|
Supreme Court decision on guns little surprise to some
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Local reaction to today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that individuals have a right to keep guns for self-defense was mixed, but many on both sides of the issue weren't surprised by the decision. "I'm really displeased," Patricia Gioia of Schenectady, who is a member of the Brady Campaign against guns said. "I respect the fact gun owners feel they have to own them, but there's more chance for violence when people are harboring guns. Society has changed; now, when people fight, they don't slap each other, they pull out a gun." Tom DiBona, an employee at Accurate Arms and Ammo in Schenectady, said he believes legislators are not examining the economics of the issue. "They have no idea what impact it would have on unemployment [to ban guns]," Tom DiBona said. "The steel and wood manufacturers would be out of business. They should think about this before they act." DiBona also said he is opposed to the people trying to force their ideals on others, and that background checks do a more than adequate job of controlling sales to potential criminals. "Our gun checks are thorough,” he said. “There are so many federal checks in place, and anything derogatory in a person's background means they can't buy a gun and that's it," DiBona said. John Manger of Zack's Sports in Round Lake said people have the right to make their own choices. "We live in a society where people protest everything," Manger said. "After 9/11, people who never had a gun would have taken a bazooka to protect themselves from violence. I'm really anti-government when they try to tell people what to do, so I think today's decision was a good one for once."
comments
|
Advertisement
|
September 6, 2008
3:58 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
Ms. Gioia's opinion is irrelevant. She misses the fact that gun ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution in the same manner than free speech and assembly is protected.
She then goes on to say, “I respect the fact gun owners feel they have to own them, but there's more chance for violence when people are harboring guns. Society has changed; now, when people fight, they don't slap each other, they pull out a gun." Ms. Giola, there’s also a ‘chance’ that an article in today’s newspaper will give someone the idea to blow up a bridge somewhere. Should we shut down the newspaper? Better yet, let’s run background checks on people who want to read the paper and then make them get licenses before buying the newspaper.
People like Ms. Giola should really take a good look at themselves and their ‘selective constitutionality’ attitude.
7:23 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
In order to understand todays ruling by the supreme court one needs to understand what is meant by the "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS".
The definition of Arms as defined in the dictionary is: arms n 1: weapons considered collectively [syn: weaponry, implements of war, weapons system, munition]
Should ARMS defined in todays terms allow me the right to carry or at least have in my home a "Shoulder Firing Missile Launcher".
This a complex issue and a Five to Four decision only re-affirms this. If the constitution is a living document then through the amendment process maybe we should update the second amendment and clarify it based on todays environment and not what was happening when this nation was formed.
We need to ban guns in any public venue and we need to get them off the streets, and I hope most people will agree with that. How we accomplish this I don't know but things will only get worse in many cities if we don't step up and try to legislate some national laws with "TEETH" to combat their senseless use.
Just to clarify my position I am an independent thinker and I do believe in the right of people to have guns at home to protect themselves but based on my strict interpretation of the second amendment should I go out and get a "Musket and a Dueling Pistol".