http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/17/ST2008031702809.html?hpid=topnews
"It's precedent-setting. It's the first time the Supreme Court has commented on this in decades," said Sheri Anne MacNeil, 30, of the District, who is with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "It's monumental."
On the other side of the gun ban issue was Don Pollock, 67, a retired military special operations officer from Bowie. "This is the big one. The court finally gets to review the terrible [gun] laws of the last 70-something years."
2nd AMENDMENT
"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."
Does the 2nd Amendment give all Americans the right to bear arms?
- Can the government place limitations or restrictions on gun ownership? Under what circumstances?
- What events in our recent past have fueled the gun debate? School shootings? Home invasions?
- What are the arguments for and against limiting the right to bear arms?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/15/AR2008031502358.html
What do the statistics say? Below are educational, government and advocacy sites that list statistical information about firearms and related issues including crime.
http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/national-statistics.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm
MOVIES (on Google Video) THAT ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF GUNS IN AMERICA - OPPOSING VIEWPOINTSBowling for Columbine (R)
Michael and Me (NR)
Assignment (Due date TBA)
You are one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices hearing the District of Columbia v. Heller. Based on your investigation of the facts, how are you going to rule and why? Are you going to take a narrow or strict constructionist view, or more broadly interpret the Constitution in stating your opinion? Draft an opinion, up to 2 pages, that clearly states your opinion based on your constitutional views, and including any other factors that influence your position.
38 comments:
If I was one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices I would have to rule against the District of Colombia in this case. Their law prohibited Mr. Heller from registering a hand gun in Washington D.C. and that is clearly against the second amendment.
Despite the fact that I am for gun control, the job of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret the constitution and there is no getting around the fact that the second amendment clearly gives the right to bear arms to the people.
However, I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling saying it was unconstitutional for D.C. to require that guns be kept disassembled or trigger locked. I believe that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to have “arms” in your possession, but that the government can and must regulate this right for the safety of the people. I believe that the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted in relation to life now. Because of this I believe the chance of a child hurting themselves from a gun that is assembled and loaded in their house is greater than the chance of someone needing a gun for self-defense in their house.
Therefore it is my decision to rule that guns cannot be banned outright in the United States but the government does have the right to place restrictions on how guns are kept and where they can be brought in the interest of the safety of the people.
If I were one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, I would have to choose that people should be allowed to have guns in their homes, but not walking around with them freely. It is said that if we’re allowed to have hand guns they can easily be taken to school and on buses, but if people want to bring those items to school or on a bus, they will find a way, legal or not. I understand that guns are scary, but so is the idea of a stranger coming into your house and hurting your family, so I believe every human being has a right to bare arms to protect their families and loved ones. Dick Heller said, "As a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government offices. But my life isn't worth protecting at home, in their eyes.” I think this is absolutely true, security guards and police officers are expected to carry around guns to protect buildings or be protected when they’re on the job, but they shouldn’t be given the same right when they’re at home and want to protect themselves and loved ones? To me, that does not make sense. As much as we don’t want to see it, our world is filled with criminals and crimes, and yes having guns can add to this, but the crimes are going to be there no matter what. For this reason, I would choose to allow the right to bare arms.
If I was a Supreme Court Justice, I would rule in favor of the past D.C law that prohibits civilians from bearing arms within the home and requires all arms to have safety locks. Although the second amendment gives the right “to bear arms”, the context of this right was entirely different when this right was given. I am positive that if the creators of the Constitution were alive now, they would be appalled to see ordinary citizens carrying guns and keeping them in their home.
When the Constitution was drafted, the United States was not so united. The Articles of Confederation, the law of the land at the time, had failed. A huge militia had been sent out to squash a small rebel. This ordeal shook the nation and people became afraid that the new government would impose on their rights. Since the country was still recuperating from their war for independence, militias were still armed and acted as peacekeepers. This right was never intended to arm people with murder weapons; it was given because the minutemen, or militia men who would be ready for battle within a minute, lived and stayed in their houses. They needed the law so they could defend their country in a time of need without having to run to an arsenal beforehand, as there were no cars. The idea that ordinary citizens, in times of peace, could posses dangerous weapons is absolutely preposterous and not what the Constitution intended.
Now, our country is united, we have a police service and an army, and no need for individuals to bear arms for personal use. Before house alarms and telephones, yes, a gun may have protected a household from robbers. Now, guns provide shady citizens with assault weapons, bullets, and no reason not too shoots. One man in Florida shot his neighbor who came over to remind him that he was only allowed three trash cans, not the four on his street. The man claimed “defense”, which is legal in Florida. Was this man in danger? No. Did he need to shoot his neighbor? No. Should he be allowed to own a gun? No. Sometimes, even background checks cannot distinguish between harmless and a potential threat. It takes a certain type of person to own a gun or want to own one, and those who do own one are more likely to be violent by nature than those who are scared by guns. If no one had a gun except police, citizens wouldn’t need a gun for defense. What other types of “personal use” are there, besides defense and shooting someone?
Suppose someone does have a gun in his household. I disagree with this, as the Constitution cites bearing arms with war, not everyday use, but hypothetically let’s imagine someone felt they needed it for defense. Laws require guns to be kept locked and unloaded. However, this law was also debated and does not exist in many states. It also has been estimated that 20 out of every 22 gun control laws are violated within the household. Children, who do not know what guns are capable of, are often victims of carelessness. Or, as in the Columbine shooting, a teenager gains access to their parent’s weapons and murders dozens of people before killing himself. The Constitution gives the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These timeless rights are threatened by the second amendment, as the safety of all citizens is risked and increases every time someone buys a gun for “personal use”. Additionally, prohibiting the possession of guns is not infringing on the second amendment right to bear arms because the amendment is not intending for everyday citizens.
