This is huge--32 years of a gun ban overturned.

Power to the Constitution!

Yeeay guns!

I gonna go shoot my peestols in de air in celebrate !!!

This decision is awesome !!!!!!

where are the lib posters????

I don't understand how the insane number of guns in American society today helps us keep a "well regulated militia." But I am not surprised that the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment to mean this.

I hope it takes some steam out of the NRA voter who's easily scared into voting against Democrats because he thinks they'll take his guns away.

HURRAYYYYYYYYYYY a GREAT decision........

Lib poster.

It was a good ruling.

Did your brain just explode?

where are the lib posters????

Posted by Fredo_C at 2008-06-26 11:08 AM |

Blaming the NRA, BUSH, and everyone else except themselves. Good to see that SCOTUS can uphold the constitution...

I can't wait to see NG3's reaction to this one. BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

As a die-hard liberatarian, I say, good. It's about time we got back to the constitutional principles. Of course a despotic government is very afraid of a country where the citizenry is armed.

And while I'm at it, let me say to you NRA kooks, your brand of extremism is part of the problem too.

PTL!

pour the whine and cut the cheese!

rcade - it will take a little more than that.

NOPE ! NRA voters are, correctly, pretty much opposed to dems across the board, guns or no guns.
Nice attempt at a very crazy far stretch to try to find the silver lining though, Jefe.

This will affect the ban in Chicago/Illinois.

A ban by the way that Obama voted for.

Justice Scalia is a madman, only can only hope that the increase in Murder that will happen in Cities over this Country will not reach the Scalia family.

This is another reason why an Obama Presidency is sorely needed. These wack jobs on the Court needs to be stopped before the WAR comes home to America....Lord help those poor families that will have there member KILLED because of this Stupid decision.

More Citizens in America are killed by handguns that the next 25 Countries in the World combined. This is utter Madness, yet these fucks are giving the green light to every wack job in the country to arm themselves, what crap......

I am actually reading Scalia's opinion now and it seems right on so far. Will get back when I have read the full 157 pages of opinion in dissent. IMO I never thought the Constitution required one to be in the militia in order to carry a gun. I am upset a little here as I think there are certain cities with high crime areas who could have used a more favorable ruling to crack down on hand gun violence. However, I think there is some truth to the statement that such a law would not reduce hand gun violence.

This will affect the ban in Chicago/Illinois.

A ban by the way that Obama voted for.

Another great ruling out of the court this week.

That's 2 for 2!

Of course a despotic government is very afraid of a country where the citizenry is armed.

The American people will never stand up for their rights, guns or no guns. All you have to do is scare them by mentioning the word "terror" and they gladly give them up.

As happy as I am about the decision, these 5-4 rulings are unsettling.

It sounds like the justices, on both sides of the isle, are just ruling according to whatever their personal beliefs are, with 1 guy in the middle who tries to look at the issue objectively and constitutionally.

Nanc,

"PTL!"

Honest? You really posted that? You think God is on the side of gun ownership?

All it takes is activist judges, legislating from the bench instead of sticking to what the Constitution says.

I am for the right to bear arms, but that right is not in the second amendment.

Terrorists won't have any trouble arming up once they get here.

"The American people will never stand up for their rights, guns or no guns. All you have to do is scare them by mentioning the word "terror" and they gladly give them up."

The most intelligent post on this topic.

Taxman--Can you put the link for the entire opinion up? Thanks

I don't understand how the insane number of guns in American society today helps us keep a "well regulated militia."

You focus on the militia part, but ignore the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.

OUTSTANDING!

The Court today reaffirmed the individuals right to bear arms.

All rights are individual rights. Groups don't have rights. The members in a group retain their individual rights, but the group itself has no rights.

BTW, the Libertarian Party was the only political party that filed a brief on behalf of ending the ban. While the Republicans talk a good game, they suck when it comes to protecting gun rights.

"I am for the right to bear arms, but that right is not in the second amendment."
--BUFFALO_BOOB

Just be happy that your government has given you permission to have rights.

Being on the same side of an issue as Scalia makes me fell kinda dirty.

The American people will never stand up for their rights, guns or no guns. All you have to do is scare them by mentioning the word "terror" and they gladly give them up.

Posted by rcade

And what rights have we actually "given up" because someone mentioned "terror?"

oh fuck, someone knows what library books I'm looking at now... its 19-fucking-84, sheeple!! Wake up!!!

Heller ruling a 'preservation of liberty in the United States'

I am for the right to bear arms, but that right is not in the second amendment.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-06-26 11:19 AM

Why don't you explain BB?

My opinion is that except for Police Officers that other Americans shouldn't own gun except for hunting guns and only have them for that hunt.

My opinion is that except for Police Officers that other Americans shouldn't own gun except for hunting guns and only have them for that hunt.

The ruling was correct, DC residents have rights too.

Rob:
you focus on the "right to keep and bear arms part" and ignore the reason: "well-regulated militia."

In the middle somewhere lies the Founding Father's intent, I think.

I hope it takes some steam out of the NRA voter who's easily scared into voting against Democrats because he thinks they'll take his guns away.

Have you ever met one of these idiots Rcade?

I am a proud gun owner and all, but those NRA fucks are just mindless drones. For your wish to come true, it would take independent thought, and that is not something that an NRA member is capable of.

Don't mean to dash your hope, but they are what they are. Think humanity, a couple of evolutionary steps back.

Murphy:

That's from my ten year old, whose been indoctrinated in school, although we are in a "hunting" and "gun-carrying" state, and his mother's side of the family are all avid hunters and fishermen.

Armyofnone-SCOTUS says you can have a licensed "handgun held and used for self-defense in the home". So?

It's still gonna piss off the NRA that SCOTUS doesn't allow co-worker hunting in Kentucky.

It'll be interesting to see what 'in the home" and "licensed" ends up defined as.

As far as the gun locks side, it just means more kids will blow their heads off playing with daddy's gun.

Gun control means hitting your target... come on like people never got killd before guns. You think if guns were taken away we'd magically become loving caring and accepting people and do no harm?
It started with sticks and stones.

