We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
Music to my ears. It is the music of the basic human right to self-defence being protected. I think I'll read it again, and then bring out the champagne.
The struck-down DC anti-gun law was passed in the year 1976, our Bicentennial, the beginning of the infamous 'watergate congress' that gave us the Vietnam skedaddle (and its following southeast Asian genocide), the CIA-destroying Church Committee, and the Terror War-enabling Jimmy Carter election.
Since then DC, under the anti-gun law because "DC is not a state, and therefor not protected by 2nd Amendment", has suffered by some measures the highest personal violent crime rate in the country.
The law has evidently done nobody but street criminals any good.
Apparently DC residents are, nonetheless, American citizens.
It is always difficult to undo mistakes. Best not to make them in the first place. My nephew at Georgetown was mugged in DC this week. Beaten up by four black guys, robbed, and left lying on the sidewalk. I would not be surprised if he seeks a carry permit.
Ummm, you appear confused about gun ownership. Claiming that opportunity for your self, hopefully a mature and responsible adult, does by accident give the same right to the immature, violent, and irresponsible. Further, by lowering the barrier to purchase it floods the relevant markets, above and below notice, with weapons who purpose is not contained in the objects themselves. Which is to say that any given gun may be used for good or ill. It is the ill of which we are concerned.
JMLewis, I could argue that removing our rights in order that we not hurt ourselves is wildly insane, even a glass of water can kill. but I won't go that route. All I need to do to refute yopur point is to point to the data on crime where the citizens fight back, as opposed to where they're not allowed to. Respectfully suggest you do a little research before buying into the wrong argument.