{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"10429272","dateCreated":"1237812579","smartDate":"Mar 23, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"CBurton-haldeman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/CBurton-haldeman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/apgov08.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/10429272"},"dateDigested":1531983357,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Reaction to Heller","description":"After reading the articles that describe the outcome of the case, describe your reaction to the ruling. What do you think of the Court's decision? What do you think of its possible ramifications? Do you think the Court used their power appropriately in this case?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"10432294","body":"After reading numerous articles that describe the outcome of the D.C. Vs. Heller case, I agree with the supreme court's decision that the second amendment does protect an individual's right to self-defense and gun ownership. Without any reading any analysis and reaction to the case, my first reaction to the case was "Good". Even with the numerous restrictions on gun control, there has been no sign that violence and crime has decreased severly. In my opinion, people are more inclined to break laws regarding the second amendment if they are restricted from a right that is clearly stated in the constitution. Yes, the "right to bear arms" is debatable for it does not clearly state whether it is a collective or individual right. However, if we give individuals the right to bear arms, but continue to keep certain restrictions, there will be less controversy and arguement over the issue. I agree with advocates of the decision who believe that restrictions on the second amendment will prevent individuals from defending themselves. There really is no need for strong dissent over this case. People still need to obtain a license and need to go through strict procedures in order to obtain one.","dateCreated":"1237817384","smartDate":"Mar 23, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"RRajput","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/RRajput","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10432296","body":"After reading articles about the rulings on Heller case, I was not happy with the decision that the Supreme Court made. They ruled that owning weapon is an individual right and it is constitutional under the second amendment. This ruling now proves that owning guns is legal in D.C. and it will result in people to think that they can easily buy and own a gun there. By allowing average citizens to own guns, there is going to be higher rate of crimes and accidents that are related to guns. Like I said in the other discussion, there are more people using guns to commit crimes than people using guns for self-protection. I don't think giving out guns to protect people from the criminals will necessarily protect the people, becuase many people don't have appropriate knowledge about guns and when they should use it. Although some may need guns for their protection, there is higher chance of people abusing the power of having guns, which will result in higher rate of crimes. Therfore, I do not support the ruling of the Heller case.","dateCreated":"1237817385","smartDate":"Mar 23, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"aereex3","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/aereex3","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10432348","body":"I support the Supreme Court's decision to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of the citizens of Washington D.C. I identify why many people want to ban the ownership of guns outright, as they think a ban will stop gun violence. But banning guns will only increase the illegal procurement of guns. Although this is not an exact comparison, think about prohibition. The government banned alcohol in the intention to stop its consumption. But by making it illegal, the 18th amendment created a black market for the alcohol which supplied the still very large demand for alcohol. I am all for regulation of gun ownership, but not for the outright banning of gun ownership. The Court\u2019s decision has continued the tradition in America of gun ownership, and has no radical new ramification for gun ownership in America. This kind of case is exactly what the Court has the power to do. The Court decides on whether or not the bill is legal according to the Constitution. It decided it was not.