I don't understand how the insane number of guns in American society today helps us keep a "well regulated militia."

An armed society is a polite society.

While I abhore the idea of extending Constituional rights to residents of DC, the Constitution is clear about gun ownership. The violent crime rate will go down (as it has everywhere else) when law-abiding citizens can shoot back.

Criminals prey on fear.

Bob, I rather think they wouldn't have any trouble doing that anyway, sadly.

As for the upholding of this interpretation of the Second, I personally find this a good thing. Now, please realize, folks, that this also means a lot of people are going to Darwin themselves out of the genepool because they're allowed guns in the nation's capital.

But then, that doesn't sadden me. Morons who shoot themselves in the head and so on. Hence, my happiness that this particular interpretation has been upheld.

I'm admittedly somewhat torn on the issue of private citizens owning firearms, actually. I have no problem at all with a private citizen owning a rifle or a shotgun, no problem with that at all. A handgun, however... honestly I'm just not sure how to answer that one one way or the other. I don't own one myself, and frankly don't think I'd want to, what with my habit of ending up down and to the right every time, and frankly I'd be too tempted to shoot the idiots as they pass by (and there are a LOT of idiots in this area, trust me).

I'd like to discuss this more, but I won't be able to for a while (work and all, grumble grumble). I'll try to stalk when the boss isn't looking and keep up with the thread as best I can, I just won;t be able to respond to anything for several hours (which makes me sad).

"where are the lib posters????"

I'm a "lib poster" and I think that this is a good ruling and that there is an innate right of self defense protected by our constitution.

Although...I wonder how some of the NRA types will feel once they reflect on the idea that this gives inner city minorities the same ability to arm themselves as they enjoy in the rural areas. My own father is a big NRA type (I grew up on a farm in a family that is very much into hunting and guns in general although I'm not so much these days). We got into a conversation on this topic one day about how the government, in his opinion, had no right to tell him what kind of weapon he could own or use. I said that I agreed, but how did he feel about this right applying to (one of his long standing imagined demons) young black guys in the city.

He got very quiet and changed the subject.

I just love it when some of the posters here are so pro/anti constitution depending on the decisions the court makes. they regulalry complain about unreasonable search and seizure and talk about how the fed gov't is invading their PRIOVACY RIGHTS yet argue that the second amendment doesnt support the right for the people to keep bear arms...

AMAZING...

If criminals are permitted to carry guns then they will not be criminalized and have their offenses enhanced for carrying a weapon. What about knives. That's an "arm," and carrying certain knives is prohibited nowadays in some states.

"In the middle somewhere lies the Founding Father's intent, I think."

Posted by SamBarber

They were quite explicit.

"A well-regulated militia, consisting of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best, most natural defense of a free state."
-James Madison

Madison wrote the 2nd amendment.

"Americans have the advantage of being armed."
-Jefferson

Big defeat for the anti constitution whack jobs on this site.

Better stock up on Depends.

awesome

i want a tank!

where are the lib posters????

Most "liburuls" aren't against gun ownership. Most of the opposition has been a strawman built by righties to garner votes. You know...The bogeyman libs are gonna take your guns! Boo!

The difference is most "liburuls" don't think gun ownership is the most important thing since sliced bread.

It IS fun, watching all you righties wet yourselves over this. Too bad it's destroying one of your strawmen. Again, Boo!

I wonder what cops have to say about this. Is anyone on board today a law enforcement officer in Chicago or DC?

.....pour the whine and cut the cheese!

Posted by nanc

Nanc, what an odd way to celebrate......

One quick question, Vernon:
"While I abhore the idea of extending Constituional rights to residents of DC"

Explain, please. Are they not citizens of this nation?

Lots of folks have tanks.
At today's gas prices, though ...

The Jacques Littlefield Military Vehicle Collection

Justice Scalia is a madman, only can only hope that the increase in Murder that will happen in Cities over this Country will not reach the Scalia family.

Unfortunately for you, your hyperbolic visions are the exact opposite of what happens when responsible people are allowed to defend themselves with firearms.

This is another reason why an Obama Presidency is sorely needed. These wack jobs on the Court needs to be stopped before the WAR comes home to America....Lord help those poor families that will have there member KILLED because of this Stupid decision.

Do you say the same thing about the defenseless people killed from a stupid decision, enforced from 1976 to today, as a result of mistakenly thinking that the police are there to defend them...as opposed to their real job of cleaning up the mess, running the yellow tape and taking pictures?

This is utter Madness, yet these fucks are giving the green light to every wack job in the country to arm themselves, what crap......

Wack jobs don't follow the law. What difference would it make?

Rob:
you focus on the "right to keep and bear arms part" and ignore the reason: "well-regulated militia."

In the middle somewhere lies the Founding Father's intent, I think.

Posted by SamBarber

If you look at all those commas in the second amendment, in my opinion they meant both... states can have militias, and people can have guns... the amendment reads like a list:

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.

Gun control is hitting what you aim at, like the would be criminal breaking into your home. Do you libs really understand criminals already have more fire power than the police? When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns!

anyone want to venture a guess as to what kind of weapon use is on the rise in countries where guns are banned? Knives. It is a huge problem in england. If they ban those people will use screwdrivers, on and on....

The ignoramus NRA has one good point that they make and that is that criminals who are intent on commiting crimes with guns don't really pay attention to gun laws (DC has had some of the highest gun crime numbers in the country).

Chances are that if you observe the gun laws and register, etc... you probably are not gonna commit a crime.

I suspect police officers throughout D.C. shuddered when they heard this S.C. decision. The more guns available in urban settings = increased gun violence, - including violence against police officers.

Lipz,
The big difference being you can kill or maim multiple people with one half second squeeze of a trigger. Even Superman couldn't do that much damage with a knife.

To all PRO BIRTH and PRO GUN FUC_S:

WHO WOULD JESUS SHOOT?? NOW YOU MORONS CAN GO SHOOT ABORTION DOCTORS, EVEN IN THE CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST TO SAVE THOSE BABIES YOU COULD GIVE A SHIT ABOUT AFTER THEY ARE BORN!

Chances are that if you observe the gun laws and register, etc... you probably are not gonna commit a crime.