If I was one of the Supreme Court Justices I would then rule in favor of Mr. Heller in this particular court case. Although it maybe true that the duty of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret and base decisions on the constitution, certain circumstances calls for certain measures. Firstly, I believe that the Constitution is a living document, where its laws and articles must be bent, manipulated and changed simultaneously to the change of time, society and population. Thus I do not feel the need to take a stern approach to this problem nor take a particular side. The constitution does indeed decree all citizens to bear arms, but it also forms a federal government to protect, serve and guide the people. Thus it is the governments duty to educate and guide the people on the proper “usage” of their rights; thus gun control is not “directly” against the Constitution as many believe. Particularly under the elastic clause, the federal government is given the power to do anything that is necessary and proper to protect its citizens and the constitution.
In the end, my decision would be that, guns cannot be completely banned from the United States in its entirety, but the government may impose restriction for the sake of public safety.
If I were a Supreme Court Justice for this case, I would rule with a strict constructionist view, ruling in favor of the second amendment. Although I do not agree with shooting or violence in general, I think that if people want to protect themselves with a gun, the Constitution clearly states that they have the right to do so, and we should follow the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. I appreciate that people want to keep the public safe by taking away the right to own a gun in D.C., but if they are going to be or could possibly be using the gun, which would be the reason they want to own one, then a law forbidding guns will not stop a criminal who wants to commit a crime, because he or she has already shown that they are willing to disregard the law. Americans for Gun Safety Foundation states that “Over a two and a half-year period, at least 9,976 convicted felons and other illegal buyers in 46 states obtained guns because of inadequate records.” It would be easy for people from D.C. to get a gun and use it even if the law was in place. Therefore, Adrian M. Fenty’s statement that more guns would lead to more crime, I do not believe is very truthful. I am glad that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, and upheld the standards set by our Constitution, as it is what I would have decided as well, because it is just and fair.
I disagree with the court’s decision to uphold the appeal on the basis of the second amendment. I strongly believe that the constitution is a living document and should be treated as such. The second amendment states that: "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". The key part of that amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State”. The purpose of this amendment is to protect the national security of our country with militias. This amendment was written at a time when every healthy adult man was required to join the militia of his state. Since the military of our country consisted of militias it was an absolute necessity that the right to bear arms was not infringed.
Times have changed since then. Local militias no longer constitute our national military, and not all men are required to join the military. Thus firearms are now widely used for recreation, but also for crime. I have no problem with the recreational use of fire arms as long as they are used in accordance with current laws regarding firearms. However, the District of Columbia has every right to ban handguns within their city limits, as handguns are easily concealable and hold no purpose in a city except to be used against other people. Also since rifles have no use within city limits it is reasonable for the city to require that the guns be disassembled or locked, as they should not be used within the home.
The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms as is necessary for national security. When the ownership of guns no longer pertains to national security, restrictions placed on firearms become reasonable, especially when the firearms serve no purpose other than violence.
If I were one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices hearing District of Columbia vs. Heller I would have ruled in a strict constructionist view. While I believe that gun violence is unacceptable, I also believe that we have a right to protect ourselves and those we care about most. I believe the Constitution, though written many years ago, still rings true today, especially on the issue of guns. While there were many things that the original writers of the Constitution were not aware about because of the time period, such as gay marriage or cars or any of the technology of today, they were familiar with guns. While our firearms have become more refined and powerful, the premise is still the same. A bullet is fired, often wounding another person fatally. That was how a gun worked during the time of the writing of the Constitution, and that is how a gun works today. If this was considered an inherent danger then, it ought to be considered to be one now. Guns are dangerous, yes. But restricting a freedom that even our forefather’s thought was essential is also dangerous.
According to the a survey done on violence in schools including firearms, violence that involved firearms in school has steadily decreased in 1994. While there were several high school shootings followed by copycat shootings, this picture, according to the survey, distorted the reality of the number of school shootings per year. Fewer and fewer children are expelled from school for carrying a firearm each year, and fewer children skip school because they are afraid they are in danger.
Even more prevalent is the potential for violence on the streets and even in homes. According to a report by Americans for Gun Safetly, a startling 20 of the nation’s 22 laws regarding firearm safety are not enforced. According to this data, it is not the firearms that need to be regulated, but the actual regulations that need to be enforced.
While there are many things that need to be enforced and changed, one thing doesn’t. Americans should be allowed to own a firearm to protect themselves and their family, and this is a fundamental right that I would have ruled for had I been one of the 9 Supreme Court judges ruling on District of Columbia vs. Heller.
This particular case of Heller vs. District of Columbia displays the true confusion of the Second Amendment. The second amendment states; “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”. This amendment clearly states that the people of the United States have the right to protect themselves with a gun. I think that if a person is properly checked for prior crimes, or questionable actions, I believe that they have the right to have a gun at home. This does not mean that I think everyone should be able to have a gun, only those who are deemed capable of proper use, and storage of the gun should be able to be in control of a gun. I think that requiring people to obtain a license before obtaining any gun is a better law then just requiring people buying a certain kind of gun to get this license. Guns are extremely dangerous and although I believe the people of the United States should be able to have one, I think that every precaution should be taken.
In the case of Heller vs. District of Columbia I agree with Heller. Heller legally obtained this gun, and as his occupation required that a gun be used for protection. Clearly this man was not dangerous to the public; he had this gun because of his occupation. I think that since his gun was legally purchased he has every right to have that gun with him at home. As long as Heller keeps his gun disassembled and locked he should be able to keep his gun.
The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution as it is written. The Second Amendment clearly states; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Our country needs to take all the necessary steps to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not be in control of them, but those who are checked should have and do have the right to keep that gun.
If I were one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices I would definitely rule against the District of Columbia. They created a law that made it illegal for Mr. Heller to own a personalized hand gun in the D.C. area. This law is most certainly in violation of the second amendment because the second amendment clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”, and in this case the District of Columbia took this right away from Mr. Heller. Personally I do not like guns and I don’t feel that the average citizen should be able to carry around a concealed weapon whenever they please, but is Supreme Court Justices’ job to rule fairly without any prejudices according to the constitution of the United States.