\n
\nI absolutely agree with Tom: something needs to be done about all the guns floating around Philadelphia. Things like straw purchases (someone legally buying a gun and selling it to a criminal or someone who cant obtain one) need to be cracked down on. How, I really don\u2019t know.","dateCreated":"1237817452","smartDate":"Mar 23, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"JHope","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/JHope","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1236824253\/JHope-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10432386","body":" After reading the NPR article outlining the results of the case, I feel that the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling upheld the rights outlined in the Constitution. Although the argument that the constitution is a living document, and that amendments need to be interpreted for the times, the rights that the Constitution describe have never changed. Individuals have always carried guns, but the methods of obtaining and registering them have inhibited gun owners more than banning guns all together. I agree with Jake in that the supreme court should make a general ruling, to then be left to state legislatures, but a universal decision and ruling should ensure that gun rights are never restricted to the point where they are unattainable (which was the case in Washington D.C.). I think courts need to spend more time regulating the types of guns being purchased and those who are buying them, rather than preventing law abiding citizens from their right to bear arms.","dateCreated":"1237817488","smartDate":"Mar 23, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"GlenDeGeorge","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/GlenDeGeorge","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10432590","body":"A reaction to Arax's arguement. There is still gun control and protect for the american public. This ruling does not give everyone the right to obtain a gun. There will still be restrictions on the mentally ill, etc. But the fact that individuals now have a right to own a gun prevents any further interpretations of the amendment. This ruling benefits both sides. On one hand, advocates of gun ownership will stop fighting for their right to bear arms. On the other hand, there will still be enough restrictions on gun control to prevent the wrong people from having possession of a gun. Ultimately, violence and crime will not go away. We might as well trust the general public.","dateCreated":"1237817714","smartDate":"Mar 23, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"RRajput","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/RRajput","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10460638","body":"When we consider whether or not banning guns would really lower the crime rate, we run into somewhat of a catch-22. Yes, guns are being taken out of the hands of criminals (who might still be willing and able to obtain them illegally), but we are also removing an important self-defense tool from the hands of decent citizens. I personally lean towards the preservation of a right to own guns because I believe that this will allow decent citizens to protect themselves, while banning guns would give criminals the upper hand. Many of the stipulations in D.C.'s gun laws did violate the second amendment, as I and, evidently, a majority of Supreme Court justices interpret it. From my point of view, the Founders framed the statement in terms of a militia, but they also left it open for a broader interpretation. We must also remember that the Bill of Rights focused largely on INDIVIDUAL rights. They obviously wanted people to have the ability to protect their state and their country, but they also wanted to give people the ability to protect themselves.
\n
\nSome of the laws and provisions of D.C. were perfectly reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. The right to bear arms, like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, is not unlimited. Guns have come a long way since the time of the Founders, but people's moral sense has not necessarily evolved at the same rapid pace. Machine guns and sawed off shotguns are excessive for home defense and for hunting and should be reserved for trained professionals using them in a military or police context. A ban on handguns is unreasonable, because these are effective tools for self defense and they are not excessive. If these were banned, I am not certain that the overall murder and crime rates would go down. Banning guns would leave decent citizens defenseless and empower criminals to use other weapons or illegal guns. The trigger lock\/unloaded and disassembled provision seems to be somewhat of an unreasonable regulation on people who would use guns for self defense. Justice Roberts poked fun at this in the hearings on the case, commenting that assembling the gun seemed to take too long to allow the person to adequately defend themselves against a threat. The average citizen is not an expert at assembling or unlocking guns, and you can be certain that any trespasser will enter his or her house with a weapon already assembled, ready to attack. Thus, this infringes unreasonably upon the right to bear arms.
\n
\nI think that this ruling will essentially define and uphold the Second Amendment as a right to bear arms in the name of personal, state, and national defense. The ruling also provides for reasonable restrictions. The exact definition of that will continue to be debated, ensuring that this is not a real loss for the gun-control lobby. This has been a completely appropriate exercise of the Court's power. The Court rules on Constitutional matters and can clarify the language of the Constitution.","dateCreated":"1237862290","smartDate":"Mar 23, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"msoyfer","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/msoyfer","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10460978","body":"Michael makes a great point that bears repeating (and that will be discussed in more detail)--the Courts consistently accept limits on some liberties within the Bill of Rights; we'll address some of those now and others will come up in our next unit.","dateCreated":"1237863109","smartDate":"Mar 23, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"CBurton-haldeman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/CBurton-haldeman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10461656","body":"I think Jacobs point about comparing gun control to prohibition is somewhat outlandish. The black market for guns is already so incredibly large that by keeping it legal out of a fear of an increasing black market is a weak idea. I understand his point, but the United States murder rate is the highest of any first world country. The 2nd amendment was placed in the constitution in order to give citizens the ability to