Sorry folks, but banning someone from posting on this site is not censorship. Only the government can censor someone. We cannot prevent the poster from voicing or exercising his freedom of speech, all we are doing in banning the person is preventing his access to post. The poster can still spread his message, via other web sites. While we have a right to free speech in this country, free speech does not mean that the poster must also have free access.

As a private site we have the right to deny access to anyone who meets certain preestablished criteria. The poster in question has repeatedly begun his sentences and post with gun hater, and has directed that term toward the persons in which posts the person was debating. This is uncalled for and takes away from serious debate. Had the term been used once or twice that would have been a different story, but in every sentence in every post, that is excessive.

Don't confuse governmental action with the right of the individual or a group of individuals free association.

dmk

Banning the poster if they were expressing unnecessarily extreme violent or vile posts; I believe; would be the right (and duty) of the owner of this forum. Please; people as there are no two snowflakes alike; neither is it likely that we all share the same views. This is not an excuse for vile posts or just horrid behavior in general. Behavior such as this does nothing to validate your viewpoint whatever it may be.We want to read your views and the reasons for them- not your insults and threats. Who knows? If your views have sound reasoning behind them, you might even convert others to your conclusions!

I guess I'll check you off of my "Rob This Person's Home" list...

DC attempts to erase Second Amendment
News bulletin: The Second Amendment’s guaranteed right to bear arms now applies only to militias, not individuals. At least that’s what a gang of Beltway lawyers would have us believe. The District is in court defending its handgun ban against proponents of the Second Amendment, using the old gun-grabber argument that “a well regulated Militia” is the emphasis, rather than “the right of the people.” A mere cursory reading of the actual text puts the lie to their claim: “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.” The premise is that the militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The right is that the people may be armed. Why would we need an amendment assuring that the military is armed?

In 2004, a judge in this case informed six DC residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. According to what constitution? The plaintiffs rightly appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is pondering whether “out-dated militias” also means that the general right to bear arms is no longer needed. “That’s quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary,” Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, marveled. “If we decide that it’s no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?”

The Patriot Post Archive

Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned

By MATT APUZZO

The Associated Press

Thursday, December 7, 2006; 8:49 PM

WASHINGTON -- In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban is unconstitutional.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on assault weapons.

In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.

"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.

"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."

Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District.

Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?

"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"

___

The case is: Shelly Parker et al v. District of Columbia, case No. 04-7041.

So are you for erasing part of the constitution or what? What is your stand? I am for the 2nd Amendment and it clearly states citizens may arm themselves.

I've posted on this subject before in this section, and my stand is easily determinable...

Oh well. I'm not going to go through all your wordy crap to find it.

Ok so i was thinking...

The founding fathers of america ensured that american citizens had the right to bear arms. Considering the time and situation they were in it was not only a right, it was a REQUIREMENT. With a sparesely populated and sparsely policed continent every man could only count on himself to protect his home and family.

But we are talking about the wild west days. There is now a new form of deterrent that i think gets overlooked.

Crime detection techniques have improved. It is now no longer required that a crime be dealt with immediately or that the perpetrator be caught red handed in order to confirm guilt, make an arrest and exact punishment.

This knowledge is slowly seeping into the population. Fact is that people are becoming aware that it is no longer enough to wipe the doorknob in order to erase all clues. Advanced fingerprinting databases, DNA testing, criminal records, electronic logging of virtually every action a person takes, makes it MUCH HARDER to commit a pre-mediated crime in today's world.

In europe, while small time burglaries may be on the rise (for now), violent crime, murder and robbery statistics are falling. The simple fact that people know that the chances of getting caught are increasing day by day goes FAR to prevent people from such actions. When you are willing to kill, the degree of punishment is not what you worry about. You worry about whether you get caught or not. How many people would rob a home KNOWING they will get caught.. even if they only get 6 months in prison.

A very simple fact is that gun related crime in the US is ASTRONOMICAL compared to other developed countries. Easy access to arms does that. This figure comes not because the US has a higher proportion of criminals, but rather that a higher proportion of criminals have access to arms.

Now let's say for a moment that Europe like gun control was imposed in the US. If it is hard for a normal citizen to obtain a gun legally, it will be EVEN HARDER for a criminal to obtain one illegally.

Guns will become easier to trace ( increased control does that). But will that save lives?

Well yes.. it increases the likelyhood of catching a perpetrator. That coupled with new detection techniques will make it increasingly harder to be a criminal. Again the DEGREE of punishment is never what deters criminals. It is the likelyhood of them being CAUGHT that often makes up their mind.

While every man may have the RIGHT to bear arms, it is also a right that society can choose to submit to regulation.

I will always suggest that there be as few weapons around as possible.For every weapon you have to defend yourself, the criminals have to acquire a weapon to defend their own lives.

In a place like Denmark, burglaries, robberies and assault RARELY involve guns. So while crime persists, at least fewer people die of gunshots. Fewer deaths.

So essentially the presence of absence of guns ina society does not affect the frequency of crimes. But the ABSECENCE of guns DOES ensure the fewer criminals and FEWER INNOCENTS die of gunshots.

I think that's apretty fair trade.

CRIME PREVENTION does not always require guns.