However, in this case the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Keller and said that it was unconstitutional to force him to disassemble his weapon when it was on his person. I think that it would definitely be necessary for Mr. Keller to have it locked or disassembled in public or when it was left at home because if a child or another person who was not equipped to use the gun got a hold of it people might be injured. I believe that Mr. Keller should keep it disassembled at all times unless he had a purpose to use it at a specific time. For instance he argued that his job required him to have this weapon in order to protect public officials, and if there was a threat to any of them this would be an exception to keeping it locked.
Also, I believe that the government has the ability to do whatever it has to in order to keep the public safe. This is stated in the constitution in the necessary and proper clause. Therefore I believe that although the government should not be able to take away the right for people to bear arms they should unquestionably educate the people about how to use these such weapons, as well as regulated when they would have to conceal them or keep them locked so that they could protect the majority of the people. Therefore I would rule that Mr. Heller has the right to have his weapon but he should disassemble or lock it during times when it is unnecessary to use it or when it might put people in danger.
In the case District of Colombia v. Heller the Second Amendment is taken into question. If I were a Supreme Court justice during this case I would rule in favor of Dick Anthony Heller. Mr. Heller was a Private Investigator/ Private Body Guard and needed a gun for his own safety. Also Mr. Heller was the only person that they enforced this law with after the law had been in place for decades. What made him any different from everyone else? This makes his case already unfair and should be lenient towards him. Most importantly Mr. Heller has legally obtained his handgun and passed all the background tests and other tests. Also the District of Colombia’s Gun Law states that you may not carry a handgun that is unregistered and unlicensed. In Mr. Heller’s case his was registered. Also he filed to have the gun as a police-officer, but the city continuously turned him down, when they knew that he was a police officer. They were stopping him from doing his job. I would rule in favor Mr. Heller.
The Second Amendment states: "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.” be infringed. The comma insists that a new idea has been started. So the Amendment states that it’s the right of the people to keep and bear arms and shall not be infringed. The district of Colombia’s gun law is a violation of the Second amendment. This law should be done away with. According to the Constitution he has the right to own a gun especially because he is an officer. In the case of District of Colombia v. Heller I would rule in favor of Heller.
In the Supreme Court Case, District of Columbia. v. Heller, I would vote in favor of the District of Columbia. Heller, argued that he believed the second amendment supported his right to own a gun, against the government of the District of Columbia which wants to uphold gun restrictions. In my opinion, the Constitution provides every American the right to safety and security, and we have laws to uphold that right. We have laws banning drugs, sending felons and murderers to jail, and for gun restrictions to make our country safe. The fact that Heller wants to be able to have the right to carry a firearm goes against the safety of our nation as a whole.
While D.C’s 1976 gun law seems harsh to many which aims to ban the private possession of handguns, and require that rifles be unloaded and disassembled in the home, this law is for our country’s safety. The Second Amendment should be read to restrict an individual’s right to carry and own guns. There are startling statistics about how much gun violence there is in our country. D.C. Police Chief Lanier, and D.C Council Chairman Vincent gray said that it was reasonable for the city to ban handguns, because they can be easily concealed and taken into schools, buses and other locations. This thought is backed up by numerous, startling and unsettling statistics. After 2005, violent crime using firearms has increased. The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms. That, to me, is a startling statistic. In 1997 a survey was taken showing that 80% of prison inmates who possessed a gun got theirs from family, friends or an illegal source, as opposed to only 12% who bought it legally through a retail shop. Only 12% of these people had a background check before buying a gun. The fact that it is so easy to attain a gun in this country, does not speak well to our existing restrictions. We need more restrictions instead of less to protect the safety of individuals. Each day 80 Americans die from Gun Violence, and sadly, the rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). And most scary of all is that 20 out of our nations 22 gun laws are not enforced. (Americans for Gun Safety). The US Department of Justice reported that only 2% of federal gun crimes are prosecuted.
These are scary statistics, which to me, need to be addressed before individuals can be allowed to carry guns. This huge amount of violence and lack of regulation and enforcement should indicate that our country needs more gun laws as opposed to more lax restrictions like Heller is arguing. In this case, I would vote in favor of the District of Columbia in interpreting the Second Amendment, that this amendment does not uphold an individual’s right to carry a firearm. Our right to safety and security trumps an individual’s right to own a firearm. Mayor Adrian Fenty said it best when he stated, “This is a public safety case. More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime.”
If i was a supreme court justice in this particular case i would lean toward Mr. Heller. His job is to protect certain government officials and he is educated with the use of various different weapons. He should have the right to have a gun in his household to protect himself. When the constitution was constructed they did not know what the US was going to be like in the years ahead, therefore the rules should be bent in order to keep US citizens safe. Also the second amendment clearly states all people have right to bear arms, but there are some exceptions to this rule, and these rules need to be followed. Plus if a criminal really wants to murder someone or commit a crime, a law banning all guns and use of guns will not stop them. there should not be a law passed to ban all guns, it wont do anything and will just cause more of a havoc. This case was necessary, Mr. Heller did not do anything wrong. He should have the right to have a gun and to protect him and his family.
If I was one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices hearing this case, based on my opinions and views on the Constitution, I would rule in favor of Heller who stated that, “a basic issue of our constitutional rights to life and self-defense has been violated” with this new law. I believe that banning handguns is not an intelligent idea because it will cause crime to increase rapidly. Although many people say that they use their weapons as a means of protection, and only for that reason, the banning of handguns will decrease the protection in society, and the feeling of safeness that people have because of their ability to own a weapon. Crime rates will grow as an effect if this new law is passed because people will find ways to own a handgun either way, whether it’s for protection/defense or crime. I strongly feel that society will find ways to rebel against the rules because they are very unreasonable. Personally, I want to feel safe at home and when I am at school, and the prevention of owning handguns, will just give others more of a reason to conceal the weapon and take it into school when they get a chance. Overall, the banning of them will just cause more crime, which is something society definitely does not need; we have enough of it already as it is.