form their own police force and protect their community. It was never there to protect the use of semi automatic weapons. And Glenn what law abiding citizens "needs" a gun. In all honesty this seems like the most illogical argument I have ever heard. What good has a gun ever done? And in self-protection, you are usually protecting yourself from a person with a gun?","dateCreated":"1237864723","smartDate":"Mar 23, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"wpeltzman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/wpeltzman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10470370","body":"I agree with you Wes about my comparison, and as I stated when I made the comparison, it is a little far fetched but it was the best comparison I could make at the time. Also, I am not justifying the legality of owning a gun because if it were illegal it would create a larger black market. I was instead addressing the faults in the arguement that banning guns would stop gun violence and stop the procurement of guns. Just because you see no need for a gun in your house or do not see the need for anyone to own one does not mean a responsible law abiding citizen should not own one. I personally do not see the need to own a gun (I live in Lower Moreland after all), but I respect the right of others to own a firearm.","dateCreated":"1237902073","smartDate":"Mar 24, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"JHope","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/JHope","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1236824253\/JHope-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10470918","body":"I am happy with the outcome of D.C. v. Heller because I believe that under the 2nd Amendment we are given the right to bear arms. The outcome with a 5-4 vote resulted in the an agreement that the 2nd Amendment applies even when unconnected to the militia. Although I believe that people have the right to bear arms, I also believe that there needs to be gun laws regulating registration, trigger locks, etc. I don't believe that there will any real ramifications, because most of the current legal gun owners follow basic gun protection. the people who are going around the laws are still going to continue to do that. I think that the decision was appropriate and well based on the text, and a good use of their power.","dateCreated":"1237902859","smartDate":"Mar 24, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"dlauren529","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/dlauren529","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10541370","body":"Some of you may be surprised by this, but I'm not completely opposed to the idea of gun ownership. Although I'm not completely convinced that the Framers intended for there to be an individual right to own guns inscribed into the Constitution (clearly, during their time, gun ownership was common, but did they intend to place an INDIVIDUAL right to own guns alongside other rights...I don't know), I do think that the DC law went too far (if for no other reason than it clearly was just begging to be challenged--it's amazing that it took so long). My one concern about the Court's ruling, does it open the door to dismantle gun regulations? The majority decision said, "no"; but I do think that some regulation is reasonable. The Court has allowed for limits on other rights, I hope that they'll approach the 2nd in the same way.","dateCreated":"1238027068","smartDate":"Mar 25, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"CBurton-haldeman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/CBurton-haldeman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10615158","body":"Mrs. Haldeman, I agree with the points you made. It doesn't seem as if there really is any way to tell exactly what the Framers intended. Much of the language of the Constitution is somewhat vague, possibly because the founders may have wanted it to be that way. Souter used this idea in his dissent, when he reasoned that if the Framers intended for this to be an individual right, they would have made that crystal clear. But I think that they meant this to be an individual right, especially in light of the expansion west.","dateCreated":"1238183214","smartDate":"Mar 27, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"msoyfer","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/msoyfer","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":16}]},{"id":"10373594","dateCreated":"1237557647","smartDate":"Mar 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"aereex3","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/aereex3","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/apgov08.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/10373594"},"dateDigested":1531983359,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"right to bear arms","description":"I personally think that we should just eliminate the right to bear arm in all cases,except people who are in fields that relate to security , such as police officers or FBI. I don't really see why it is necessary to have guns. Although many say that it is for their protection and self-defense, I feel like there are more cases of crimes and accidents relating to guns rather than the cases of self protection. When you see the news on TV, there is at least one or two news about people dead due to gunshot everyday. It is true that the right to bear arms has been the constitutional rights for few hundred years, and it is also true that it is going to be extremely hard to enforce the policy. However, I think eliminating the gun rights is the best way to deal with this issue for everyone's saftey.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"10422152","body":"The Second Amendment often seems to be the least favorite and most maligned amendment, particularly for liberals. But I believe there is an absolute right to own guns. People who advocate gun control ignore the fact that, in the rights hands, guns can do a lot of good. In many situations, they give a possible victim an advantage over their assailant. A woman being dragged into an ally by a knife-wielding rapist is helpless, but give her a gun and she can avoid the possibly deadly attack. A person may still be dead, but would you rather it were the law-abiding woman and not the rapist? If you would, by all means, take away her gun. It is important to allow decent citizens to have guns, because if they are banned criminals will still obtain them illegally or rely on other weapons against which many will be helpless. Many believe that this is not what the second amendment provides for because of the inclusion of the militia idea. But the Founder's, though they said militia, certainly meant this to amendment to allow people to protect themselves, whether they do so by joining a militia for the protection of their country or state having a gun for the protection of their home.