I hope statistics are kept. It'll be interesting to see if it really changes anything.

"Outlaw guns and only outlaws will HAVE guns!

FACT!

CASE CLOSED!"

Posted by James_Dean

Dear Jimmy. First let me say that I love your sausage.

Your statement above is one that is commonly stated but in countries where gun ownership is outlawed the rate of gun deaths by criminal is way below the USA. Therefore, your statemnet does not jive with the FACTS! The truth is that where guns are outlawed, common citizens do not have guns and fewer criminals have guns and gun deaths are reduced.

Supremes: Americans Have Right to Own Guns

Americans: No Shit

"whose(sic) been indoctrinated in school"

I love a self-retorting retort during my morning break.

And what rights have we actually "given up" because someone mentioned "terror?"

oh fuck, someone knows what library books I'm looking at now... its 19-fucking-84, sheeple!! Wake up!!!

Fortunately for you, you don't need to be told what rights you have given up because they don't have to tell you when they violate them. It's the new policy of Can't Ask, Don't Tell.

Mod,

In the past Zat has posted before and after scenarios (links) in terms of violent crime in areas that either banned guns or un-banned them.

In every instance, violent crime went up where guns were banned and down where they were un-banned.

To all PRO BIRTH and PRO GUN FUC_S:

WHO WOULD JESUS SHOOT?? NOW YOU MORONS CAN GO SHOOT ABORTION DOCTORS, EVEN IN THE CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST TO SAVE THOSE BABIES YOU COULD GIVE A SHIT ABOUT AFTER THEY ARE BORN!

"The difference is most "liburuls" don't think gun ownership is the most important thing since sliced bread."

Posted by Whatsleft

Exactly! They have no problem letting that right fall by the wayside, because it's not important to them.

Try not to be so bitter; be happy! They ruled in your favor. After all, you're not "reallly" against gun ownership (as long as said gun is an 1800s muzzleloader).

i'm not really a lib
or a con

but i like guns :)

i can't afford one yet
but i want a desert eagle

its bigger then me!

To all PRO BIRTH and PRO GUN FUC_S:

WHO WOULD JESUS SHOOT??

You're existence and silly use of caps lock, has made me pro-abortion.

Angel, calm down. Too much coffee or did you foget your meds.

I am pro-gun and pro-womans right to choose.

BTW

FRESNO ROCKS

Chances are that if you observe the gun laws and register, etc... you probably are not gonna commit a crime.

Not really:
The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman, et al) It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

Angel, calm down. Too much coffee or did you foget your meds?

I am pro-gun and pro-womans right to choose.

BTW

FRESNO ROCKS

After a quick reveiw maybe just the libs should not have guns, due to extreme ignorance and stupidity.

"i want a desert eagle"
Posted by klifferd

A DE would just scream! of overcompensation for something...

;-)

Freddy,

First off, can you back up your claims?

Secondly, you ONLY reference gun deaths or gun violence.

Which scenario is better:

A. Guns are outlawed:
1. Gun murders 10 per year
2. Total murders 20 per year

B. Guns are allowed
1. Gun murders 12 per year
2. Total murders 17 per year

See where I am going with this?

WHO WOULD JESUS SHOOT??
Posted by AngelofTRUTH

Sounds like the perfect slogan for a tee-shirt.

The American people will never stand up for their rights, guns or no guns. All you have to do is scare them by mentioning the word "terror" and they gladly give them up.

Posted by rcade at 2008-06-26 11:17 AM | Reply

A lot of people are willing to give up their Second Amendment rights because of the "terror" of handguns.

Its funny rob the a hole still could not answer the question?

Should be a great day for you rwingers. Hell, now you can buy a bazooka and maybe torch an abortion clinic

Bah, judicial activism. legislating from the bench. States can keep people from owning an uzi, why not a handgun?

The state had decided that outlawing handguns was the will of the people and now a few judges decide to interpret "arms" as handguns, just not bazookas.

This debate should have been left to the will of the people, not 5 guys who decide to legislate from the bench.

Wow angel you simply solidify my comment earlier. Pro constitution on things that benefit you and anti constitution on others.

Gotta love it...

Supremes: Americans Have Right to Own Guns

But we're going to ban the sale of ammunition.

{hee-hee - that'll put their panties in a twist.}

Although...I wonder how some of the NRA types will feel once they reflect on the idea that this gives inner city minorities the same ability to arm themselves as they enjoy in the rural areas.

Posted by DCinMA at 2008-06-26 11:27 AM | Reply

Have .... ahem .... "inner city minorities" been unarmed prior to today?

WHO WOULD JESUS SHOOT??

Posted by AngelofTRUTH

The first son of a bitch that broke into his home.

Fortunately, the residents of D.C. will now be to defend their homes from the likes of ANGELOFTRUTH, trying to break into their homes, abort their children, gay-marry their sons, and raise their taxes.

Last night I was doing some work in a rather scary part of Detroit.

I was in the parking lot of a gas station and a cop rolls up next to me and motions for me to put my window down. He asked what I was doing and I told him. He then asked me if I had a CCW, to which I replied I did not. He then said I should consider getting one, given where I was working.

After all, you're not "reallly" against gun ownership (as long as said gun is an 1800s muzzleloader).

You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. I probably have a bigger arsenal the most of the righties that post here. Keep propping up your strawman! Boo!

Now, I gotta go, my wifes having surgery today.

"Wow angel you simply solidify my comment earlier. Pro constitution on things that benefit you and anti constitution on others.

Gotta love it...

Posted by armyof1"

So you approved of the Court's decision on child rape?

WOW...They are paving the way to Obamas...well you know...I bet he shit himself when that ruling came down...

As an owner of a dozen handguns and almost twice as many rifles, all I can say is I'm now finally considered a "one-man regulated militia" LOL!

a rather scary part of Detroit.

Vote Obama!

"I probably have a bigger arsenal the most of the righties that post here."

Posted by Whatsleft

Please do try to sound less like you're overcompensating.

I guess if you're going to be bitter, you need something to cling to, and the "arsenal" in your pants left much to be desired.