District of Columbia vs. Heller was a recent case in the Supreme Court regarding the second amendment- the Right to Bear Arms. Heller, a guard, wished to register a handgun to keep in his domestic residence for the defense of himself and his family. When told he could not do this, Heller argued that the second amendment gave him a right to bear arms for self defense. The second amendment is one that has always been considered ambiguous, with its general wording and in descript punctuation. Therefore, this amendment is one that, though it causes dissent, has never been clearly defined in a court case. District of Columbia vs. Heller has become the case to determine the true meaning of the second amendment.
The second amendment reads, “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.” There are people on one side of the agreement that say this amendment indicates the individual’s right to bear arms as well as the militia. These people argue that the possession of a handgun is for self defense, which they feel is an important concern in a large city such as Washington D.C. They feel the government does not have the right to regulate their personal effects.
However, if I were a member of the Supreme Court, I would take the opposite side of the argument for several reasons. I believe the second amendment does not indicate a right for civilians to bear arms. The second amendment gives the right for the people of the militia to keep and bear arms, as they protect the safety of a free state. The way the phrase, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” is set off in commas, designates that “the people” are those people in the militia, not the people we so often think of as common civilians. There are other legal documents that refer to the entire American population as “the people” but the second amendment is not one of them.
A large reason for retaining the right to bear arms from civilians and reserving it for the militia is for protection. Although the amounts of shootings in school systems has decreased over the past decade, the government is afraid that releasing the control of guns and making more accessible would cause trouble. While it may seem that the government does not trust its own people, the actions of a minority could change it for a few. It is the government’s responsibility to protect its people, as it is the responsibility of a parent to take measure to keep their child safe. In addition, opening up the law to allow guns would disrupt an ethical standard that has begun to teach new generation that guns are harmful. The current generation has drastically different views of guns than past generations have had; this may account for some of the decrease in shootings and school violence. Children are learning that guns are not ok to hold for any reason from their early childhood. This style of teaching and the regulation of guns by the law instills an aversion to guns in these children from the beginning and better prepares them to be responsible citizens that will raise their own children in the same manner.
If I were a Supreme Court Justice, I would rule in favor of Heller, that the D.C. gun ban goes against the Second Amendment of the Constitution. As much as I dislike guns and would never buy one, I believe that there is not much room for interpretation in the Second Amendment. It states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” All people have the right to own a gun if they so choose for the lawful purposes of self-defense. If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the gun ban, it would set a bad precedent of not faithfully upholding the Constitution and be demeaning to the position of the Constitution as the highest law in the land.
For law-abiding citizen, it is important that they be defend themselves in the case that their homes are invaded. We are putting lives in danger if we take away means for people to protect themselves and their families.
In addition, statistics such as those from the U.S. Department of Justice show that violent crime, and violence in school, has declined dramatically in the past decade or so. This shows that a ban of guns is not really as crucial as some might think.
However, I do not believe that lifting the gun ban is the solution for defense against violent crime. Other measures should also be taken to protect people, such as making sure that people have working burglar alarms in their homes, etc.
If I were one of the 9 Supreme Court justices I would rule in favor of Mr. Heller. Although I do think that there should be certain limitations set on owning guns, a Supreme Court justice must interpret the constitution. The 2nd amendment states that everyone has the right to bear arms. In the article Dick Heller said, "As a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government offices. But my life isn't worth protecting at home, in their eyes.” I promote the fact that all qualified law officers should be carrying a gun but it is there choice to keep one at home or own one for their own protection. The gun laws we have now are very fair to the people.
Because of the past crimes such as school shootings it is acceptable that people would want to debate over the fact of who can and can not own a gun for personal protection. I believe people should have to continue to go through background checks and be a certain age to get their gun licenses and buy hand guns. "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime" was a quote from one of the articles. I disagree with this because it won’t create more crime if guns are only obtained by those qualified to own one.
Hand guns for example should not be allowed to be brought to a school of any kind by a student. Keeping them at home for their own protection is more reasonable. Creating such a large ban on guns in D.C. would be giving the government too much power over the people.
If I were one of the nine Supreme Court justices I would have to rule against the District of Columbia in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller. I feel that the D.C. gun ban contradicts with the Second Amendment of the Constitution which clearly states that the people have the right to bear arms.
In Heller’s defense he had legally obtained his handgun and passed all the background tests and other tests permitting him to possess the weapon. Also the D.C.’s Gun Law states that you may not carry a handgun that is unregistered and unlicensed. In. Heller’s case the gun he had was legally registered. He also filed to have the gun for his job purposes as a police-officer. However the city continuously turned him down, even though they were aware what his job entailed and that he was a police officer. For these reasons I would rule in favor of Heller.
If I was a Supreme Court Justice deciding on the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, I would not rule in favor of either. I do not believe people should be able to freely carry around hand guns. I think it is unsafe, many people cannot be trusted, and some might abuse their priviledges. Yet Dick Heller makes a great point. He argues that in his job he is allowed to carry a gun to protect people in the government, yet not allowed to have a gun to secure his own safety at home. I think the law should be in between the ideas of both Dick Heller and the District of Columbia. Hand guns should be allowed in the homes of those who choose to have them. A license needs to be obtained and the owner needs to be at least 18 years of age. These hand guns will not be allowed out of the owner's house. They can not carry the gun around on the streets with them. The allowed gun will be for protection while at home only. I think this way both sides win. It is the best outcome of the situation. Both sides get there way to an extent and it is the safest way to allow self protection in homes. The risk of carrying guns in public will still be there, but would be relevant whether guns are illegal in homes or not. Some may argue that their second amendment rights are violated but this way they cannot argue the point of home security. People who really want to will find flaws in most laws, but to repeal it, the government will find a good reason why. I think legalizing guns in homes with certain restrictions is the best thing to do.