\n
\nGuns have evolved a great deal since the Founders' time. Thus, the second amendment cannot be unlimited. I must concede that guns do much more harm than free speech ever could, and if there are restrictions on free speech, there must be on guns. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons must be banned. This will make them harder to obtain for criminals and they are far too excessive for normal home defense and hunting. These limits should be set by Congress and not left to the states. This would probably fall under the commerce clause, but Congress should uniformly ban such weapons in the name of public safety.","dateCreated":"1237777604","smartDate":"Mar 22, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"msoyfer","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/msoyfer","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10422308","body":"In your argument, you cite Columbine as an example of gun violence that should spur us to ban guns. Eradicating the second amendment may actually cause more violence against decent citizens. For instance, if the laws were such that teachers could bring concealed weapons to work, the shooters at Columbine may not have been able to do as much damage. This is probably an unpopular view, but I am simply using it as an example. Additionally, once guns are out of the hands of decent citizens, criminals gain the upper hand, because they will either obtain guns illegally or resort to other weapons with which they will kill the now defenseless decent citizens. It is important to remember that the guns used by the Columbine shooters were not legally obtained, but illegally obtained.","dateCreated":"1237778076","smartDate":"Mar 22, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"msoyfer","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/msoyfer","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"10369906","dateCreated":"1237553860","smartDate":"Mar 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"CBurton-haldeman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/CBurton-haldeman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/apgov08.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/10369906"},"dateDigested":1531983359,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Right To Bear Arms","description":"Desccribe your feelings about the 2nd Amendment. Is there an absolute right to own guns? Are any limits on gun ownership acceptable. Who should establish those limits?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"10373806","body":"I believe that this not a clear response but I feel as citizens we have the absolute right to own guns. But there should be limits on purchasing gun to keep protection over society. Also i think that there should be liscenses to those who own guns. The courts should be deciding thsese limitations and rules and legislation should be dealt with the congressional body. Buercrats should implement these laws that are from with the legislation that was created. Guns are sometimes necessary to have for certain occupations and only those people should have guns. Also those who are mental disablity should be able to purchase guns due to the mental state","dateCreated":"1237557829","smartDate":"Mar 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"x0ar67","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/x0ar67","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10373834","body":"U.S. citizens should have the right to bear arms for protection, but there shouldn't be an absolute right to own guns. There should be strict limits on who gets to own a gun because a gun in the wrong hands can yield to horrible results. A person with a gun has the power to take away the life of another human being,and this power should only be given to those who do not intend to use the weapon for the wrong reasons. People with a history of mental unstability should also not be given the right to own a gun. Although that person may have a right to bear arms under the second amendment, it is for the benefit of society to place these kinds of limits on gun ownership. For example, the shooting that took place at Virginia Tech could have been prevented if Cho's medical history was taken into consideration when the gun retailer sold Cho the weapon. There was evidence that Cho was mentally unstable and this awful event could have been prevented. Also, no one person should be allowed to purchase more than a reasonable number of guns. For what practical reasons does one person need to buy 30 guns? The danger of one person buying an unreasonable amount of guns, however, is that this person could be re-selling these guns with no discretion whatsoever on who he is selling these weapons to.","dateCreated":"1237557855","smartDate":"Mar 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"lindduh","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lindduh","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10373852","body":"I believe that everyone is allowed to own and use guns, as long as they have the proper registration to use guns and for each gun that person owns. However, there should be restrictions on those with a high criminal record or can not handle a weapon properly. Not all criminals, only the ones who committed a high degree crime. The Supreme Court, if they receive a case dealing with the 2nd Amendment, should read the Amendment as it is. Every man has the right to own a gun. Smaller courts can sentence a man for using a gun unlawfully, and the crime would not allow the man to purchase another gun when he was released. If Congress passes a law to make these restrictions, then the Supreme Court should not have to worry about the 2nd Amendment at all.","dateCreated":"1237557870","smartDate":"Mar 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"MDranzik","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/MDranzik","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10373880","body":"I do not believe that gun ownership is a fundamental right. It is a privilege that should only be bestowed upon responsible citizens who pass a test demonstrating knowledge of safe operation of a firearm. There should also be a limit on the number of guns someone can own. 37 guns are not necessary unless they are part of a historical collection, in which case, they need not be functional. People should need a license to purchase all guns, not just handguns and assault rifles. Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases, including those at gun shows and private sales.