This debate should have been left to the will of the people, not 5 guys who decide to legislate from the bench.

Except that the right of gun ownership is explicitly addressed in the Constitution, therefore it is up to 9 guys to interpret the text in the context of original intent.

Now, if you were talking about an unmentioned right to privacy and then going even further and defining the arbitrary killing of a growing life as an issue of privacy, then I would agree with you - it should be debated by the Legislative body, not decided by 9 people wearing black robes.

So you approved of the Court's decision on child rape?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-06-26 11:49 AM | Reply

No, but I accept their decison, Unlike some of the morons here. I may not agree with it but they are charged with making that decision and as an american I stand by it. You dont here me and you never will see me post BULLSHIT like Angel or some of the other freaks on this site... I am all for the death penalty. I should have my tax dollars go towards free cable for a worthless piece of flesh. However, if SCOTUS deemed that it was cruel and unusual punishment for the crime then I stand by their decision... Same as abortion, i think its wrong, but until it gets overturned that is the law and I obide by that...

it should be debated by the Legislative body, not decided by 9 people wearing black robes.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-06-26 11:53

Actually I was more talking about cruel and unusual punishment.. Pretty sure that's explicitly addressed in the constitution..

I actually agree with this ruling.. I just wanted to poke a few righties with a stick...

Of course Americans have the right to bear arms as it says so right in the Constitution!

Anyone that can read can see that this is so.

The problem is, of course, what type of 'arms' and where and when you can bear them.

Is it OK for you to walk down a busy crowded sidewalk with a loaded hunting rifle or handgun in downtown NY City or in this case Washington DC?

It would be a strange sight to see thousands of people on the Mall carrying rifles and handguns now wouldn't it?

On the other hand, it is our right to OWN guns for the purpose of self defense or hunting. Tho, in the case as of the late if we are not careful there will be no real hunting left soon and we will be hunting in Safeway.

It was the correct decision and I am beginning to think that the Supremes are beginning to see beyond the Bush Regime and realize that there will be a Morning after and a Day of Reckoning and they better start getting it right!

Is anyone surprised by this decision???

To tell the truth I am a little surprised that it was 5-4. I would have thought most Americans believed that they do have the right to own guns.

"A DE would just scream! of overcompensation for something...

;-)

"

i promise you its not compensating for my masculinity ;)

its just the most bad ass gun there is

To tell the truth I am a little surprised that it was 5-4.

Me too. Does anyone have a link to the dissent?

I just wanted to poke a few righties with a stick...

A noble cause!

Carry on.

Does anyone have a link to the dissent?

Posted by Manypaths

take a wild fucking guess who it was...

I'm not sure what else one would expect from guys who carry sawed-off shotguns under their robes.

Which would be safer and likely more effective for homeowners, btw, instead of a handgun. Shotguns and rifles being already legal in DC for home use.

"WHO WOULD JESUS SHOOT?? NOW YOU MORONS CAN GO SHOOT ABORTION DOCTORS, EVEN IN THE CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST TO SAVE THOSE BABIES YOU COULD GIVE A SHIT ABOUT AFTER THEY ARE BORN!"

we could have shot abortion doctors all along, but chose not to. owning a gun doesn't make you crazy.

i'd be interested to know what small percentage of abortions are actually the result of rape and incest, you silly fuk.

Hell, now you can buy a bazooka and maybe torch an abortion clinic

Posted by AngelofTRUTH at 2008-06-26 11:44 AM | Reply

If someone wanted to blow up an abortion clinic they would have done so by now. This ruling changes nothing in that regard.

Violent crime rates do go down whenever citizens are allowed to carry a gun.

You hate that, don't you?

WOW...They are paving the way to Obamas...well you know...I bet he shit himself when that ruling came down..

Obama's a Consitutional Law professor, and has stated several times that he thinks the 2nd is an individual right. I doubt this decision really varies much from his actual opinion.

Furthermore, this pretty much takes one more Fear Point of the table. One less Republican talking point about how Obama's gonna take yer guns.

I think Obama's probably pretty pleased with this.

another "lib" poster who thinks this was the right call.

minds = blown

I'm really going to be interested in seeing the crime statistics for DC over the next 5-10 years..

As an owner of a dozen handguns and almost twice as many rifles, all I can say is I'm now finally considered a "one-man regulated militia" LOL!

Posted by k_g_beekeeper

Only in your home, according to SCOTUS. The ruling is probably close to the wishes of the Founding Fathers. It will be interesting to see the definition of "home", because it can be read that carrying a weapon outside the home is not protected.

I think thye screwed the pooch on trigger locks. Even though most Righties stop caring about children once they pop out of the womb, locks do prevent kids from killing themselves or their playmates.

On the other hand, it's probably darwinian.

Posted by AngelofTRUTH at 2008-06-26 11:35 AM

Deflection Flag

Augh--

Obama put in the ban on handguns in Chicago!

Check the link above--

For Klifferd--Tanks--now that would be fun--

"Violent crime rates do go down whenever citizens are allowed to carry a gun."

Posted by vernon

Can you document that statement?

I know that most countries that have more gun restrictions than the USA have much, much lower rates of gun related crimes and deaths.

Shotguns and rifles being already legal in DC for home use.

Not really. Technically you can own one, unloaded and disassembled, but it requires a permit from the Chief of Police for purchase (fro out of state, since no gun dealers in DC), which is almost never issued.

we could have shot abortion doctors all along, but chose not to. owning a gun doesn't make you crazy.

Posted by Monster at 2008-06-26 12:04 PM | Reply

Incidentally, hasn't it been at least a decade since some nut shot an abortionist? The odds of getting shot at the post office are probably greater.

you focus on the "right to keep and bear arms part" and ignore the reason: "well-regulated militia."

So the need for a well-regulated militia means we can't regulate arms?

Only in your home, according to SCOTUS. The ruling is probably close to the wishes of the Founding Fathers. It will be interesting to see the definition of "home", because it can be read that carrying a weapon outside the home is not protected.

If a revolution is needed, patriots will have to start living out of their cars.

In a way it is really sad that this issue is even debatable.