If I was one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices hearing the District of Columbia v. Heller I would rule in favor of Mr. Heller. I think that the District of Columbia was unjust in banning handguns because it goes against the 2nd amendment of the constitution. I would rule in favor of Heller because the constitution says that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. Personally, I am for gun control. But if I were a Supreme Court Justice, it would be my job to interpret and uphold the constitution as the law of the land. I disagree with the actual Supreme Court decision because I think it is fair to place restrictions on gun ownership for the safety of civilians. The District of Columbia required gun owners to keep guns disassembled and trigger locked in a safe place. I believe even this small restriction would make a difference in people’s lives. This safety precaution would greatly prevent the death of young children. According to the Children’s Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics, “one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week” die by gunfire. If these deaths could be prevented by simply requiring guns to be kept disassembled and trigger locked, I think it is worth it. The restrictions imposed by the District of Columbia are understandable because some guns, particularly handguns, can be easily concealed. This concealability is a problem in schools, where many people are at risk if a gun is in the hands of the wrong person. The National Crime Victimization Survey says that in the 2003-2004 school year, 2,156 students were expelled for firearms across the country. The survey also shows higher expulsion rates for carrying firearms in states where there are big cities, such as New York, Texas, California, Arizona, Georgia, and surprisingly enough Virginia. A recent event that fuels the gun debate includes the Virginia Tech massacre last year. If there were more restrictions and limitations on gun ownership, I’m sure that man would not have been able to get a gun and kill 32 people and injure many others. Despite the arguments for limiting the right to bear arms, if I were a Supreme Court Justice it would be my duty to interpret the constitution and uphold the law. I would rule in favor of Heller because the constitution says that he has the right to bear arms, the District of Columbia is unconstitutional in restricting this right.
If I were one of the nine Supreme Court justices I would rule on favor of Heller in the DC vs. Heller Supreme Court case. I believe that the DC gun ban violates the people’s second amendment right. The amendment clearly states “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.” This means that the people of the United States have the right to own a gun without being bothered about it. I do however believe that the people who own guns or want to own guns must go through the proper preliminary precautions in order to obtain a gun. Background checks and applying for special gun ownership licenses should be mandatory for anyone looking to buy, own, and operate a gun for protection or another legitimate reason. Guns are dangerous, but I think that if the sale of them and the monitoring of their owners are regulated, owning guns is perfectly acceptable. Taking away the peoples right to own guns directly violates the second amendment. I agree that certain people should not be allowed to have guns for certain reasons but to take that right away from everyone is unconstitutional. If you are eligible and you have obtained the proper certifications then you should be able to own a gun.
If I were one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, I would have a strict constructionist view and rule in favor of Heller. Although I am an advocate for stricter gun control, the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution does give civilians the right to own and bear arms. Therefore, Heller did have the right to buy a handgun and he should not have been rejected when he tried to register his gun. The Supreme Court should have made their decision based on what the Constitution stated. The Constitution definitely gives people unconnected with the militia the right to have guns, and does not specify any restrictions. If Washington DC wanted to enforce gun control in the area, they have the right to do so. However, they cannot ban any type of gun without an amendment to the Constitution.
Heller should have especially been allowed to carry his gun since he was a security guard. Bearing arms is necessary for his occupation, but he also should have the right to keep his gun safely with him at home. Heller stated, "As a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government offices. But my life isn't worth protecting at home, in their eyes." Again, according to the Constitution, civilians do have the right to have guns. Of course, there are rules and limitations depending on where you live, but those restrictions are up to the state. Washington DC officials are definitely able to make laws regulating the use of guns, but they do not have the right to ban guns according to the Constitution. Therefore I would have ruled with Heller, favoring the 2nd Amendment, if I were one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices.
The second amendment clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If I was a Supreme Court justice I would rule that civilian should not be able to have guns in their homes. I understand that everyone wants to be safe, and carrying a gun makes them feel protected and almost fearless. I really do not see a reason why someone would want to keep a fun in their house where they have children. I feel having a gun at home is dangerous and can lead up to severe accidents. I would rule in favor of District of Columbia.
When the Constitution was written, the circumstances were different and people were given a right to own guns during the war time, not for their own personal use. I am sure there would be a change, because nowadays anyone can have a gun for anything. The crime rate has gone up and that is because everyone has a gun which they used to terrorize people with.
I think that the main reason why people feel the need to own guns is that they want to feel protected, and maybe the law needs to take other measures to make people feel safe so they do not have the need to go out and buy a gun. I still feel that Heller tried to use the constitution to make his case stronger, but we have to look at the time the constitution was written and why it was written in that manner. If every citizen used that statement from the constitution everyone would have a gun and say that they have the right to, which is true but then you would have criminals, killers and robbers as well with guns just because they have the “right” to.
Lastly, I feel that the government needs to put a restriction on who can own guns and who cannot. Civilians should not be allowed to have guns in their houses.
If I were one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices hearing the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, I would rule in the favor of Heller. I would do this for many reasons, the first being that it is Constitutional. The Second Amendment gives all people the right to own and carry guns. In this case, Mr. Heller makes a good point. He states that he was good enough to have a gun to protect officials, but questions why he isn't allowed to carry a gun for his own protection. Telling Mr. Heller that he cannot carry a gun for his family and his own protection is extremely hypocritical.
Mr. Heller and the rest of US citizens have and deserve the right to carry concealed handguns. Another reason I would rule with Mr. Heller is that I've done research on the topic and found that guns can ironically deter crime. In a town in Georgia, they made the laws for the carrying of guns more lenient and the crime rates went down dramatically. Many people have the wrong idea that allowing people to legally obtain guns will increase the amount of homicides and overall crimes. This couldn't be farther from the truth. It isn't the legal guns that we should be concerned about in our country. I can guarantee that the guns used in school shootings, and many homicides were obtained illegally. This is the problem, not the people that are getting pistol permits the right way.
