DC Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

I believe that in the context of the time that the Bill of Rights was written, the right to bear arms was in fact, an individual right. Weaponry in those days was not what it is today. It served as a hunting tool and a defense against the very real threat of an indian attack. Also, if one were to analyne the shift in the government, the Bill of Rights was created to assuage doubts about what would have been a very centralist government. It was mostly intended to convince the "liberals" of the time that the Consitution would not turn the new government into an oligarchy akin to Britain's consitutional monarchy. Thus, I believe that the right to bear arms was intended to be on an individual basis, somewhat to cater to the republicans (i.e liberals of that time) who were wary of a centralized government, and to appease the lower class people who relied on firearms in daily life.

That being said, the framers knew that the circumstances under which the Constitution was created would change over time, thus the interpretation of the Consitution was designed to be plastic. Every new generation of the Supreme Court has the ability to reinterpret the Consitution to benefit society in the best manner. Had the framers desired a stagnant interpretation, they could have spelled it out, or stated that once an issue was interpreted, it was no longer up for review. Even the idea of amending the Constitution indicates its plasticity. The types of firearms that we required then are no longer needed. Although it is unconstitutional for the government to ban firearms completely, it is completely to their discretion which firearms they deem necessarhy in this day. Whether it be semi automatic or simple handguns is really up to them. Finally, to address the issue of Washington DC, I think it is likewise unconsitutional to deprive citizens of Washington DC of the right to bear arms. The key word in that statement is citizens. It matters not whether DC is a "state". It is a part of the mainland United States, and the people in DC are considered US citizens, people who should be under the protections of the US Constitution. DC is not a state mainly for political reasons. Any state with DC would by conjecture gain a great deal of power and be considered the figurehead of the nation. By making the capital independent, it ensured that no state would exercise that kind of control. This does not mean that the residents of DC should be deprived of their constitutional rights.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

As for the articles to back up my claims in reponse to Night Phoenix, it is merely interpretation. The Second Amendment is vague in defining whether or not the government has the authority. As I said before, the interpretations and nature of the Constition (including and amendments) is plastic, meaning that they are open to interpretation based on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has exercised this right in many situations. If this explanation is unsatisfactory, then please bear with me while I address Bradylama and I'll address the reasons I believe that government should be allowed to regulate posession of firearms. Feel free to harass me with more questions should you still disagree. To equip all the citizens with weaponry equal to that of the militias would severely diminish the effectiveness of militias in dealing with public disturbances. Imagine how hard the riots in LA that happened as a result of the 2000 NBA playoffs would be to deal with if the rioters were equipped with AK-47s. I'm not saying that people should be inequipped to deal with a tyrannical government, but if people choose to rebel against the government, then there is no reason for them to be bound by the gun restrictions in place. Once a populace decides to rise against its government, then the government loses all authority and thus is laws hold no restriction over the rebels, who have rejected the legitimacy of the government over them. This is quite an idealistic view, I admit, but one that seems most applicable in today's era. The individualistic rights of anyone regardless of what they are are not unlimited under any government. I allude to John Locke's social contract under which people must give up certain of their natural freedoms in order to obtain the security that the government can provide. It is thus the responsibility of the government to defend its populace against any invading armies. If the government becomes inept at doing so, then all able citizens immediately gain the right to bear arms, because the government has thus become inable to do the very thing it was created for and is thus dissolved. Even the natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property are limited. Those rights are immediately limited when the rights of another become infringed. For example, if I were to attempt to kill you, both of us have a right to lilfe. However, my right to life would be forefeit the moment I tried to take yours, because I was infringing upon your rights. To use a more concrete example, I would like to use the First Amendment. Many are under the myth that the First Amendment is absolute, when in fact, it is not. The First Amendment does not apply to speech that would incite a riot "fighting words". speech that would cause a clear and present danger to anyone (such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, or spouting anti-semitic statements in front of a synagogue), or any words or printings that would be considered obscene by today's standards placed by society (Although this part is difficult to enforce because there is no definate definable standard for obscenity). Thus, when a person admits that a government has authority over them, they place their trust in the government to protect them from harm (hence the formation of military forces). The people are allowed only to defy governmental regulations to the right to bear arms if they believe that the government is either tyrannical, or has lost the ability to protect them, at which point it becomes obligatory on the people to despose of the current government and institute one that better protects the interests of the people. (Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Indepence)

There's nowhere I can't reach.