How can any thinking person not recognize as a natural right; that any person should be able to defend themselves with the best tools available?

It is my right to own as many guns as I want and shoot whoever comes on my property including nosy neighbors and the mailman. I don't want no stinking bills. YOu pay them

I know that most countries that have more gun restrictions than the USA have much, much lower rates of gun related crimes and deaths.

Posted by FreddyK

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada have similar gun rights to us and don't they have less gun violence?

"If a revolution is needed"....we better hope that most of the military is with the people because all the pop-shooters in America won't be much use against a modern Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines.

More Citizens in America are killed by handguns that the next 25 Countries in the World combined. This is utter Madness, yet these fucks are giving the green light to every wack job in the country to arm themselves, what crap......
Posted by celisary

Terrorists won't have any trouble arming up once they get here.
Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Seriously? Are you both serious?

More people are killed by AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS than guns in the US every year, it's a fact.
You gonna outlaw autos?
An automibile is a tool, that can kill.
A gun is no different.
BOTH take a human, using them irresponsibly, or with malice to be dangerous 99.9% of the time.

As for the terrorist angle, they won't get out of hand (neither will anyone else) if they realize they will be neutralized quickly by an armed populace.

It is a proven fact, proven, (statistically backed) crime DECREASES in areas where concealment permits are issued.
It does not increase.

Personal responsibility.
The SCOTUS gets s thumbs up.

"I think Obama's probably pretty pleased with this."

Posted by argh

Freddy,

First off, can you back up your claims?

See where I am going with this?

Posted by JeffJ

My claim about homocide rates by guns in various countries is a well known fact. Here is one set of stats from Web MD if you need to be convinced:

WHO WOULD JESUS SHOOT??

Posted by AngelofTRUTH

The first son of a bitch that broke into his home.

Bobotto,
What's the purpose of a car, when used correctly?
What's the purpose of a firearm, when used correctly?
That shoots your "cars kill more people than guns" argument to hell.

Rcade--this does not prevent the States or cities from keeping guns away from felons or mentally ill peoples.

It reaffirms that guns are a right under the Constitution.

Hey Fredo I'm a Democrat and I'm totally for this. I own a Sig P226 that is safely stored unloaded in a hidden floor safe that only myself and the wife know the combo to. Does that blow your mind? A gun right supporting and gun owning Democrat....wow. You might want to sit down, that giant vein on your forehead looks like it might burst.

"WHO WOULD JESUS SHOOT??"

You could probably get a good idea by comparing the list of people he stabbed, clubbed, strangled or any other method of murder available to him at the time...and in his case including miracles.

Why do people deflect to Jesus?

This decision runs counter to some of his beliefs, namely on semi-automatic weapons, local gun bans, safety locks, and keeping guns out of inner cities. www.ontheissues.org
Are you suggesting that he cares more about political victory than he does the issues

Since he's no longer an Illinois State politician, where supporting anything BUT gun control is political suicide, I'm sure he's happy a hot potato issue is off the table. Like any legal scholar, I'm sure he's happy to have a definitive ruling from SCOTUS, instead of a lot of vague interpretations.

Sorry, you're going to have to pack up the OBAMA F/U/D campaign on this issue.

"Most of the opposition has been a strawman built by righties to garner votes. You know...The bogeyman libs are gonna take your guns! Boo!"

"I hope it takes some steam out of the NRA voter who's easily scared into voting against Democrats because he thinks they'll take his guns away."

"As happy as I am about the decision, these 5-4 rulings are unsettling."

"As far as the gun locks side, it just means more kids will blow their heads off playing with daddy's gun."

After reading the thread, I wanted to take the pieces that drew my attention most.

The strawman for Gun-rights votes will be the same as the Abortion votes. Even with the Supreme Court ruling, the battle for the vote will continue. How often do we hear about voting for/against someone because, somehow, in some way, Roe v Wade will/will not be overturned.

As for gun locks, anyone can buy them. The responsible parent will buy one. The irresponsible parent won't. If a child dies for lack of the lock, there are legal consequences - regardless of whether it was legally required to have the lock. You just add another charge for the court/jury to consider. Kind of like the seat belt laws. If you don't do it, there are consequences. If I forget, I'll be charged with one extra violation of the law.

Live or Die mentioned these 5-4 rulings are unsettling.

I agree. Is the Constitution so complicated that it cannot be interpreted by the Justices of today? You had a great number of men work on the Constitution and hammer it out. They even discussed each element and their is historical records to these discussions. How is it, that these learned justices can't come to a better majority?

"WHO WOULD JESUS SHOOT??"

"You could probably get a good idea by comparing the list of people he stabbed, clubbed, strangled or any other method of murder available to him at the time...and in his case including miracles."

Posted by danni

Didn't his dad murder millions by drowning?

stick a fork in feinstein's forehead, her "mr. and mrs. america, turn them in!" is DONE!

Why do people deflect to Jesus

Because people like Danni want to shift away from other pesky facts like Obama's vote.

Augh--

Obama is not pleased with this ruling--he is a flip flopper again.

I know that most countries that have more gun restrictions than the USA have much, much lower rates of gun related crimes and deaths.

"violent crimes and deaths" and "gun related crimes and death" are not synonymous.

takes some steam out of the NRA voter who's easily scared into voting against Democrats because he thinks they'll take his guns away.

Posted by rcade

The NRA will still con them into believing that their guns can still be taken away.

I love debating with the NRA telemarketers trying to tell me so and so wants to take my guns away. When you turn their talking points around and ask them to give you exact quotes with places dates and times they begin to stammer and can hear the sweat ooozing out of them. God I love giving them the old rope a dope.

"Like any legal scholar, I'm sure he's happy to have a definitive ruling from SCOTUS, instead of a lot of vague interpretations."

You nailed it Argh. Here's what he had to say.

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

"all the pop-shooters in America won't be much use against a modern Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines"

Just remember they said that about Iraq. Plus, don't discount the power of armed civilians with former military expertise and experience.

A to the mother f**king K homeboy!

Freddy,

Comparing violence rates between Detroit (where guns are allowed) and, say, an affluent city in Western Europe isn't comparing apples with apples.

