Declaration Of Ownership - The Orlando Housing Authority: Fill & Download for Free

Pride is an often used word to boast about some accident of birth. It’s like white pride, why should I claim pride over the building of Edinburgh or the ‘invention’ and codification of capitalism because my mother and her people are Scottish? I didn’t do it, someone who maybe looked a bit like me did. I am heterosexual, why should I be proud that I am the product of some accidental genetic, hormone-infused cocktail?There is a vast difference between self-respect and pride and I’d rather claim the former because it will push me toward actually doing estimable acts rather than riding on the coattails of others. I attended the same university as Bruce Nauman, Adam Duritz, two NASA astronauts and Dian Fossey shall I claim pride for their achievements? It’s a bit like watching my nation win the most events at the Olympics and patting my fat ass on the back for other’s athletic achievements. What did I do other than watch a television and reap some collective benefit from the sweat and labor of others? I am heterosexual, wow, good for me, I represent 96.2% of the US population[1] just by being sexually attracted to women and it is through no doing or choice of my own — so proud.Where some members of that 96.2% are sorely confused is in the belief that by tolerating (not embracing, mind you) simply tolerating the 3.8% of the population that are homosexual, it will spread like a virus and become a zero-sum game where heterosexuality must loose by default. It is as if merely tolerating that someone is attracted to the same sex that it will create some dystopian future where heterosexuals are treated as second class citizens, or worse yet, our children ‘turned gay.’ Sometimes I sincerely wonder if they actually believe it might come to us being kept in cages and gimp masks and butt raped against our heteronormative wills.It strikes me as very similar to white nationalist fear of racial integration and mixing, fear of feminism and women gaining power and agency over their own lives, the conservative fear that someone who has failed to amass personal wealth will be given support they haven’t earned, that a camel might just pass through the eye of a needle. It all comes down to fear that your power will be taken away and you’ll loose because some minority group is using the US Constitution and courts to ensure that through "majority rule with minority rights" that the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority. James Madison wrote of this very issue:Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally happy the friends have of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. —James Madison Federalist Papers No. 10 - Bill of Rights InstituteThere is a very long history of abusing and subjugating homosexual people, “More than 20 percent of U.S. hate crimes in 2014 (the most recent year available) targeted people because of sexual orientation or gender, according to FBI statistics cited by the activist group Human Rights Campaign” [2][3] and instances of that violence are on the rise.The Roots Of Homophobia - Hating Gays goes back a long way. I think we are all aware of the basic history of anti-LGBTQ violence going back centuries[4]including and perhaps especially those people engaging in straight pride activities; They are perfectly aware of their motivations and what they are doing. Their surprise and outrage at being mocked is all a part of the game. What really is their true end? To protect the majority rights of heterosexuals? Or is it to maintain their impunity in denying rights to a minority group they disdain and engaging in harassment and abuse directed at LGBTQ people.In 2019, there are 72 countries where homosexuality is illegal. And I’ll remind you, as if this writing, women have not yet had the national vote for 100 years and there is still no Equal Rights Amendment to our constitution. It is my observation and deeply held belief that misogyny is at the root of homophobia. The masculine establishment fears the power of women and femininity as it gains more and more power. You put a man down by calling him effeminate or a woman by likening her to a ball buster or a dyke — homophobia and misogyny walk hand in hand. In countries that laud a tradition of common law and the rights of the free ‘man’ like Britain, where sodomy was a criminal act until the late 1960s and the United States where anti-sodomy laws remained in place until 2003, people over the centuries have had to fight for these rights of free ‘men’ accorded them by those nation’s constitutions and bills of rights, rights hard won that are also a constant and vigilant fight to maintain.