When polled, 37% of prisoners that are serving time for violence said that they wouldn't have committed the crime if they had a slight inclination to believe their victim was carrying a gun. When citizens legally arm themselves, they can and will do the right thing. Protecting yourself from violence is the right thing, and protecting your family from harm is far from the wrong thing to do. I find it remarkable how the media portrays guns in only a negative light. I think it is time that people start looking at this issue a different way. Ruling in favor of Mr. Hellen would do just that.
If i was one of the Supreme Court Justices i wouldn't rule against or for the case. I think that this case can very, I think that in the case of Mr. Heller that he should be able to carry a gun for his job and to protect his family. He is a trained person who know how to handle to gun. I don't think that any person from the street that doesn't know anything about a hand gun should have one.
In the past there has been many gun problems like home invasions, or school shootings, or even just shootings on the streets. Those people to me should be banned the right to own a gun. If less people like that have guns then the crime rate may decrease by a lot. In order to keep guns out of the hands of these people i think that it should be harder to buy they, only people who are trained to operate them should have them. If the person who is trained to own one has it in there house it should be out of reach for the other people in the house like in a locked case, where only that person knows were the key is.
Even though the second amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I don't think it should be interpreted as any person that wants to. Like i said before it can lead to horrible things happening like school shootings. That leads to innocent people dying. All in all i don't think that guns should be banned totally in the United States but i think that the government should put restrictions on them to keep everyone safe.
The Second Amendment gives the people the right to bear arms. But obvious regulations have to be placed on certain guns and who purchases them, given the fact that guns firearms should not be given to some people that do not have the ability to properly handle and use a firearm, a mentally unstable person for example. The regulations should not be placed on the firearms because they are not the problem. It is the people allowed to purchase the firearms that cause problems and put others lives on the line. The people who cause problems in society with possession of firearms are those who sometimes come into possession of these firearms illegally or that there is not a strict enough check on the person’s background. The Constitution also states in the Second Amendment that ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.’ This part was only applicable in that point in history, but it does not mean that the only people who can possess firearms would be those in the state militias. The Second Amendment still gives the people the right to bear arms, but of course needs to have some limitations as all other amendments do.
There have been several tragedies in America’s history that have caused people to debate how the Second Amendment should be dealt with in today’s society. One prominent case was the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado. Many people were enraged that this could happen and wanted to severely regulate the Second Amendment. Shortly after the shootings, a father, Darrell Scott, of Rachel Scott, a victim of the shootings, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee. What he stated that day was exactly how this amendment should be interoperated. He stated how evil had been around since the beginning of time. He gave an example from the Bible of Cain and Abel and how the villain in the story was not the club Cain used to kill Abel nor was it the ‘National Club Association’, but the true murderer was Cain. He related this story to the shootings because in the days after the Columbine tragedy people began to point fingers at the National Rifle Association and other Pro-Second Amendment groups. He didn’t believe that the NRA or even the firearms were the reason that his daughter was dead, and he goes on to say how much of the blame lies in the people he was addressing. He wrote a poem that perfectly expresses how these tragedies come to be and why our nation is suffering for them:
“Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You’ve stripped away our heritage,
You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question ‘Why?’
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!”
This poem says it all, even if you are not religious. The politicians of today immediately look for a scapegoat, such as the NRA, and seek to pass more restrictive laws that erode away our personal and private liberties. Our nation is suffering because politicians are trying to restrict our everyday lives thinking that it will help. Well obviously it’s not. No amount of metal detectors or gun laws could have stopped the two troubled boys that spent months planning this massacre. If they had been admitted to mental institutions or had cases diagnosed by their doctors for depression or suicidal thoughts, only then would any restrictions on firearms be affective. I am not saying that there should be no regulations on firearms, but we should try to understand the deeper meaning behind all of these tragedies. Regulating the guns will only help in certain cases but until politicians stop thinking about how much money they can make and how much power they have and actually start thinking about the people’s best interest, only then will these events decrease. The government was put into place to SERVE THE PEOPLE, and the people have to pay attention to how much their liberties are being infringed upon.
The case District of Colombia vs. Heller explores the true meaning of the second amendment, which states "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”. The rulings of the Justices on this case largely depend on their view of the constitution. Justices who believe this is a living document would rule in favor of the District of Colombia however those who believe the constitution is dead would favor Heller. Since I believe that the U.S. Constitution is a living document, as a Supreme Court Justice, I would rule in favor of the District of Colombia.
In addition to my belief in the status of the constitution, there are also many reasons to side with the District of Colombia. Many sources indicate that crime rate has been increasing, especially in children, over the past decade. According to National Education Association Health Information Network, approximately 80 people die from gun violence daily. It also states “The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.” This illustrates how violence has affected not only the children of the United States, but has now become a cultural issue. The only way to stop gun violence is to ban guns within cities because it will allow less people to have access to guns. It is also important that Police Officers strictly enforce this law . I don’t believe it interferes with the second amendment because it is referring to a well regulated militia. Although citizens may be considered militia, there is no threat opposing them while living in a city. In conclusion, since I believe the constitution is a living document and should be applied to society as times change, that I would rule in favor of the District of Colombia.
If I were a Supreme Court Justice I would have sided with the District of Columbia on this case. The Second Amendment implies that the absolute right to bear arms is only if one is in a militia. If one is not in the militia, their right to bear arms can be monitored. If guns are outlawed for certain people violence will decrease. The National Education Association Health Information Network says that approximately 80 people die from gun violence daily. The people should clearly not be allowed to have guns.
Numerous acts of violence around the DC area have been related to guns. Tragic events such as Virginia Tech and as recent as the Holocaust Museum shooting could have been avoided if guns were outlawed. It is unnecessary for common citizens to have guns in modern times. We live in a relatively stable nation that has no need for militia and has a well-established army.
