cruikshank, SCOTUS ruled that the Bill of Rights in general, and the Second Amendment in particular, recognize a right that existed prior to the writing of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the federal government they establish and that the right mentioned is not dependent upon said government for its existance. The amendment merely forbids the government from infringing on that right.

Flag for moderation

DDS sums up the issue succinctly: “Utter unmitigated horsepoop.” and his entire second paragraph.

1! Flag for moderation

If you read the writings of the founders, it’s clear that they recognize an individual right to self defense every bit as much as they recognized and individual right to privacy. All those who say they are trying to discover/decide what the founders meant are trying to cloud the issue. Its absolutely clear what the founders meant, and it’s absolutely clear there are those who not only disagree with them but will go to any length they can to abolish/infringe upon that right.

Flag for moderation

Seriously? Are you like 12? Over half of your article is just flat out wrong. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to buy guns? Wow, I can’t believe someone actually put this online. The eastern echo is clearly in your empty head. Amazing, absolutely amazing.

Flag for moderation

Thank you for eliminating one college from consideration for my soon to be college age daughter. The sub-title of the Echo is news and nonsense. This article must be filed under utter nonsense. Anyone that thinks that the constitutions gives anyone anything hasn’t done their homework. The constitution grants powers to government and limits those powers, by the governed. Additionally the Bill Of Rights applies to the people, since only people have rights and government has powers. And just because you don’t like a right does not give you the power to deny the rights of others. This is why the founding fathers gave us a constitutionally limited republic and not a democracy. The founding fathers intent was that the people could defend themselves. And they knew that the major use of armies then and now was against their own people. Remember during the Revolution we were fighting “our” government and army.

Flag for moderation

Amazing.

Have you ever heard of a concept called “fact checking”? Most of the drivel you wrote as if stating a fact is simply wrong.

May I suggest, if you are currently thinking to work in the journalism field, that you take up another line of work? Something that doesn’t make you think or require knowledge would be a good start.

Flag for moderation

Hannah wrote this nugget: “Guns are everywhere and it’s never the safe, smart people who respect and follow the laws that lose their minds and come barging into post offices or schools to shoot innocent people.” Even a spring chicken sometimes stumble upon an ACORN.

Which is what most responders are saying. So, why does it make us more safe the preserve that status quo, that is to prevent the sane people from being able to defend themselves – and innocent young minds like Hannah? That is like saying, we must remove motor vehicles from all do do NOT drink and drive.

To play devil’s advocate, perhaps the right to vote should come with an intelligence check. After all, the German people elected the Nazi party and with that, Adolf Hitler. The rest of the story is well known. Germany and much of Europe in ruins because any idiot was allowed to vote.

Flag for moderation

Major :
“No matter how hard you try to return, that warm feeling of being coddled by mommy and daddy has ended.”

Thank you for being so honest about your psychological problems. When did it end for you, or did you ever have it?
My guess is daddy “taught” you that lesson early.
So, do you have any more honesty in you?

Flag for moderation

For the gun control people, if the founders wanted us to be able to bear arms, what stronger language could they have chosen than “shall not be infringed” They picked the strongest language possible. There is nothing stronger. That is what they meant. There is plenty of weaker terms which they could have chosen if they wanted it limited.

Flag for moderation

There are three severe misunderstandings in your essay here.

1) The 2nd Amendment does NOT give “citizens the right to buy firearms”. This is important! The 2nd Amendment confirms that, by virtue of being a human being, we are BORN with that right. The government does NOT give it. You should have known that.

2) States that mandate “shall-issue” concealed weapon permits to citizens who are not violent offenders or certifiably crazy, make one jump through hoops including background checks and training. This will not change. There is no reason to be concerned about that.

3) Your “right to safety” is contained WITHIN the 2nd, not threatened by it. One calls the police AFTER a rape, AFTER a beating, AFTER an abduction, etc. Your “right to safety” starts with you. Don’t dare try to criminalize one who has taken their own safety as their own responsibility.

Flag for moderation

Hannah,

Your research on this topic is not worthy of a student who has reached college level. It is rife with error and many have pointed out already but I am sure you will rectify those errors in the next piece you write explaining all those errors.

Keep trying.

Flag for moderation

Let’s all take a deep breath.
What is meant by the second amendment is always up for debate. How can anyone say for certain what our founding fathers meant by some of the language in that amendment.
I believe that they meant the right to bear arms was for the militia. Remember we did not have at the time of the American Revolution, a standing army, and after we obtained our freedom were still wary of standing armies. Therefore, the concept of the people to be called upon when needed. Kind of like a national guard. Our leaders at the time could not possibly forsee what was in the future. By the time of the War of 1812, if not earlier, we realized that a standing army and navy were absolutely necessary to defend our nation.
Jumping to today, if any of you who own guns think for one minute if the federal government decided to take all of our rights away, that you with your revolver or rifle is some how going to defeat an army are nuts. The only way to win in that situation is to have the armed forces not go along with the government.
Since the militia concept is no longer needed, neither are guns for the general public.