(Above) From wikipedia. Decriminalization of same-sex sexual intercourse in the United States - Author, AHC300 - Sodomy laws in the United States - WikipediaThe United States Declaration of Independence refers to “all men” (it failed to mention women specifically) being created equal with ‘inalienable’ rights. It doesn’t state all men excluding blacks, homosexuals, Catholics and Muslims. It says all men and as we understand it today, implicitly extends to women — all people. It continues:…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happinessHistorically, neither women, nor blacks, not any ‘person of color’ in the US (and elsewhere) were accorded those ‘inalienable’ rights, or those listed in the US Bill of Rights. A majority comprised mostly of white Protestant men benefitted from either maintaining ownership over women and black people, or severely limiting their freedoms and attitudes toward homosexuals were often no different if not often fueled more so by a universal hatred and intolerance that stemmed from and was ingrained by religious teaching.Leviticus 20:13 in the Torah and Old Testament states that (emphasis mine):"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."From Wikipedia, Sunan Abu Dawud is a collection of 21 books containing “Traditions" or Hadith. In Islam they refer to the record of the words, actions, and the silent approval, of the Islamic prophet Muhammed. Hadith have been called "the backbone" of Islamic civilization, and within that religion the authority of Hadith as a source for religious law, jurisprudence and moral guidance ranks second only to that of the Qur’an. Again, there are very severe injunctions agains same-sex sexuality.Book 38, Number 4447:The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.Book 38, Number 4448:If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.In short, homosexual men, in particular, should be put to death because they are horrid and disgusting. How is that in any way just, or Christ-like? And if it is ‘godly’ well, your concept of god is hateful, inhumane, lacking compassion and forgiveness; your concept of god is disgusting. Hurts a tad doesn’t it? So on the subject of straight pride:Where does it say ‘a man who lies with a woman is an abomination and shall be killed?’Where have there been civil laws or attitudes barring a person who has sexual relations with the opposite sex from work, housing, spousal benefits, protection under the law, safety, life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?Heterosexual people, especially U.S. caucasians, have had very little need to fight for their right to love who they wish — barring interracial relationships or marrying across economic or religious barriers.Gay Pride is a statement to say ‘We reject the shame you impose to try and control our behavior and fit YOUR definition of normal and we will not be bullied or denied our rights guaranteed under the constitution. Instead of shame, I respect who I am in spite of your hatred for me.Straight pride’s statement implicitly states: ‘we will not tolerate or change to accommodate anyone other than ourselves. We will teach you shame and use it to keep you down and in your right place. We will continue to mock and despise you as we please, unopposed and we oppose fair treatment of your minority because we find you disgusting —some of us won’t admit it because we don’t want to be labeled as bigots.’Gay Pride represents the archetypal struggle against the misuse of dominance and power to subjugate the underdog. It takes courage and conviction to stand up against a majority power structure, to risk violence and death to demand equal treatment under the law. I think that deserves applause.Where is the courage in straight pride? Why should a majority who represent an accepted norm be applauded? There is no archetypal struggle or cause to be lauded. I see straight pride as the creation of frightened, entitled, spiteful individuals who often tout Christian principles of love, forgiveness, non-judgement and the golden rule but follow them only when convenient to maintaining their world view to the exclusion of those they dislike; it is meanness pure and simple. They whinge and gripe about sharing rights leading to the disintegration of their beliefs and values and seek to impose the tyranny of the majority on a minority. They claim to be patriots yet cannot stand, or perhaps even comprehend, that our democratic republican constitution is the very thing that has maintained and expanded their own freedoms through the protection of the minority under the rule of law. Why should cowardice and hiding beneath the skirts of Mother Majority be applauded? Have they not, basking in power and intolerance, asked the same thing many, many times when some grass roots effort begins to expand these invaluable rights to a subjugated minority? Why must they shout in the streets, hold hands and rub it in our faces? Then stop