Comments on: Judges evaluate an argument on gun access

By: Robert Hilton

Robert Hilton — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:50:46 +0000

When I saw the D.C. petition for cert, I thought that it was dumb of them to argue the case too much in the petition. Now I know why I thought it was dumb!!! Everything that D.C. eventually says in its main brief that is not in total accord with the cert petition will be used against them. Specifically, D.C. has now effectively conceded that its residents are defenseless in the face of criminals because of the ban. You’ll hear about that concession in the appellee’s brief! Heh, heh, heh.

By: Alex Mand

Alex Mand — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:33:45 +0000

I think you are missing the point. no one is argueing for no gun laws, we all realize that atleast some laws are necessary, but does it have to be a law that calls for total prohibition. If the law gets overturned (and i do hope it does) that does not mean that there will be no laws, but a laws such as a “permit to posses” or a permit to carry a handgun. the guidelines will proably be strict. Thats the problem with the gun control side in this case. They dont realize that it doesnt mean the end of gun laws, just a change. To be honest this gun ban has been a joke, cmon do you really think that gangs are not keeping guns in their home because of this law. Could the spike in murder rates that caused this law to be propsed might have been do to economic hardships during that time??? the law had well meaning intentions but was utterly useless. lets all acknowledge that fact and devise a new law that respects the right of self defense but also administers control of handguns.

By: Don Robertson

Don Robertson — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:50:07 +0000

This is all very interesting, if ineffectual in determining the breadth and depth of any possible gun control law.

Consider this analogy:

Were a scientist to discover an easy way to make a bomb capable of destroying 10% of the world’s surface at a single detonation, a bomb easily and readily contructed from the electrical components from a common television set, and the chemicals components available from underneath the average kitchen sink, what would be the moral duty concerning the creation of laws surrounding this new danger?

Now also consider, virtually every scientific venture into the vast unknown breadth and depth of reality has the capability of producing just such a humanity devastating device.

Where do the resultant laws lead that are necessary to establish what we all might perceive as necessary controls over every scientist?

Keep in mind as you consider this very real scenario, a threat to all humanity, every gun is a technological, an empirically developed scientific device that is new to humanity over the past several hundreds of years.

There clearly is a need for reasonable gun control laws.

But there is also an apparent greater need for laws regulating the practice of scientific inquiry.

Don Robertson, The American Philosopher