The most meaningful measurement I can think of is to compare the rates of violence before and after gun legislation is passed in the same area, i.e. if Detroit were to outlaw guns, measuring the rate of violence before and after the outlaw would be very meaningful. When looked at in this manner, every scenario that I've seen was a correletion between less violent crime with more liberal gun laws.

"Because people like Danni want to shift away from other pesky facts like Obama's vote."

What vote???
I was just making a joke dip shit.
See, for me I don't give a crap about guns. I guess it is a right to own them but by the same token the idiots who think that they are some kind of insurance against a government gone astray are kidding themselves.
I can honestly say I've never spent a single night of my life worrying about whether or not I could own a gun. I know some folks have but I have pretty much always considered them immature people who focus on "toys" which is what most guns are to most gun owners.

Lib poster.
It was a good ruling.
Did your brain just explode?
Posted by VikesLoseAgain at 2008-06-26 11:10 AM

YEAH!

Once again the wingdings demonstrate they can't read!

"Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted."
"Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
"In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

Yup, he wrote that this constitutional right still has its exceptions --- the same exceptions that existed prior to this ruling and that cities and districts may impose their own measures of Gun Control!

"Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions. "

Yup, all they did was reaffirm what was already a given!
And to this the wingdings ululate to their ignorance of existing law ----- proudly.

Well--Red--guess you would be fine if the ruling went 5-4 the other way?

So the Constitution trumps policy.

"Is it OK for you to walk down a busy crowded sidewalk with a loaded hunting rifle or handgun in downtown NY City or in this case Washington DC?"

Posted by donnerboy

Yes.

But all the nervy chihuahua people will start to tremble and shake and pee their panties at the mere sight of a weapon, and will be on their cell phones yipping and yapping about a man carrying a gun. Anybody who has a weapon is immediately suspect, is automatically considered dangerous, and must be dealt with.

I have been tempted to walk about downtown in my city with my 9 mil in its holster and strapped, but visible, just to gauge the reaction of the people.

Your buddy Obama on the subject of the right to bear arms.

"they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion."

Damn right I have both and plan to keep them.

What this ruling has done is vindicated anyone who has ever ahd to inform another that:

"Nobody is going to take your guns away"

And has made a fool out of everyone who thought otherwise.

Yes, the Republicans have now lost one of their key political fear tactics that they have used for years to control their irrational base of supporters.

Again, as I and many others have said many times:

"Nobody is going to take your guns away."

(Do any of you folks feel dumb now for ever thinking differently? You should. We told you so. Again.)

"I agree. Is the Constitution so complicated that it cannot be interpreted by the Justices of today? You had a great number of men work on the Constitution and hammer it out. They even discussed each element and their is historical records to these discussions. How is it, that these learned justices can't come to a better majority?"

5-4 votes are NOT rare in any sense of the matter. And yes, the constitution is so incredibly vague that rational minds CAN differ as to the interpretation of the constitution. Hell, the founding fathers didn't even agree.
That is why i get so furious when one side claims it is the only one who "upholds the constitution". Anyone who thinks this is cut and dry is just revealing their ignorance of the law.

Damn right I have both and plan to keep them.

Posted by ATaxpayer

Don't forget that BITTER part!

Don't forget that BITTER part!
Only if Obama wins!!!

James Dean is a colossal moron and a mindless political hack.

FACT!

This ruling has set the liberal agenda back by 37 YEARS!!!!!

FACTOLICIOUS!

Posted by James_Dean

Yeah, but blacks and women can still vote. So to you I say, "Neener Neener Neener.........."

"...who carry sawed-off shotguns under their robes.

Which would be safer and likely more effective for homeowners, btw, instead of a handgun. Shotguns and rifles being already legal in DC for home use."

Posted by Corky

Not quite true. Depends on the load.

Though one thinks of a shotgun as typically loaded with buckshot, slug shot can also be used. Big hole.

A rifle is not good for interior home defense. Long barrel, hard to maneuver, high penetration, more apt to travel through your walls and through your neighbor's. This would be bad.

While one thinks of a handgun being loaded bullets, there are many varieties. Hollow points are best for home defense and are less likely to put holes through your neighbor's wall. The first three shots I keep in my magazine are snake shot; basically a mini shotgun shell with tiny little BBs that will make noise and cause a lot of pain, but are not lethal. But the rest of the magazine(s) is (are)loaded with jacketed hollow points, just in case I need to press the point a bit further.

"Now, if you were talking about an unmentioned right to privacy ..."

Jeff, I think that the 4th amendment ("..right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...") as well as the 9th ("The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people") implies a protected right to privacy. In fact, one of the basic principles behind the constitution was the idea that each individual has the right to be left alone to follow his own conscience. Rights enumerated in the constitution tend to reflect that concept.

The Griswold vs Connecticut case (1965) was illustrative of this point where the court decided 7 - 2 that the state cannot violate the right to privacy (CT had outlawed the use of contraception) and the justices cited the 4th, 9th and 14th amendments. Douglas wrote about the "penumbras and emanations" of other constitutional protections being where the right to privacy was indicated. Black and Stewart dissented, Black on the basis that the word privacy wasn't found in the constitution and Stewart agreed that the law was stupid but that it was constitutional. It's an interesting read and it underlies many subsequent cases and legislation such as the Privacy Act of 1974.

Also a prior case is interesting, Poe v. Allman, where justice Harlan argued in his dissent that the rights protected in the constitution where not "a series of isolated points" but a "rational continuum".

Anyhow, one can argue the abortion debate from the point of view that rights of the fetus should be protected, which there are reasonable arguments for and against, but the claim that there is no protection for the right of privacy in the Constitution is, I think, been well addressed and is not valid.

That is why i get so furious when one side claims it is the only one who "upholds the constitution". Anyone who thinks this is cut and dry is just revealing their ignorance of the law.

As true as that is, I think we can all agree that 'judicial activism' does sometimes take place. The Miranda ruling springs immediately to mind.

OK the Democrats and Barrack Obama will not be confiscating all of your guns but....you better start hiding those bibles....we're coming to get them.....hide em good cuz we'll find them!!!!
I think we'll collect all the flags too!!!