looking, quit staring and obsessing. Straight pride is a product of their undying obsession with homosexuality. What they represent is utterly unAmerican and they are bound to loose, if nothing else, they’ve already lost face. With the rise in anti-LGBTQ violence, straight pride is indeed frightening…yet laughable because they are like entitled little toddlers who have thrown themselves on the floor to kick and scream that they must share the playground.In the wake of the George Floyd murder and protests, I’ll add: The idea of straight pride is akin to saying “all lives matter” in reference to Black Lives Matter - duh. No one is saying caucasian, asian, aboriginal or any races life doesn’t matter. You’re not that clueless, you know which end is up. By embracing and givIng voice to those ideas, you are being a provocateur because something about African-Americans and gay people being treated with the same dignity and respect you demand, irritates you.Footnotes[1] Americans Greatly Overestimate Percent Gay, Lesbian in U.S.[2] 2016 was the deadliest year on record for the LGBTQ community[3] Before Orlando: A History of Modern Anti-LGBT Violence[4] GALVA-108: Gay & Lesbian Vaishnava Association

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in IslamAdopted and Issued at the Nineteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers in Cairo on 5 August 1990The Member States of the Organization ofthe Islamic Conference,Reaffirming the civilizing and historical roleof the Islamic Ummah which Allah madeas the best community and which gavehumanity a universal and well-balancedcivilization, in which harmony is establishedbetween hereunder and the hereafter,knowledge is combined with faith, and tofulfill the expectations from this communityto guide all humanity which is confusedbecause of different and conflicting beliefsand ideologies and to provide solutions forall chronic problems of this materialisticcivilization.In contribution to the efforts of mankind toassert human rights, to protect man fromexploitation and persecution, and to affirmhis freedom and right to a dignified life inaccordance with the Islamic Shari’ah.Convinced that mankind which has reachedan advanced stage in materialistic science isstill, and shall remain, in dire need of faithto support its civilization as well as a selfmotivating force to guard its rights;Believing that fundamental rights andfreedoms according to Islam are an integralpart of the Islamic religion and that no oneshall have the right as a matter of principleto abolish them either in whole or in partor to violate or ignore them in as much asthey are binding divine commands, whichare contained in the Revealed Books ofAllah and which were sent through the lastof His Prophets to complete the precedingdivine messages and that safeguarding thosefundamental rights and freedoms is an actof worship whereas the neglect or violationthereof is an abominable sin, and that thesafeguarding of those fundamental rightsand freedom is an individual responsibilityof every person and a collectiveresponsibility of the entire Ummah;Do hereby and on the basis of the above-mentioned principles declare as follows:ARTICLE 1:(a) All human beings form one family whosemembers are united by their subordinationto Allah and descent from Adam. All menare equal in terms of basic human dignityand basic obligations and responsibilities,without any discrimination on the basis ofrace, colour, language, belief, sex, religion,political affiliation, social status or otherconsiderations. The true religion is theguarantee for enhancing such dignity alongthe path to human integrity.(b) All human beings are Allah’s subjects,and the most loved by Him are those whoare most beneficial to His subjects, and noone has superiority over another except onthe basis of piety and good deeds.ARTICLE 2:(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right tolife is guaranteed to every human being. It isthe duty of individuals, societies and statesto safeguard this right against any violation,and it is prohibited to take away life exceptfor a shari’ah prescribed reason.(b) It is forbidden to resort to any meanswhich could result in the genocidalannihilation of mankind.(c) The preservation of human lifethroughout the term of time willed by Allahis a duty prescribed by Shari’ah.(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteedright. It is the duty of the state to safeguardit, and it is prohibited to breach it without aShari’ah-prescribed reason.ARTICLE 3:(a) In the event of the use of force and in caseof armed conflict, it is not permissible to killnon-belligerents such as old men, womenand children. The wounded and the sickshall have the right to medical treatment;and prisoners of war shall have the right tobe fed, sheltered and clothed. It is prohibitedto mutilate or dismember dead bodies. Itis required to exchange prisoners of warand to arrange visits or reunions of familiesseparated by circumstances of war.