|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 20 users and 109 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 11:48am.
and I almost forgot to mention one of the news stories that perked my interest lately. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether the District of Columbia's sweeping ban on handgun ownership violates the Constitution's fundamental right to "keep and bear arms." The justices accepted the case for review, with oral arguments likely next February or March. A ruling could come by late June, smack in the middle of the 2008 presidential election campaign. At issue is one that has polarized judges and politicians for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right, or do they bestow a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias -- making it therefore subject to strict government regulation. Story is linked above if you'd like to read the rest. Story is from www.cnn.com Next spring is either going to be a very happy, or very sad day for Norm. You may just see me at a protest! *gasp*
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Bill of Rights
Submitted by Mike on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 4:55pm.All of the rights are important. I expect the SCOTUS will rule that the DC citizens have a right to keep arms in their home. Even though DC residents are second class citizens in many ways, I think there is no way that they can be denied basic rights absolutely guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. At least their second amendment rights.
Of course, many first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights have already been infringed for so many of us, maybe it's time to start cramping the second amendment rights.
How many of you who feel inclined to demonstrate for your second amendment right to bear arms will be satisfied to have a peaceful, lawful vigil once a week, on the sidewalk, year after year until gun rights are restored.
Good question
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 6:33pm.How many of you who feel inclined to demonstrate for your second amendment right to bear arms will be satisfied to have a peaceful, lawful vigil once a week, on the sidewalk, year after year until gun rights are restored.
I have no clue. I'd like to think that the Supreme Court will judge the 2nd amendment to be an individual right, there are no guarantees in life however. If it were judged otherwise, I would certainly protest. Would I protest in a behaved manner, or would I be disobedient? Only time will tell. I imagine if the ATF came to collect my firearms I wouldn't have a whole lot of time to protest after that though.
The scholarship is too plain
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 6:49pm.The SCOTUS will have to find it is an individual right. They will probably specifically rule on the DC ban, which will open the door to challenge other bans.
And damn straight I will protest if the government wants my guns, or any of my other freedoms. And don't start in on the "patriot" act. I haven't seen any anti patriot act protests around, but I have spoken my dissent to my elelcted officials. I expect sooner or later that piece of crap will die a well deserved death.
Although I don't own guns
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:12pm.I would stand next to my brothers and sisters for their right to own them. I do, though, support regulation and registration of guns.
Do you also support
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:16pm.Regulation and registration of books? What about churches and places of worship?
It is not the government's business to know what guns I own, any more than they should know what books I read, nor how I pray.
Can you really trust the government with a list of weapons and those who own them?
And please don't say "cars are registered" Automobiles are titled property. Guns are not.
Great questions
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:26pm.Books are registered in many cases. Churches have business licenses.
What do you think IS the government's business?
Didn't I recently hear someone say "If you don't have anything to hide, who cares if the government wiretaps?"
Registration
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:33pm.Is it okay to register books? Churches have business licenses if they choose to operate as a business. Not all churches or religious groups do.
Should books be registered? Should religious leaders be registered as such with the government? Should a list of every book you have ever read be in the hands of the government? Should they be allowed to know your every move?
It is not the governments's business to know anything about how I exercise any of my civil rights.
Perhaps you believe that I should get a license to own certain books as well? Perhaps books should be subject to government control? Rights are rights, are rights, are rights. What rights are okay to limit and what are not? Gun control and such schemes are a modern issue often rooted in racism. Suggest you google "racism gun control" and see where it leads you.
Then ask yourself if you want to support gun registration. The KKK did. Gotta keep them guns outta the hands of them uppitty negros. Right? Or poor whites, or mexicans, or asians, or any other underpriveleged group.
Appraise the Lord!!
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 9:58pm.Define church then...
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:09pm.And by church, I assume you are being equal here and including mosques, temples, covens, etc...?
Thank-you, security_six
Submitted by rebecca on Sat, 12/22/2007 - 12:16pm.Thank-you, security_six, for pointing out the diverse nature of religious expression.