Opossers argue that common people need guns for protection but in reality not even a gun can keep us safe. If you are mugged, robbed or involved in a house invasion, the criminal is prepared but the victim is not. More likely than not, even if the victim does have a gun, they will not have the gun ready and available to act during these unexpected events. The Constitution is a living document and this amendment should be interpreted and adapted to modern day. Guns are not necessary for everyone to own and I believe DC should have won this case.
"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."
If I was one of the 9 justices hearing the Heller vs. DC case, I think I would have decided in favor of Heller. I would have used a strict construction in this case, since I think that the language should be construed to support Heller, and it was written over 300 years ago, so it may not fit modern speech conventions quite perfectly. I think we have to take it in the context that the founding fathers wanted, to give the general public the freedom to carry arms to protect themselves, and when you look at the language, it is clear what the intended meaning is. I am inclined to agree with the Court's interpretation of the language: they decided that "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" was the operative, controlling clause, saying that the people have a fundamental right to carry arms if they feel it necessary, for their defense. I agree--the first clause, referring to a militia, clearly refers to the general people being able to fight for themselves, essentially constituting a militia of the people, not a formal one like the National Guard. Those who interpret it as meaning a formal militia are interpreting it too superficially, and not seeing through to the intended meaning, which refers to all persons capable of defending themselves. Also, the operative clause (quoted above) controls the interpretation of this one. It clearly states that it is the right of the people--not a formal militia only, but the people in general--to bear arms, as this is essential to the security of a state with freedom, and thus by extension, to the security of freedom. Most historical precedents (referring to the general interpretations throughout history) support this, as well. It is a fundamental right of people to defend themselves, and this cannot be taken away justifiably. The general arguments for banning guns are to protect people from crime, but this is not worth sacrificing a fundamental right. Rather, other measures should be taken, such as outlawing special types of guns that are clearly unrealistic and overly dangerous in application with this right (see AK-47s and bazooka rocket launchers, for example), and having people register guns. The founding fathers specifically intended for this right to apply to defense, not offense, and this right should not be taken away from all because a few abuse it. As Mr. Heller said, "As a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government offices. But my life isn't worth protecting at home, in their eyes." I agree with the Court's decision, because all people should have the right to defend themselves.
If I were one of the 9 Supreme Court in the case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, I would have ruled in favor of the District of Columbia. I believe that gun violence amongst civilians is unacceptable. However, this case shows how confusing the Second Amendment is. The way the Amendment is written allows for a large amount of interpretation. “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.” I feel that the Constitution is a living document, I believe that our founding fathers knew that our country was going to change and tried to make a document that allowed for that change. When the Second Amendment was written the militia was a large part of state and national security, however, now this is not the case. We do no need local militia to keep our country safe, we have the military branches. The militias that are brought up in the Second Amendment are now obsolete, and I feel that the Second Amendment is also obsolete. Times have changed and guns are many times more dangerous then they were back a few hundred years ago, guns can be concealed much more easily and they are much more powerful then they were back in the 1800’s. The guns now are extremely dangerous and they kill thousands of people a year. I feel strongly that guns should be banned, handguns are extremely dangerous and should have laws against them. I have no objections to recreational use of guns as long as it is in accordance with current laws and regulations. I feel that the District of Columbia and every other state has the right to ban handguns in order to increase safety. Handguns and other guns like rifles have no purpose other than being used on people in the District of Columbia.
The Second Amendment had good intentions when it was written, it was instituted to protect the country, its main purpose was for national security. But now that the use of handguns no longer applies to national security the Second Amendment must also be considered to no longer apply.
If I was given the honor to be a Supreme Court justice, I would have to rule against the District of Colombia in this case. This has nothing to do with my own opinion on gun control, because personally I have very strong opinions on gun control regulations. The District of Columbia has a law that prohibits Mr. Heller from registering a hand gun in Washington D.C. which is clearly against the second amendment, which states "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." The law is there for a reason, and violating that is a huge mistake. Washington DC should be the highest guarded and secured “territory” in the country. There are so many people and things there; that it is completely necessary to make sure no one is armed who shouldn’t be. Just this past week we had crazy people go in to the Holocaust Museum and kill a security guard. This goes to show that we need to highest security in DC. I have mixed feelings about this topic. I know the Constitution clearly states that a man has the right to bare arms, but under these extreme circumstances, and these highly secured areas, I believe that there should be a breakdown on gun control.
If I were one of the nine justices on the Supreme Court Case of District of Columbia v. Heller I would vote in favor or the District of Columbia. First off although the Constitution is the foundation and upholding of our country, I do believe that it can be interpreted so that its exact words are not what is being enforced. Although it does state the every citizen has the right to bear arms, this can be controlled depending on whether or not the safety of our citizens is in jeopardy. And according to many of the statistics I have read it appears as if handguns are a leading weapon in crimes related to death and severe injury. If we can restrict gun possession then maybe our country will be a safer place. And where better to do this but the District of Columbia where some of the most important influential people of our country live and work. If this is a safer place, we are a safer country. It seems almost obvious that the law should have the right to restrict gun possession and Heller should not be able to carry a firearm, because this goes against the safety of our country. If we can take small steps with gun regulation then maybe we can slowly make our country a safer, better place to live.
Just because the second amendment says one thing does not mean that it is the end all be all, some laws need to be made and interpretations of the constitution to ensure and maintain the safety of our country.
