General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why are folks more concerned about guns than the loss of lives! [View all]AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)legitimate views of others.
The ACLU, for example, opposes a national gun registry. This was pointed out earlier on DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172118563
You are hardly in a position to claim that the ACLU, its members, or members of other liberal organizations are "more concerned about guns than the loss of lives." You are hardly in a position to disregard the legitimate Due Process concerns of the ACLU and others and claim that only the Second Amendment, and your interpretation of the Second Amendment, should be determinative of whether people can own firearms for self-defense in their homes.
Because peoples lives are important, many people have owned firearms for centuries for self-defense and to deter a potential need for self-defense in the home.
In the 2008 Heller case, a police officer who was authorized in the District of Columbia to carry a handgun while on duty was irrationally prohibited by the District of Columbia from possessing a handgun while off-duty at his home in the high-crime area of the District of Columbia. Obviously, the District of Columbia did not become more safe when he was off-duty. And his desire to own a firearm in his home for self-defense and to deter a potential need for self-defense in his home had absolutely nothing to do with Newtown.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
In the 2010 McDonald case, a law-abiding long-term homeowner who lived in a neighborhood which had been taken over by gangs and drug dealers, and who had been a robbery victim by a home invader, wanted to own a handgun for self-defense in his home. However, the city of Chicago refused to allow him to own a firearm in his own home to defend against future home invasions. Likewise, his desire to own a firearm in his home for self-defense and to deter a potential need for self-defense in his home also had absolutely nothing to do with Newtown.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
In the Heller case, the Supreme Court provided a detailed explanation as to why the private ownership of firearms for self-defense and other legitimate purposes is not dependent upon service in the militia. If you really disagree with the Court's reasoning and want to be taken seriously, why don't you point out the Court's reasoning with which you disagree and show your logical basis, if any, for such disagreement.
The Second Amendment never granted any right to own firearms. It is a limitation upon what the government and governmental employees may do. If you do not understand that the right to self-defense is a natural right and it is not dependent upon a "well-regulated militia" clause or any other clause in the Constitution, then you are beyond help.