(b) It is prohibited to cut down trees, todestroy crops or livestock, to destroy theenemy’s civilian buildings and installationsby shelling, blasting or any other means.ARTICLE 4:Every human being is entitled to humansanctity and the protection of one’s goodname and honour during one’s life and afterone’s death. The state and the society shallprotect one’s body and burial place fromdesecration.ARTICLE 5:(a) The family is the foundation of society,and marriage is the basis of making a family.Men and women have the right to marriage,and no restrictions stemming from race,colour or nationality shall prevent them fromexercising this right.(b) The society and the State shall remove allobstacles to marriage and facilitate it, andshall protect the family and safeguard itswelfare.ARTICLE 6:(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity,and has her own rights to enjoy as well asduties to perform, and has her own civilentity and financial independence, and theright to retain her name and lineage.(b) The husband is responsible for themaintenance and welfare of the family.ARTICLE 7:(a) As of the moment of birth, every childhas rights due from the parents, the societyand the state to be accorded proper nursing,education and material, hygienic and moralcare. Both the fetus and the mother must besafeguarded and accorded special care.(b) Parents and those in such like capacityhave the right to choose the type ofeducation they desire for their children,provided they take into considerationthe interest and future of the children inaccordance with ethical values and theprinciples of the Shari’ah.(c) Both parents are entitled to certain rightsfrom their children, and relatives are entitledto rights from their kin, in accordance withthe tenets of the shari’ah.ARTCLE 8:Every human being has the right to enjoy alegitimate eligibility with all its prerogativesand obligations in case such eligibility is lostor impaired, the person shall have the rightto be represented by his/her guardian.ARTICLE 9:(a) The seeking of knowledge is an obligationand provision of education is the duty of thesociety and the State. The State shall ensurethe availability of ways and means to acquireeducation and shall guarantee its diversity inthe interest of the society so as to enable manto be acquainted with the religion of Islamand uncover the secrets of the Universe forthe benefit of mankind.(b) Every human being has a right to receiveboth religious and worldly educationfrom the various institutions of teaching,education and guidance, including thefamily, the school, the university, themedia, etc., and in such an integrated andbalanced manner that would develop humanpersonality, strengthen man’s faith in Allahand promote man’s respect to and defence ofboth rights and obligations.ARTICLE 10:Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature.It is prohibited to exercise any form ofpressure on man or to exploit his poverty orignorance in order to force him to change hisreligion to another religion or to atheism.ARTICLE 11:(a) Human beings are born free, and noone has the right to enslave, humiliate,oppress or exploit them, and there can be nosubjugation but to Allah the Almighty.(b) Colonialism of all types being oneof the most evil forms of enslavement istotally prohibited. Peoples suffering fromcolonialism have the full right to freedomand self-determination. It is the duty ofall States peoples to support the struggleof colonized peoples for the liquidation ofall forms of and occupation, and all Statesand peoples have the right to preserve theirindependent identity and econtrol over theirwealth and natural resources.ARTICLE 12:Every man shall have the right, within theframework of the Shari’ah, to free movementand to select his place of residence whetherwithin or outside his country and ifpersecuted, is entitled to seek asylum inanother country. The country of refugeshall be obliged to provide protection tothe asylum-seeker until his safety has beenattained, unless asylum is motivated bycommitting an act regarded by the Shari’ahas a crime.ARTICLE 13:Work is a right guaranteed by the State andthe Society for each person with capabilityto work. Everyone shall be free to choose thework that suits him best and which serveshis interests as well as those of the society.The employee shall have the right to enjoysafety and security as well as all other socialguarantees. He may not be assigned workbeyond his capacity nor shall he be subjectedto compulsion or exploited or harmed inany way. He shall be entitled - without anydiscrimination between males and females- to fair wages for his work without delay,as well as to the holidays allowances andpromotions