humanities.philosophy.objectivism

"Agent Cooper" wrote in message
news:fcf40e65-38b0-47d8-a147-435607fb0c19@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> http://snipurl.com/222sa [www_washingtonpost_com]


I'm not optimistic that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the
individual to own guns. They don't understand the principle of property
rights, as evidenced by their latest ruling that a local government can
forcibly seize private property if it means more tax revenue, so why should
they understand the principle that self-defense is a human right.



This case has its beginning when in 1976 the DC City Council passed gun
legislation that made it impossible to own or defend oneself with a gun.
Just before that the DC Superior Court ruled that ".a government and its
agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police
protection, to any particular individual citizen."



This DC Superior Court ruling was a result of a suit brought about by 3 DC
women who were raped and brutalized for 14 hours in their townhouse. After
their door was kicked in by the rapists one managed to call the police. They
watched the police car pass slowly passed their home without stopping by. A
second call to the police got no response.



Here's a question for the Constitutional lawyers (its something I've read on
a blog). If SCOTUS rules that the 2nd refers to a "Collective Right", what
will that do the interpretation of the 1st or any other amendment?



Ray Gun