Flag for moderation

Kenneth Barna, sprinkle in a few facts and poof. Did Our Founding Fathers also go to Super Walmart to buy groceries? Did they call the police when there was a robbery? Or did they not eat or get robbed back then? Many of our Founding Fathers were intellectual giants, “Our leaders at the time could not possibly forsee what was in the future.” my arse, you sir are a buffoon.

Flag for moderation

So Kenneth,

“How can anyone say for certain what our founding fathers meant by some of the language in that amendment.
I believe that they meant the right to bear arms was for the militia.”

Well you can start by reading the Federalists papers. Then you can start to analyze the use of words and phrases from that time period. It will be quite clear that the intent was to make sure the government didn’t deprive the citizenry of their right to own firearms.

“if any of you who own guns think for one minute if the federal government decided to take all of our rights away, that you with your revolver or rifle is some how going to defeat an army are nuts.”

You apparently haven’t been watching the news for the last 9 years. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been doing quite well even though they are seriously out gunned. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the military would be unlikely to attack American citizens, especially if they agreed with them. And just so you know, there are many, many, many private citizens that would give up their life before they gave up their weapons.

Flag for moderation

Oh, and btw Kenneth,

“What is meant by the second amendment is always up for debate.”

Unless you don’t consider the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller to be the last word, it isn’t up for debate anymore. The right of The PEOPLE has now been upheld as law.

Flag for moderation

To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable
person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something
which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and
idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet
both criteria. Let’s, for the sake of argument, suppose that the
Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like
this: “A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance
of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall
not be infringed.” Does anyone really believe that liberals would
claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to
buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the
last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a
book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet
an “educational purpose” test? Would some States limit citizens to
buying “one book a month”? Would inflammatory “assault books” be
banned in California?

Flag for moderation

Well here we go again,
If you people who are so in love with guns and have some insight to what was actually thought, at a particular time in history, as well as absolutely knowing what every individual at that time was thinking, well shut my mouth, you people are just amazing. Why are you wasting your time on this blog? You of superior knowledge should be finding a cure for cancer, how we can have a balanced federal budget, or the best way to get to Mars.
As far as history goes – maybe you heard of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956? Wasn’t very successful. Or maybe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1944? Didn’t really work. And if you read my initial statement I said that if the armed forces would not support a government takeover. Maybe you should find your reading glasses.
If you want to die with your hands wrapped around your guns – go for it.
Amendments were added to the Constitution, and because of that they have been debated ever since. In case you don’t know, anything can be changed.

Flag for moderation

“well shut my mouth”

If you show your ignorance when you speak as much as you do when you type, you’d be better off shutting your own mouth.

Flag for moderation

Dear Mr.gdogs,
All people like you can do is try and insult people instead of arguing the merits of any discussion. So when you speak of ignorance you only have to look in the mirror.

Flag for moderation

Kenneth,

I didn’t try and insult you, I straight out did. If you had any merits to bring to this discussion, you should have brought them up. All I saw was you spouting off liberal talking points and your worthless opinions of why citizens shouldn’t have and don’t need guns.

Flag for moderation

Dear gdogs,
As I said before if you want an argument, discuss the various points of the opposition.
You and your ilk have not addressed my points of the Hungarian and Warsaw uprisings of guns versus tanks and that’s why they failed, nor have you said anything about militias that are mentioned in the second amendment. I fail to see how these are liberal talking points.
Finally, if you check supreme court decisions throughout our history, they have reversed previous decisions because of changing times. Therefore, nothing is carved in stone.

Flag for moderation

I see certain similarities between the gun issue and health care debate.

No politician even one as anti-gun as Pres. Obama is going to touch gun control because it has become a issue toxic to those running for office. Way things look now health care especially the single payer system, is heading down that road too.

The people sent out a message you vote for gun control we vote you out. Now that threat is being aimed at Congress again with healthcare.

Pres. Obama is willing to sacrifice his party for some deluded notion that it will have a long term payoff for his liberal agenda. If the DEMS lose big in 2010 and then the WH in 2012. What ever gains Obama makes will get pulled back, unlike the DEMS when the GOP are in charge they get things done.

Gun Control is like Socialized Medicine, no one wants it except the elites who are above suffering from its effects. Do you thin Obama or Pelosi will ever need a CCW to defend themselves because they live in a crime infested ghetto Do you thin they will need a govt program to pay their medical bills.

Flag for moderation