Don't forget that BITTER part!
Only if Obama wins!!!

Posted by ATaxpayer

You had better stock up on the sweets than Skippy. You're going to need them come November.

See you then!!!

And has made a fool out of everyone who thought otherwise.

Hmm...I thought that's exactly what has been going on in D.C. and Chicago... and in N.O. during Katrina... and last week in Iowa...

"Your buddy Obama on the subject of the right to bear arms.

"they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion."

Damn right I have both and plan to keep them."

-----

Actually, he wasn't speaking about the right to bear arms or practice religion, you are taking him completely out of context and distorting what he was actually saying. You probably know that, though.

The Libs have a great argument though. If you think about it, DC has one of the lowest murder rates in the country thanks to their law banning guns. DC is one of the most peaceful places in the nation, almost crime free!!! The gun ban works in DC. Now, there MIGHT be crime in DC!

(Wait- huh? Oh, really? -hang on)

Um- Uh- please disregard that.

Can you document that statement?

Posted by FreddyK at 2008-06-26 12:10 PM | Reply

You can do a search on the DOJ website. Here's a place to start

I don't have a particular problem with this ruling, but anyone who still claims Scalia is a "strict constructionist" is a mindless drone.

Why is it that so many rightwingers are eager to label all leftwingers as anti 2nd Amendment. I just don't think the postings on this thread bear that out in any way. I get the impression that the vast majority of people, both rightwing and leftwing, support the right to bear arms, including handguns. It is merely the precautions surrounding the bearing of those arms which seems to be the subject of debate.
Regardless, I find it puzzling how desperate one side of the political aisle is to foist an anti-gun position on to the other side of the aisle when the facts don't bear that assertion out in the least. It comes across as disingenuous.

YES!!! this is awesome, well for the blood lovers amoungst us.

more of these scenes promised in the future

DC,

Forgive my poor wording.

What I was really driving at is the Supremes deciding that abortion is a privacy issue and is thus enumerated in the Constitution.

The same judicial reasoning could be applied to assisted suicide - it's a 'medical procedure'.

Regardless, it's all water under the bridge at this point. With the possible exception of Thomas, the Supremes would likely never overturn Roe as a matter of Stare Decisis - doing so would be too unsettling to the public at large, thus the deference paid to precedent.

Monte--you are the only mindless drone on this site.

Did you even bother to read the opinion?

Thought not..

Regardless, it's all water under the bridge at this point. With the possible exception of Thomas, the Supremes would likely never overturn Roe as a matter of Stare Decisis - doing so would be too unsettling to the public at large, thus the deference paid to precedent.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-06-26 01:08 PM

Jef--

They had no problem overturning the Eisenstaldt case that precedent over what to do with the enemy and the courts.

Regardless, it's all water under the bridge at this point. With the possible exception of Thomas, the Supremes would likely never overturn Roe as a matter of Stare Decisis - doing so would be too unsettling to the public at large, thus the deference paid to precedent.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-06-26 01:08 PM

Jef--

They had no problem overturning the Eisenstaldt case that was precedent over what to do with the enemy and the courts.

Regardless, it's all water under the bridge at this point. With the possible exception of Thomas, the Supremes would likely never overturn Roe as a matter of Stare Decisis - doing so would be too unsettling to the public at large, thus the deference paid to precedent.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-06-26 01:08 PM

Jef--

They had no problem overturning the Eisenstaldt case that was precedent over what to do with the enemy and the courts.

"Comparing violence rates between Detroit (where guns are allowed) and, say, an affluent city in Western Europe isn't comparing apples with apples."

Posted by JeffJ

What?

How about comparing the whole USA with the whole of the next 40 largest countries in the world?

Murphy - coming from you, that is a compliment. By the way, did you hear that in a random poll 6 out of 10 Americans agreed with this decision? Of course, the poll was flawed because they asked 6 people who agreed with the decision and only 4 who didn't. Crazy, huh?

"Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh uhhhhhhhhhuhh uhhhh

Uhh uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh uhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Uhhhhhhhh uhh uhhhhh uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh."

Posted by LostOnManyPaths

I think this is what he said:

"Again, as I and many others have said many times:"

"Nobody is going to take your guns away."

"(Do any of you folks feel dumb now for ever thinking differently? You should. We told you so. Again.)"

I don't know where he gets the idea that his little friends in CA, NY, NJ and other places won't TRY to ban gun ownership. This shit has been going on for YEARS.

"SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco voters this week passed what could become the nation's strictest gun ban when they outlawed not only the sale of guns in the city, but required almost everyone who is not a cop, security guard or member of the military to surrender their handguns to police by April 1."

You raise an important distinction, Mod.

Saying that guns are bad for society is not tatamount to saying that the right to own gun ownership is protected by the Constitution.

Just because one opposes gun ownership doesn't mean that he believes that ownership isn't guarunteed by the Constitution.

It comes across as disingenuous.

Because it is. How else do Republican candidates get votes?

Why is it that so many rightwingers are eager to label all leftwingers as anti 2nd Amendment.

Because Republican politicians said so and the fools among us believed them. The fools are easy to spot in this thread. They are the ones that are still claiming that some Liberal Agenda involves taking their guns. Those people are quite stupid, but we still have to live with them.

Freddy,

See my example as a before and after scenario.

I firmly believe it is a far better measurement - we are comparing the same region and same Demographics with the only real variable of change being gun legislation.

It's not that the point you raise isn't meritous, it's just that it's not as accurate as my scenario due to more variables.

celerysticks,

Are you ever not a total pussy?

[citation needed]

"A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7."

"Cuba's murder rate is 7.8."
"Mexico's murder rate is 17.5."
"Russia's murder rate is 30.6."

WHICH ONE OF YOU RIGHTIES WAS ON HERE THE OTHER DAY SAYING HOW MUCH YOU HATED THESE 5-4 RULINGS.......STILL HATE THEM NOW?

"Because Republican politicians said so and the fools among us believed them....

Posted by Manypaths at 2008-06-26 01:16 PM"

Some mouth-breathers still believe that Republicans are the "fiscally conservative" ones. LOL!

