c**i
发帖数: 6973 | 1 Joyce Lee Malcolm, The Soft-on-Crime Roots of British Disorder; In a
civilized society people would be allowed to defend themselves with guns,
not baseball bats. Wall Street Journal, Aug 16, 2011.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190
3918104576502613435380574.html
(In the midst of london riots, there was among English people "a 5,000%
increase in purchases of baseball bats from Amazon." "Handguns? Parliament
banned their possession in 1997." One Brit "brought [police] a shotgun he
found in his garden. For doing this personally--instaed of asking the police
to retrieve it--he received a five-year sentence" which was suspended finally
after a public outcry. "Knives? It's illegal for anyone under age 18 to buy
one, and using a knife for self-defense is unlawful.") | k**o
发帖数: 15334 | 2 禁枪禁刀不是出路，主要是得严格控制，不合格的人坚决不给。 | j***n
发帖数: 3786 | 3 这条很难做到，特别在民主国家。像美国宪法赋予的拥枪权力就是给每一个人的。
不合格的人坚决不给。
【在 k**o 的大作中提到】
: 禁枪禁刀不是出路，主要是得严格控制，不合格的人坚决不给。
| c**i
发帖数: 6973 | 4 But in US, many people can not obtain or possess guns or ammunition. Such as
the mentally ill, a person with restraing order against him or her for
domestic violence, or felons. For the last, see
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf
【在 j***n 的大作中提到】
: 这条很难做到，特别在民主国家。像美国宪法赋予的拥枪权力就是给每一个人的。
:
: 不合格的人坚决不给。
| C*******d
发帖数: 15836 | 5 拥枪不是权利，是特权，跟驾照一样，不是人人可以拥有的。
【在 j***n 的大作中提到】
: 这条很难做到，特别在民主国家。像美国宪法赋予的拥枪权力就是给每一个人的。
:
: 不合格的人坚决不给。
| T*R
发帖数: 25894 | 6 用枪应该是属于权利，只是有部分人权利被剥夺了。
【在 C*******d 的大作中提到】
: 拥枪不是权利，是特权，跟驾照一样，不是人人可以拥有的。
| C*******d
发帖数: 15836 | 7 拥枪和开车我觉得非常的相似。而经常见到的一个关于开车的名言就是“Driving is a
privilege,
not a right".
【在 T*R 的大作中提到】
: 用枪应该是属于权利，只是有部分人权利被剥夺了。
| C*******d
发帖数: 15836 | 8 当然，宪法规定“People have right to own arms"，那还是按宪法为准吧，哈哈哈。
【在 T*R 的大作中提到】
: 用枪应该是属于权利，只是有部分人权利被剥夺了。
| c**i
发帖数: 6973 | 9 (1) Chief Justice John Marshall stated in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
Cranch) 137 (1803): "It is emphatically the province and duty of the
Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, "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."
(3) The United Supreme Court has taken just two Second Amendment cases
recently. So far it has not ruled whether it is a right or priviledge.
However, the Court avoided the priviledge issue in the second gun case,
MacDonald v City of Chicago, 561 US _ (2010)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
The Court did not discuss "priviledge"--much less distinguish priviledge
from right" in the first gun case
District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
(2) In the slip opinion of MacDonald v City of Chicago,
(a) the Court* stated in Part I (page 4):
"The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases—United
States v Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1876), Presser v Illinois, 116 US 252 (1886)
, and Miller v Texas, 153 US 535 (1894)—that were decided in thewake of
this Court’s interpretation of the Privileges orImmunities Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873). The
Seventh Circuit described the rationale of those cases as 'defunct' and
recognized that they did not consider the question whether the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right to
keep andbear arms."
* It is the opinion of the Court, having garnered a majority (five justices:
Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas).
(b) then a plurality (four justices: Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice
Robert and Justices Scalia and Kennedy), which is not binding, reasoned in
Part II C and D1 (pages 10 and 11):
(i) that the three precedents were based on Privileges or Immunities Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, without taking into
consideration the Due Process Clause of the same Amendment;
(ii) that subsequent to the three precedents, the Court had switched to
affirm rights based on Due Process Clause of the Amendment; and
(iii) that the case at hand will also be decided on the latter clause.
(3) Only Justice Thomas supported gun right directly via Privileges or
Immunities Clause--rather than Due Process Clause--of the Amendment.
"Applying what is now a well-settled test, the plurality opinion concludes
that the right to keep and bear armsapplies to the States through the
Fourteenth Amend-ment’s Due Process Clause because it is fundamental to the
American scheme of ordered liberty, and deeply rooted in this Nation’s
history and tradi-tion. I agree with that description of theright. But I
cannot agree that it is enforceable against the States through a clause that
speaks only to process. Instead, the right to keep and bear arms is a
privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States throughthe
Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause."
Page 1 of Opinion of Thomas J (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)
With merely a vote, it does not have the force of the law (only a majortiy,
constituting theopinion of the court, has).
(4)
(a) Both Privileges or Immunities and the Due Process Clauses are found in
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
(section 1 Text)
(b) The Privileges or Immunities Clause above is different from
Privileges and Immunities Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause
(U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1; also known as the
Comity Clause; prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a
discriminatory manner. The text of the clause reads: “ The Citizens of each
State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the
several States.")
【在 C*******d 的大作中提到】
: 当然，宪法规定“People have right to own arms"，那还是按宪法为准吧，哈哈哈。
| h*********r
发帖数: 1943 | 10 驾照人人可以考，考不过说明你不能安全驾驶，和你出身如何背景怎样没啥关系，根本
不是特权。
拥枪也一样，如果不能安全使用枪支，这种人碰枪和考不过驾照的马路杀手一样会给周
围带来危险。
但你不能因为少数精神不健全的人而否定所有人，只要自卫仍然是普适人权，拥枪就是
其中一个环节，或许有人会争论CCW是特权还是人权，但事到如今拥枪是人权应该已经
可以肯定。
很惊讶在本版看到这种立勃肉发言
【在 C*******d 的大作中提到】
: 拥枪不是权利，是特权，跟驾照一样，不是人人可以拥有的。
| C*******d
发帖数: 15836 | 11 谢谢。看来还是Privilege啊。
well
【在 c**i 的大作中提到】
: (1) Chief Justice John Marshall stated in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
: Cranch) 137 (1803): "It is emphatically the province and duty of the
: Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is.
: (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, "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."
: (3) The United Supreme Court has taken just two Second Amendment cases
: recently. So far it has not ruled whether it is a right or priviledge.
: However, the Court avoided the priviledge issue in the second gun case,
: MacDonald v City of Chicago, 561 US _ (2010)
| C*******d
发帖数: 15836 | 12 说得很有道理。
其实特权和权利也不是绝对分开的。自由，民主，声明是这个国家所宣扬的天赋人权，
但是如果有人要
杀人了照样也会把这些权利被剥夺掉。所以，说生命，自由，民主是特权也不为过。
【在 h*********r 的大作中提到】
: 驾照人人可以考，考不过说明你不能安全驾驶，和你出身如何背景怎样没啥关系，根本
: 不是特权。
: 拥枪也一样，如果不能安全使用枪支，这种人碰枪和考不过驾照的马路杀手一样会给周
: 围带来危险。
: 但你不能因为少数精神不健全的人而否定所有人，只要自卫仍然是普适人权，拥枪就是
: 其中一个环节，或许有人会争论CCW是特权还是人权，但事到如今拥枪是人权应该已经
: 可以肯定。
: 很惊讶在本版看到这种立勃肉发言
|
|