\n
\nA limitation on gun ownership should be regulated by Congress, not Charlton Heston.","dateCreated":"1237557904","smartDate":"Mar 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"SamKenney","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/SamKenney","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1236123597\/SamKenney-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10373942","body":"It's difficult to have a clear stance on the gun control issue since I have never been affected by it. Although I believe we should abide by the amendments of the constitution, everyone does not have the right to own guns. I believe that one must follow extensive procedures in order to obtain and hold a gun. Although this may be difficult to control, I believe that citizens who have previously committed any type of felony should not have the right to own a gun. If there were no limits on gun ownership, our nation would be in disarray. People who do not have the mental stability to hold possession of a gun would be able to obtain a gun, something that could hurt or kill innocent civilians. Congress should be able to establish limits on gun control.","dateCreated":"1237557981","smartDate":"Mar 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"RRajput","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/RRajput","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10373988","body":"The 2nd Amendment promises the right to bear arms. However, this was written in a time that had a different outlook on the posession of guns. In this time, guns were used for self defense and protection, however the times have changed. Limits on gun control should be established and enforcerd, more for the safety of others than the owners. The idea of needing a license to own a gun is certainly necessary, but I feel that more restrictions must be made. These restrictions should be put in place by the federal government, as local or state laws would lead people to simply go to the states that had softer policies. As guns should not have excessively tight restrictions, it must be ensured that they do not fall into the wrong hands. The mentally ill, or those with a history of violence with guns, or any other circumstances that could deem gun ownership a threat not only to the person, but those around him.
\n
\nAs the 2nd Amendement establishes the right to bear arms, it does not and should not ensure the ultimate right to own a gun. As the amendment was written in a time that almost required one to have a gun on hand at all times for protection, the situation has changed drastically, and restrictions must be in place.","dateCreated":"1237558018","smartDate":"Mar 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"teckard","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/teckard","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10373998","body":"I feel that it is a person\u2019s right, and government's responsibility to ensure that the gun rights outlined in the 2nd amendment are upheld. However with the development in gun technology and the destructive nature of some types of weapons, it then becomes government\u2019s responsibility to not only protect the safety of the public by limiting what types of guns you can by, but also protect those who serve to protect the public good.
\n This year alone we have seen more members of the Philadelphia Police Department die because of gun related injuries. But we have to keep in mind that it is the individuals that committed the crime that killed them, not the guns themselves. Therefore government should focus more on qualifications of gun buyers more than distributors and manufacturers themselves.