which he deserves. On his part,he shall be required to be dedicated andmeticulous in his work. Should workersand employers disagree on any matter, theState shall intervene to settle the dispute andhave the grievances redressed, the rightsconfirmed and justice enforced without bias.ARTICLE 14:Everyone shall have the right to earn alegitimate living without monopolization,deceit or causing harm to oneself or toothers. Usury (riba) is explicitly prohibited.ARTICLE 15:(a) Everyone shall have the right to ownproperty acquired in a legitimate way, andshall be entitled to the rights of ownershipwithout prejudice to oneself, others or thesociety in general. Expropriation is notpermissible except for requirements of publicinterest and upon payment of prompt andfair compensation.(b) Confiscation and seizure of property isprohibited except for a necessity dictatedby law.ARTICLE 16:Everyone shall have the right to enjoy thefruits of his scientific, literary, artistic ortechnical labour of which he is the author;and he shall have the right to the protectionof his moral and material interests stemmingtherefrom, provided it is not contrary to theprinciples of the Shari’ah.ARTICLE 17:(a) Everyone shall have the right to livein a clean environment, away from viceand moral corruption, that would favour ahealthy ethical development of his personand it is incumbent upon the State andsociety in general to afford that right.(b) Everyone shall have the right to medicaland social care, and to all public amenitiesprovided by society and the State within thelimits of their available resources.(c) The States shall ensure the right of theindividual to a decent living that may enablehim to meet his requirements and those ofhis dependents, including food, clothing,housing, education, medical care and allother basic needs.ARTICLE 18:(a) Everyone shall have the right to livein security for himself, his religion, hisdependents, his honour and his property.(b) Everyone shall have the right to privacyin the conduct of his private affairs, in hishome, among his family, with regard tohis property and his relationships. It is notpermitted to spy on him, to place him undersurveillance or to besmirch his good name.The State shall protect him from arbitraryinterference.(c) A private residence is inviolable inall cases. It will not be entered withoutpermission from its inhabitants or in anyunlawful manner, nor shall it be demolishedor confiscated and its dwellers evicted.ARTICLE 19:(a) All individuals are equal before the law,without distinction between the ruler andthe ruled.(b) The right to resort to justice is guaranteedto everyone.(c) Liability is in essence personal.(d) There shall be no crime or punishmentexcept as provided for in the Shari’ah.(e) A defendant is innocent until his guiltis proven in a fast trial in which he shall begiven all the guarantees of defence.ARTICLE 20:It is not permitted without legitimatereason to arrest an individual, or restricthis freedom, to exile or to punish him. Itis not permitted to subject him to physicalor psychological torture or to any form ofmaltreatment, cruelty or indignity. Nor is itpermitted to subject an individual to medicalor scientific experiments without hisconsentor at the risk of his health or of his life. Nor isit permitted to promulgate emergency lawsthat would provide executive authority forsuch actions.ARTICLE 21:Taking hostages under any form or for anypurpose is expressly forbidden.ARTICLE 22:(a) Everyone shall have the right to expresshis opinion freely in such manner as wouldnot be contrary to the principles of theShari’ah.1.. Everyone shall have the right to advocatewhat is right, and propagate what is good,and warn against what is wrong and evilaccording to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.(c) Information is a vital necessity to society.It may not be exploited or misused in such away as may violate sanctities and the dignityof Prophets, undermine moral and ethicalValues or disintegrate, corrupt or harmsociety or weaken its faith.(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalisticor doctrinal hatred or to do anything thatmay be an incitement to any form or racialdiscrimination.ARTICLE 23:(a) Authority is a trust; and abuse ormalicious exploitation thereof is explicitlyprohibited, in order to guaranteefundamental human rights.(b) Everyone shall have the right toparticipate, directly or indirectly in theadministration of his country’s public affairs.He shall also have the right to assume publicoffice in accordance with the provisions ofShari’ah.ARTICLE 24:All the rights and freedoms stipulated inthis Declaration are subject to the IslamicShari’ah.ARTICLE 25:The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source ofreference for the explanation or clarificationof any of the articles of this Declaration.