If I were one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, I would rule in favor of Mr. Heller, stating that the D.C. gun law was unconstitutional. The second Amendment: “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.” provides all individuals with the right to bear arms. This amendment contrary to opposing arguments does not suggest that merely militia members have the right to own a gun, it rather implies that it is the right of all people to own a gun due to a possible necessity of the protection of ones home (the expressed purpose of a militia). Because neither the Amendment nor any other portion of the constitution do not specify conditions as to how and who this amendment applies to, one must assume that this Amendment is applicable to all U.S. citizens. It would therefore be unconstitutional to pass a law prohibiting a person from registering a hand gun in D.C. There is of course that argument that this opens the door to the striking of all gun restrictions, including the need for license requirements and age restrictions. However, in the cases of laws such as this, they protect immediate protection for society without directly infringing upon an individual’s rights to bear arms. Laws such as these are merely screening processes to ensure guns stay out of the hands of dangerous felons or irresponsible children and/or young people, both of which prevent an immediate danger to society and themselves. Passing a law that would ban the registration of guns in the D.C. blatantly violates the individual’s second amendment rights. It does not directly prevent harm from occurring against society because not all people who own guns are dangerous. This law would prevent those who own the gun for protection from adequately protecting themselves. This law would therefore cause more harm than good. If one were to deem this law constitutional, it would also state a dangerous precedent. Such a ruling would suggest that aspects of the constitution can simply be overlooked at the discretion of law makers. This could open the door to many laws that would infringe upon our all too important and necessary established rights, upon which our society is founded. It would also tear apart the very basis of our government system. If the constitution is the supreme law of the land one can not simply pass a law contradicting it. The ignoring of such a document once would lead to more and more laws over riding the constitution. The very fabric and basis of our government would be broken. It is therefore clear that I therefore agree with the ruling the supreme court made, and that the D.C. gun law that prevented Mr. Heller from registering his fire arm was unconstitutional.
If I were one of the nine Supreme Court Justices, I would rule in favor of the Second Amendment. I have always thought civilians should be allowed to own firearms, and I would not want to make a rule that bans guns. This amendment guarantees the citizens of the United States to own a gun even though it was made a little more than two centuries ago.
It is best to let civilians keep these guns in their homes because they are necessary to use in the event of a dangerous situation. A home invasion would be the perfect example of an event where the victims have the right to use their guns in order to defend themselves. It seems as though the government should be able to trust Americans with guns, since crime rates involving firearms have steadily decreased since 1994.
As long as the government requires people who want to purchase guns to take a gun safety course, the Second Amendment should not be changed at all. It is apparent that people can be trusted more due to the decrease in gun crimes.
It is true that times have changed since the days when the Second Amendment was created , but I believe that people should have every right to bear arms in order to defend themselves.
If I were one of the 9 Justices in the case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller, I would rule in favor of Mr. Heller. The second amendment clearly states that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms. There was murder back then, and I would be willing to bet the writers of the Constitution thought about that, when making the second amendment. It is not like there was no crime or murder back then. The second amendment is one of the few amendments that shouldn’t at all be altered to fit today’s society. I find it appalling that there would actually be a case about this. If people read the Constitution and weren’t wimpy Liberal conformists, we wouldn’t have to make the decision on whether or not the Constitution should be taken into context. For D.C. to not grant Mr. Heller the right to register a handgun is simply mind-blowing to me. Handguns are one of the best self-defense devices you can have. While I do agree that rifles and shotguns should be locked or disassembled, you should always have the right to bear arms. Handguns are no exception to this law. If someone were to break into your home armed, how are you supposed to fight back? With a bat? Let them take all your stuff and hurt you and your family? No, with a gun. You have the right to shoot someone that enters your home unwelcomed, but how can you do that, if they take your right away? Yes there have been a handful of cases of kids bringing guns to school and killing people, but think about the amount of times they are used for self defense. I guarantee the self defense number is way higher. Mr. Heller would get my vote for not only being a real American, but also because he has the right to have a gun, as it is stated in the Constitution.
There is no reason that Americans need to own guns in this country at its current status. When the second amendment was originally created, the purpose of owning a gun was for protecting the country from foreign invaders. Today, having guns wouldn't even significantly help fend off other weapons of modern warfare, like mortars, RPG's, and tanks. So, if our country was facing the threat of invasion, guns wouldn't even really help.
Thus, if I were a supreme court justice, I would rule against allowing civilians to have guns, particularly pistols. Two of the major arguments on the progun side are that guns are important for hunting and self protection. These arguments are both flawed in regards to handguns. Firstly, hunting is almost entirely done with rifles and shotguns, not pistols. Many people keep pistols for self defense. But if pistols were outlawed, there isn't nearly as great of a need to have self protection. Not to mention, someone would be better off with a rifle or shotgun. If I were robbing somebody with a handgun, and they pulled out, say, a shotgun, I would probably get away as fast as I could. A shotgun is much more imposing.
However, this is all assuming that in the second amendment is not saying that the right to have guns is necessary for militias, but that gun ownership is separately allowed. Firstly, I believe that this is one point, and that only people in militias are allowed the privilege of bearing arms. While somebody more extreme than me could argue that nobody should have guns then, because militias no longer exist, I believe that it is appropriate for people such as those in the national guard to own guns, as I feel the amendment originally intended.
So I would rule to ban at least pistols, if not all guns. Allowing people having guns to hunt or because they're fun shooting isn't worth also allowing psychopaths and criminals to have access to them. With all of the laws that are passed for the safety of the public, it blows my mind that gun restrictions aren't already greater.
The semester is closed!!! No more assignments will be accepted!
If i was one of the 9 Justices. i would have ruled for the District of Colombia. i see the 2nd amendment as either a mistake or misunderstood. It is seams a little out of place shouldn't the power to kill other humans be with somebody of higher power so they have the responsibility of harnessing it. i don't see the Constitution as a dead document. The documents should be amended to current times. Back when it was first signed, most guns where Muskets and everyone had one but we live in 2009 when an old Joe can go and buy a handgun and carry it and no one would be the wiser. Also the amendment in my opinions seems to state that the militia mentioned so it could be the people of the militia are the only ones that are able to use guns. Today we don't have a militia a common citizen does not belong to such a government armed force. so wouldn't that say that people are not qualified to own such weapons. My opinion if i was to solve this why not have a rental program. for hunters and sportsman for their weekend or something run by the government and we can all sleep soundly without getting murdered.
Post a Comment