Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (14 comments)

The Supreme Court Is NOT Going To Abolish the Second Amendment

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (8 fans)   -- Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com

Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Washington, D.C. gun ban case. The D.C. mayor escalated the case to the Supreme Court when the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. struck down the District's ban on the private ownership of handguns. The Supreme Court's ruling could have widespread effects on gun control laws across the nation. The pro-gun extremists are getting nervous. In fact, some are spinning the case by saying that the Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not to "uphold the Second Amendment". That wording is false and it is (perhaps deliberately) misleading. The Supreme Court cannot decide whether to uphold or abolish a portion of the Constitution. Rather, the Court interprets the Constitution. The question of whether the ambiguously-worded Second Amendment ensures the right for individuals to own guns (and, as the NRA likes to think, the right to own as many guns as they want, even the giant assault rifles that can penetrate brick walls) has spawned arguments and debates for decades or longer. Now the Supreme Court will decide on whether the states can regulate gun ownership. And, in doing so, they will tell us what the Second Amendment really means in today's world. The Second Amendment will not go away. It will merely be clarified and explained. And, in light of the growing problem of gun violence in America, the Court's decision could literally be a matter of life or death. ###

 

Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Follow Me on Twitter

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
14 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I think Ms. Shaw is the nervous party ... by Carl Lot on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 8:26:25 AM
Miss Shaw lives in Philadelphia . . . by Dana Pico on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 9:23:02 AM
I Hope So by Mike Folkerth on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:00:27 AM
second amendment by mike on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 2:39:36 PM
NO AMBIGUITY by tabonsell on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 4:30:55 PM
stupid "Liberal" witch by Barry Bright on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 6:40:00 PM
educate yourself about reality by Barry Bright on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 6:42:36 PM
Arms = guns? by TomK on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 9:02:45 PM
Right to bear arms by Ty on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 9:20:42 PM
Contortionist logic. by Dave Stevens on Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 3:54:29 AM
Goes to reason: by Mike Folkerth on Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 9:34:19 AM
"interpret" ??? by Frank Silbermann on Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 2:26:09 PM
More NRA propaganda by Dave Kisor on Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 7:48:30 PM
militias by B York on Monday, Nov 26, 2007 at 8:09:03 AM