Do you think the Second Amendment gives the individual a right to own a gun?

News Observer

The U.S. Supreme Court is on the brink of issuing what could be its most important ruling ever on the controversial Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Gun rights and gun control advocates alike are anxiously awaiting the high court’s ruling, the first time since 1939 that the nation’s top justices have tackled the Second Amendment. A decision could come this week.

“I feel the founding fathers gave us this right,” said Henry Williams, 54, a Raleigh resident who attended the Capital City Gun Show at the N.C. State Fairgrounds on Sunday. “I don’t see that anybody has the right to take it away from us.”

But Roxane Kolar, executive director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence, argues that gun rights advocates have misconstrued the Second Amendment. Moreover, she contends, “Most people believe in gun safety and sensible gun legislation.”

At issue in the Supreme Court case is Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns.

That ban was challenged by a D.C. special police officer who is entitled to carry a gun while working as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center but was denied a permit to keep a firearm in his home. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the ban violates the Second Amendment; the district appealed that ruling, and the case was argued before the Supreme Court in March.

The Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791, states: “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.”

That wording is ambiguous enough for both sides of the gun control issue to find comfort. The gun lobby says it grants individuals the right to bear arms. Gun control organizations contend the right to bear arms is restricted to serving in a government-sanctioned militia.


Associated Press

ROME – President Bush on Thursday strongly disagreed with a Supreme Court ruling that clears foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Bush suggested new legislation may now be needed to keep the American people safe.

“We’ll abide by the court’s decision,” Bush said during a news conference in Rome. “That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.” The court’s decision was sure to be popular in Europe, where many leaders have called for the closing of Guantanamo.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court’s liberal justices were in the majority.

“It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented,” Bush said. “And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security.”

I’d like to hear feed back from people who might agree with President Bush.

I’m not sure I understand the justification for denying people their day in court and why all evidence against them isn’t presented to a judge. Not everyone in Guantanamo is guilty. They should be able to speak their side of the story. If they are in fact guilty and the evidence suggest so, then sentence them. If not, release them.

One might say that releasing them could be detrimental because they may have been dismissed of the charges against them when they were in fact guilty. Understandable, but we do it every single day.

It is in a dictatorship that people accused of a crime are arrested and put in jail never to see the light of day again let alone ever given the chance to defend themselves. Last I checked, we weren’t a dictatorship.

Woo-hoo! California is now the second state to allow same-sex marriages. The first state being Massachusettes.

The California supreme court voted 4-3 to strike down two laws banning same-sex marriages.

California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

It’s not over yet though.

Conservative groups have proposed a new initiative, this one to amend the state constitution, to ban same-sex marriage. If it is allowed onto the ballot and approved by the voters, Thursday’s decision would be overridden.

My two cents? i think people should just get over the fact that gays live among us. Oh my!!! Such horror! Give me a break. I can’t believe that people lose sleep over it.

Image Location

Gays being married doesn’t affect anyone. It doesn’t hurt anyone and it sure as hell wouldn’t make my (future) marriage mean anything less. If you truly think that gay people being married threatens the sanctity of your marriage then you don’t have a very strong marriage in the first place.

I think this whole marriage thing is just a very aggressive way for people who don’t agree with homosexuality in the first place to find a way to stick it to ’em. Some people are so bothered by homosexuality and they can’t really do anything about it so they want to take rights away from them. It’s sexism plain and simple. Just like when blacks and women couldn’t vote because they (we) were considered less of a human, they want to take away marriage from gays because it’s the only ammo they have against them.

Get over it and live your life!!