The Second Amendment is one of 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 by the U.S. Congress. Differing interpretations of the amendment — often referred to as the right to bear arms — have fueled a long-running debate over gun control legislation and the rights of individual citizens to buy, own and carry firearms.RIGHT TO BEAR ARMSThe text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “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 framers of the Bill of Rights adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions.During the Revolutionary Ware era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776.Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.STATE MILITIASBut as militias had proved insufficient against the British, the Constitutional Convention gave the new federal government the power to establish a standing army, even in peacetime.However, opponents of a strong central government (known as Anti-Federalists) argued that this federal army deprived states of their ability to defend themselves against oppression. They feared that Congress might abuse its constitutional power of “organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia” by failing to keep militiamen equipped with adequate arms.So, shortly after the U.S. Constitution , was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower these state militias. While the Second Amendment did not answer the broader Anti-Federalist concern that the federal government had too much power, it did establish the principle (held by both Federalists and their opponents) that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens.WELL-REGULATED MILITIAPractically since its ratification, Americans have debated the meaning of the Second Amendment, with vehement arguments being made on both sides.The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units.Those who argue it is a collective right point to the “well-regulated Militia” clause in the Second Amendment. They argue that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized groups, like the National Guard, a reserve military force that replaced the state militias after the Civil War .On the other side are those who argue that the Second Amendment gives all citizens, not just militias, the right to own guns in order to protect themselves. The National Rifle Association (NRA), founded in 1871, and its supporters have been the most visible proponents of this argument, and have pursued a vigorous campaign against gun control measures at the local, state and federal levels.Those who support stricter gun control legislation have argued that limits are necessary on gun ownership, including who can own them, where they can be carried and what type of guns should be available for purchase.Congress passed one of the most high-profile federal gun control efforts, the so-called Brady Bill , in the 1990s, largely thanks to the efforts of former White House Press Secretary James S. Brady, who had been shot in the head during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981.District of Columbia v. HellerSince the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for gun purchases from licensed dealers, the debate on gun control has changed dramatically.This is partially due to the actions of the Supreme Court , which departed from its past stance on the Second Amendment with its verdicts in two major cases, District ofColumbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).For a long time, the federal judiciary held the opinion that the Second Amendment remained among the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that did not fall under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which would thereby apply its limitations to state governments. For example, in the 1886 case Presser v. Illinois, the Court held that the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, and did not prohibit state governments from regulating an individual’s ownership or use of guns.But in its 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated a federal law barring nearly all civilians from possessing guns in the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court extended Second Amendment protection to individuals in federal (non-state) enclaves.Writing the majority decision in that case, Justice Antonin Scalia lent the Court’s weight to the idea that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual private gun ownership for self-defense purposes.McDonald v. ChicagoTwo years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court struck down (also in a 5-4 decision) a similar citywide handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.In the majority ruling in that case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”GUN CONTROL DEBATEThe Supreme Court’s narrow rulings in the Heller and McDonald cases left open many key issues in the gun control debate.In the Heller decision, the Court suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill; bans on carrying arms in schools and government buildings; restrictions on gun sales; bans on the concealed carrying of weapons; and generally bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”MASS SHOOTINGSSince that verdict, as lower courts battle back and forth on cases involving such restrictions, the public debate over Second Amendment rights and gun control remains very much open, even as mass shootings became an increasingly frequent occurrence in American life.To take just two recent examples, the Sandy Hook shootings of 18 children and two adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut , led President Barack Obama and many others to call for tighter background checks and a renewed ban on assault weapons.And in 2017, the mass shooting of 58 people attending a country music concert in Las Vegas (to date the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, overtaking the 2016 attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida) inspired calls to restrict sales of “bump stocks,” attachments that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire faster.On the other side of the ongoing debate of gun control measures are the NRA and other gun rights supporters, powerful and vocal groups that views such restrictions as an unacceptable violation of their Second Amendment rights.