A religious group can take the form of an incorporated entity, which is presumably subject to some form of regulations and/or taxation as a corporation. There are certainly limits. For example, regulations of the type of beliefs a group can espouse about God or excessive taxes directed at religious groups (if they appeared to have the intent and/or effect of discouraging religious activity) would probably be found (rightly) to violate the First Amendment.
But a religion – Christian or otherwise – doesn’t necessarily occur under the umbrella of a corporation or within the shelter of a specially built sanctuary. Nor does the government have any right to require that it does!
A church can be a few families meeting in private residence to worship with prayer, singing, teaching, and breaking of bread (a Christian rite).
Gun Registration
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:56pm.Ditto.
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 1:50am.Though I have to laugh at the folks who think we're "free" because we can go up against the 'gummint' with our rifles, when the 'gummint' has fun toys like drone aircraft with hellfire missiles. Not to mention NUCLEAR FREAKING WEAPONS. Hello? Earth to survivalist? Not an equalizer, your SKS...
Yep
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 12:17pm.I am assuming you are
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 2:07pm.Addressing me here, and I also am assuming you are using the deragatory meaning for survivalist. A survivalist is one who is prepared and equipped to survive. I see it 100% more likely that I will have to survive a natural disaster than a revolt.
As far as small arms being an equalizer, the US army had rockets, helicopters and nukes in Vietnam too, Guerilla war is a bitch to fight against, even with modern weapons. Look at how well a few guys in Iraq are doing with exploding refrigerators buried by a roadside.
If everyone voted in 2000 as a single issue voter on guns
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 9:33am.it would appear that the majority of Americans want gun registration.
And weren't the KKK exercising THEIR civil rights...
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 11/22/2007 - 9:27am.in their....excuse the expression.....MINDS?
Churches....hmmm....a bunch of white supremists are trying to start a church in a public building in Longview. Right across from the predominately black church that has been vandalized of late.
Something about "promote the COMMON WELFARE".
I don't want to see guns eliminated, but there is nothing wrong with being rational about the issue.
I'd love to see a link that would show the KKK publically supporting gun control. Methinks that came up on Madison Avenue.
To each his own
Submitted by rebecca on Sat, 12/22/2007 - 12:03pm.Each person and private group has the right to their own views, their own choices (I believe) of who to associate themselves with.
I choose my friends. Period. No-one has the right to choose them for me. But we still have to respect the rights of other members of the society we live in, whether we like them or not. Failure to do so can and should result in criminal prosecution. I have to respect your rights to life, to liberty, etc. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that I don’t want to respect those rights. But I would still be obligated to whether I wanted to or not.
(I would be foolish to make race a criteria for choosing friends, but we each have the right to choose who we want to form personal relationships with (regardless of whether we have good reasons for our choices). What do I mean by “foolish? Well, if I trust someone simply because they come in the same color as I, that’s naive at best. It’s asking for trouble. If I refused to make friends with some-one just because they have a different skin tone, I would be depriving myself of a potentially good friend. It is unfortunate that such foolishness can affect others also, especially when the person holding the offensive attitudes is in a position of power or prestige. But I am focusing on interpersonal relationships (here), not broader social relationships.)
I believe it is similar with private organizations, at least ideologically focused ones (like churches, etc.) If they want to have their little group to get together with people like them and talk about how much they don’t like anybody not like them, they have the right to do that. But they better just be talking. They better not be planning violence. If they lash out with violence against members of the broader community, they should be dealt with accordingly. As in, prosecuted and punished according to the law.
I don’t say this to condone those groups or their philosophies. We can and should speak out against them. I’m saying, I think they have a legal right to have their little group provided they don’t interfere with anyone else.
As for the example Anonymously Larry gives, I think it’s heartless for them to locate themselves in the face of the African-American community. That doesn’t sound like an accident. But as long as they do what they do among themselves in their building, it’s probably their business (legally – I’m not saying it’s morally OK or that others should not speak about it). If they can be tied to the vandalism, that’s another story. If their members did that, they should be punished for it. If the group played a role in planning it, maybe they can be hooked for conspiracy. Such conduct is illegal, unacceptable, and certainly beyond the protection of the law.