\n In response to Niv\u2019s statement regarding that \u201cwe must not allow the possession of weapons that can kill people\u201d; all weapons can kill people. When we start to differentiate between things that can and cannot kill people, that is when government has crossed the line. Potentially I could fill a water gun with acid and do just as much harm. If we ban guns all together, we loose some of the core principals that the country was founded on. Our loss to protect ourselves, rather than having government do it for us is a loss of our own individual freedoms. Instead of banning guns all together, Congress should introduce legislation that defines qualifications for individuals to buy only certain types of guns deemed appropriate for civilian use.","dateCreated":"1237558024","smartDate":"Mar 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"GlenDeGeorge","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/GlenDeGeorge","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10374144","body":"Also, a committee designed to study the pattern of gun purchasers should be the specialized and knowledgeable group that sets the limits on gun distribution. These limits should not be vague but specific.","dateCreated":"1237558187","smartDate":"Mar 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"lindduh","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lindduh","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10381726","body":"The Constitution says, "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." As has been demonstrated by your comments, clearly this phrasing remains open for interpretation. While most of you agree that some regulation is necessary, a few of you are clearly wary of government attempts to dismantle the 2nd Amendment with regulations. Others, however, make valid points about the changing nature of the world--and, perhaps, the need to see the Constitution as a 'living document'. The Framers certainly couldn't have envisioned guns that could kill many people in a matter of seconds. The question then remains, what types of regulations are reasonable and who should be responsible for making those rules. You'll see in the Heller case that the city of D.C. argued that strict regulations were needed to protect the people. Heller, on the other hand, argued that such (and, perhaps any) regulations violated one of his basic rights. We'll continue to see that this debate is far from over.","dateCreated":"1237569891","smartDate":"Mar 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"CBurton-haldeman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/CBurton-haldeman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10392232","body":"After reading the two articles, I'm glad to see that the Court's decision agrees with my idea. Owning weapons is an individual right, not just those who were in the military. As long as those individuals use the guns for defensive purposes only, they should be allowed a license and be allowed to have them in the house. Of course they should be out of reach of children and curious neighbors. My father is a former Marine and a hunter, and thus owns many guns. Many are not even usuable. The ones that are packed away have a gun lock on them (I laughed out loud at Dellinger's comment about the "3 second" gun lock. Yeah like that's gonna do you any good. That's why there's a safety on the gun)and there are a few hidden around in case we need them. I feel very safe to know that there are guns in my house and can only be found by those who know where they are. I agree with Glen on the fact that anything can be a weapon, and all weapons can kill. Getting rid of guns is not going to stop murder and crime, it'll just give less protection to those that need protecting and people will just use other weapons to cause crimes. We get rid of guns and all of a sudden we have people with knives and swords runnin around causing havoc. I was surprised to see that handguns were basically restricted, even though those are quicker and easier gun to use in a paniced or drastic situation. I am glad for the minimal restrictions though. No person needs a machine gun or a "sawed-off" shotgun (those things are so stupid, only for the movies kids). The more restrictions there are, the more people will break them so it's best to keep it to a minimum. Overall I am happy with the Court's decision.","dateCreated":"1237596414","smartDate":"Mar 20, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"MDranzik","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/MDranzik","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10411048","body":"Many people have pointed out that the second amendment was written in a different time period when citizens needed to protect themselves from the British and Native Americans. And while this is true, people have to take into consideration that threats still exist. They may not take the form of Native Americans or British soldiers invading the homes of American citizens, but what about robbery, murder, and rape cases? In an ideal world, nobody should possess a weapon such as a gun. But the reality is that if we ban the right to own guns now, there will still be people out there who possess guns or go out of their way to get their hands on such a weapon. It is dangerous for the wrong people to gain an advantage through the government making citizens more vulnerable by taking away their right to protect themselves.","dateCreated":"1237745627","smartDate":"Mar 22, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"lindduh","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lindduh","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"10412140","body":"The right to bear arms definitely should be a right of the American people, but definitely under proper circumstances. Weapons should not be easy to buy and should require some kind of proof that the person does not have any dangerous or illegal motives. Guns are extremely dangerous and are the cause of many of the crimes out of the streets today. I think it is crazy that a kid like the one from Virginia tech was able to get a hold of a gun, especially after he had all those violent thoughts out on paper. If someone could have examined him or even had a decent conversation with him, it would have been obvious that he had violent and mental problems. Guns should not be easy to obtain and should not be a common thing to have in your house. The only people who should be able to obtain guns easily and without a intense search are soldiers.","dateCreated":"1237750710","smartDate":"Mar 22, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"jfaynleyb","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/jfaynleyb","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":13}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}