Donuts And Politics

Check out this interesting, and pretty amazing, fund-raising stunt started by some Obama supporters. The goal is to raise him $1 million in one minute. Great fund, catchy headline too. I honestly have no doubt it will work. It will happen on April 21 at 1:00pm EST. You can register here to participate. I can’t do the $100,  obviously, but I plan to chip in. Anyone with me?

Surprising Political Endorsements By U.S. Troops

Check out the article above. Granted, its just one article on a few soldiers, but the implications are interesting to think about since it seems like most people here tend to assume troops in the field support the fact that they are there, and thus support the Bush/Republican Party. Apparently, that’s not the case. Soldiers don’t toe some party line, as some of you can personally attest to. They don’t, I am sure, appreciate 15-month repeated deployments to a country that doesn’t want them there and to a war that we already won (so why are we still there????), or to be put in the middle of a civil war where the only solution is political, not military. Shocking, I know.

In the recent Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller, argued on March 18, the Court heard arguments about the interpretation of the Second Amendment as it applies to the right to own guns in the US. This is the first Second Amendment case to be heard since 1939 and the decision will be quite instructive for future laws regarding gun rights and restrictions on ownership. First, the text of 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.

A brief summary of the case:

In 2003, six residents of Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a local law enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. The law limited the ability of residents to own side arms, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975. This law restricts residents, except active and retired law enforcement officers, from owning handguns. The law also requires that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock.”

After the arguments were made, this is what the Washington Post reported:

A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to settle decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.

Such a finding could doom the District of Columbia’s ban on private handgun possession, the country’s toughest gun-control law, and significantly change the tone and direction of the nation’s political battles over gun control.

Justices balanced the commands of a Constitution written more than 200 years ago with the modern-day questions presented by a gun ban that, it was argued, either prevents the law-abiding from a means of self-protection or keeps more guns off the streets of the nation’s capital.

The major arguments of the case, and of any discussion involving the Second Amendment really, revolve around these questions:

1. What is the meaning or intent of the Second Amendment?

2. Do citizens have an absolute right to own any gun/firearm?

3. Can the government can impose restrictions on gun ownership?

4. If so, what restrictions would be considered reasonable and constitutional, if any?

I’m sure this will generate a variety of opinions, so leave your comment and what you think the answers to those questions should be.