2nd amendment rights question....?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...." is it just me or are these new laws in places like DC completely stupid? i mean isnt that gonig against the constitution of the untied states?!? yes i know that it might slow gun crimes, but if congress would go aginst their own constiution, what then? whats next? they are going to take away our civil liberties? idk maybe we should start a petition or something against these new gun laws....thoughts ppl???

exactly! these are our civil liberties which our ancestors fought to hard to protect... they finally did, and now people are trying to take them away again! obviously certain people shouldn't have weapons... we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and each is infringed upon if we are attacked or killed... this issues our need to have a right to protect ourselves... and if our right to bear arms is taken away.... who knows what's next???

The Supreme court recently passed legislation stating that all persons (of legal age) may buy and train and get a license to own and carry a weapon.
Before you panic completely, gun 'ban' laws in this country do not work. Police spend countless hours trying to catch people with guns, forget it. Legalizing gun ownership, puts weapons in the hands of everyone...In Canada this is the case and they have an incredibly low crime rate. Perhaps because of the even playing field. It's sad, but true.

I think we should have a petition!!! - FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT fixing the broken 2nd Amendment.

The right to bear arms is one thing. Free handguns and criminals with assault rifles is another.

Clearly, the Supreme Court now says that a person has an INDIVIDUAL right to a handgun--they just invented that right--which makes your outrage lame.

First, calm down. Take a deep breath. Relax, listen to some soothing music, and read further.

In District of Columbia et al vs. Heller, No. 07-290 (2008) by a 5-4 vote the US Supreme Court overruled the US District Court for the District of Columbia and declared a home-rule ordinance of the District of Columbia unconstitutional where it placed a blanket prohibition on the private ownership of firearms.

However, the decision above opened as many questions as it answered: 1) Does it apply automatically to the states as well? Some legal scholars say it does, but the majority opinion of the Supreme Court did not specificaly state as much. The only way it applies to a state law is if the Court finds a way to incorporate the 2nd amendment into the 14th Amendment's equal protection or due process of law protections. 2) Does this ruling apply to ordinance in Chicago, Los Angeles, etc, cities with very similar laws to Washington? Again, the Court didn't say. It ruled very narrowly that the right to own firearms is an individual right, not a collective right, but other than that, it was largely silent.

Another factor to consider: the District of Columbia is not a state. It is a federal territory, which has been granted limited home rule by Congress. Therefore, although federal law prevails everywhere, unlike a state or city, the only respondent superior to D.C. is the federal government. It coudl be argued (and probably will be) that another city, such as Chicago, is responsible to Illinois, and therefore, the ruling above might not apply to Chicago.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the decision. I'm going to leave those thoughts for another time and/or blog. However, do your research before flying off the handle. I also suggest you read the decision. It can be found at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/07-290.ht...

Hope this helps clarify things for you.