Guns and the U.S. Constitution

"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."
II Amendment, the Constitution of the United States of America

Translation: there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.
Really? Is that what that Amendment says? I know I didn't go to law school but...
In DC vs Heller, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision in favor repealing Washington DC's restriction on handguns: the toughest in the nation in a city that was once the murder capital of the world. It ruled that the restriction violated the Second Amendment, which some believe, protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use.

No I didn't go to Law School so I guess I don't have any argument for the interpretation of the amendment which sounds like, to me, that if there needs to be a militia- like there needed to be back in 1791 when this amendment was drafted- they can have some guns. I don't think the framers of the constitution ever envisioned the type of guns we have today nor the illegal gun problem we have in this country. But once again I'm not qualified to interpret an amendment to the constitution of the United States. That is the job of Supreme Court justices like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr and the rest who spilt their allegiance and votes down party lines.

Guns are Pussy

That was going to be the original title of my blog. It kind of gets to my point a lot quicker.
I'm going to approach this whole gun issue thing from a different perspective, from the streets. I'm talking strictly from a thuggish street point of view where guns are revered. I grew up in the Bronx in the 70's and 80's. There weren't a lot of guns on the streets back then. I could hear my older brother, who was recruited by a lot of gangs back then, tell of broken bottled and knives. And back then if you pulled out a knife at a fight it was because you were losing and had to save face. It's the same today, false bravado and bruised ego's has caused the murder rate to skyrocket because that broken bottle has turned into a gun. Anybody with a gun, no matter how small, soft, weak, can threaten or kill another person. So the kid who gets bullied at school goes home to his father's cabinet, finds his loaded gun- that is kept in the house for safety reasons- and takes it to school.
We're never going to be a violence-free society. And if we're not going to fix the problems of why kids pick up guns in the first place, which has its origin in the home and in the school, then we as adults can at least make the sacrifice of giving up our need to shoot something, like a little furry rabbit or a turkey, for the sake of our children. But what am I saying? People couldn't even sacrifice their SUV's when clearly we entered a war over oil.

There used to be a certain quality to being able to walk up on someone, who did you wrong, talked about your mother, disrespected your girl or maybe just even stepped on your shoe, and punch them square in the face without the fear of that person going and getting a gun. The both of you would fall on the ground afterward, tussle a bit and then someone would pull you apart and a winner would be declared. It's not like that anymore.
Once again I must say I'm speaking strictly from a street perspective but I think all can admit that if it wasn't for guns and lawyers a lot of deserving people would get punched in the face daily. So maybe that is a way that guns prevent violence.
On an aside, there is really a softening of society going on lately. The hot girls, when I was growing up, were into the men who seemed dangerous, men whom they felt could protect them. That pretty much falls in line with natural selection. But nowadays a woman can just buy a gun for protection and date a man who wears his hair over his left eye and borrows clothes from her wardrobe. I'm at that point in my adulthood where I'm starting to reminisce about the good old days.
But do we really need guns? really?

Matt Welch and Megan McArdle debate the DC vs. Heller decision on bloggingheads.tv in a segment called Megan Get your Gun. You decide.
The argument for having a gun if someone breaks into your house: that I sort of understand. If someone broke into my house I'd want to shoot them as well. But if someone is breaking into your house and has a gun, it's pretty likely he stole it from the last house he broke into. For me, too many accidents, stolen guns, and tragedies like the one at Virginia Tech negate any and all arguments for the need to repeal DC's restriction on handguns or any others state's for that matter.
Do we really need a machine gun to shoot a deer? A real man would just go up to it and punch it square in the face.

-gorealer