OMG! Sorry for the triple post!

Scalia is following the Constitution...that is all he can do, that is all he is supposed to do. However, it will come as a surprise to you to learn that crime and murder rates are significantly LOWER in areas where people own guns and even lower when concealed carry is allowed. Why? Because the criminals have to guess which of their intended victims might be armed.

I hope it takes some steam out of the NRA voter who's easily scared into voting against Democrats because he thinks they'll take his guns away.

Posted by rcade

Did you hear the big 0s comment on this?

Hate the 5-4 rulings? Yes, because this should have been a 9-0 ruling.

HOORAY! Too bad they screwed the pooch on the Death to child rapists thing.

FACT!

Posted by James_Dean at 2008-06-26 11:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's actually an opinion, but keep trying, someday you'll get it right.

Now, you being someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word fact........IS A FACT!

I am for the right to bear arms, but that right is not in the second amendment.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-06-26 11:19 AM

Why don't you explain BB?

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-06-26 11:22 AM | Reply

The concept of citizens to bear arms is very simple to express. Something along the lines of--All citizens shall have the right to bear arms, and this right may not be infringed.

However, the Constitution brings in all kinds of other "unnecessary" words if that were the intent of the framers. People tend to ignore the other words, and only see--the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Some don't even see---"shall not be infringed, and only see--the people have the right to bear arms. I would bet you fall into the last category.

But what the sentence says, is that the reason people have the right to bear arms is that they are needed to protect the State. It doesn't say all citizens--it says only-- a well regulated militia--not anybody who can afford a weapon.

As to the "shall not be infringed", that means--no regulation--no limitation. No registration. Not on pistols--rifles--machine guns--bazookas--tanks--anti-
air craft guns--aircraft fighters and bombers--nuclear arms--biological arms--chemical arms.

The second amendment refers to the State Militias. Not the ordinary citizen. There can be no weapons charges against anyone anymore--all they have to do is have the money to get to the USSC, and whatever charges will be droppped on the "infringement" part of the amendment. Fine for State Militias--bad for citizens to have the right to nukes. The State Militias are well regulated--quite a difference there ya think?

Just because one opposes gun ownership doesn't mean that he believes that ownership isn't guarunteed by the Constitution.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-06-26 01:13 PM

Tell that to the four justices who voted against the ruling today.

They are the ones that are still claiming that some Liberal Agenda involves taking their guns. Those people are quite stupid, but we still have to live with them.

Posted by Manypaths at 2008-06-26 01:16 PM |

As opposed those on the right who cling to their guns and bibles? It is interesting nobody brings up the Dem nominee who was a paid board member of the Joyce Foundation. A Liberal Group hell bent on removing all guns from society. One only has to look at the crime rate in Chicago to see how well their agenda worked out. Not to mention how it may be a national agenda by Obama and the liberals.

NOPE ! NRA voters are, correctly, pretty much opposed to dems across the board, guns or no guns.
Nice attempt at a very crazy far stretch to try to find the silver lining though, Jefe.

Posted by Fredo_C at 2008-06-26 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

The avg NRA members are just simple-minded, bitter folk who cling to their guns because they're afraid of EVERYTHING!

The second amendment refers to the State Militias. Not the ordinary citizen. There can be no weapons charges against anyone anymore--all they have to do is have the money to get to the USSC, and whatever charges will be droppped on the "infringement" part of the amendment. Fine for State Militias--bad for citizens to have the right to nukes. The State Militias are well regulated--quite a difference there ya think?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-06-26 01:26 PM

That is not correct BB--

If the gov't takes away the guns of the Militia--they are effectively taking away the guns from the individual.

The ruling does not take away the regulation of guns to certain people for certain reasons--ie mental people or felons. The Brady law is still in effect and other laws regulating guns.

People are not allowed to have tanks bazookas legally.

But your premise that it only applies to militias is flawed.

Militias are individuals. If the gov't were to take guns away from individuals they would be taking them away from the militia.

Since he's no longer an Illinois State politician, where supporting anything BUT gun control is political suicide

Posted by argh at 2008-06-26 12:28 PM | Reply

That's not true outside of Chicago. In much of Central and Southern Illinois, quite the opposite is true -- even in heavily Democratic areas.

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 well regulated militia (meaning all able bodied people, not the national guard), being necessary to the security of a free state (the people need to be armed to protect themselves from the government), the right of the people (all citizens of the US) to keep and bear arms(meaning all weapons you want), shall not be infringed (do I need to clarify what that means).

There arn't extra words in the document. They state the reason and the cure. What is so tough about reading english?

Apparently we should just let Justice Kennedy be a one-man Supreme Court and decide all the cases himself. The fact that there are so many 5-4 rulings recently makes me wonder whether the judges are looking at these issues objectively, though I haven't had time to read the opinion yet.

Got through the child rape opinions last night; the majority ruling appears to be a partisan travesty.

That is not correct BB--

"If the gov't takes away the guns of the Militia--they are effectively taking away the guns from the individual."

Not at all. State Militias are very separate from ordinary citizens.

"The ruling does not take away the regulation of guns to certain people for certain reasons--ie mental people or felons. The Brady law is still in effect and other laws regulating guns."

Sorry--that isn't what the Constitution says. If you stick with the Constitution. The Constitution says--"shall not be infringed". Of course if you want activist judges....

"People are not allowed to have tanks bazookas legally."

They will be if they take it to this court. Restricting arms ownership is infringeing on arms ownership. The Constitution says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringing is against the Constitution.

"But your premise that it only applies to militias is flawed.

Militias are individuals. If the gov't were to take guns away from individuals they would be taking them away from the militia."

No--Militias are well trained, paid by the State, and evaluated before being issued weapons. Not everyone can be a State Militia.

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-06-26 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag

"It is interesting nobody brings up the Dem nominee who was a paid board member of the Joyce Foundation. A Liberal Group hell bent on removing all guns from society. Posted by crispee_oc"

"The 94 gun violence-related grants given while he was with the Foundation were about 6 percent of the total number of grants they gave during that period. [Joyce Foundation Annual Reports]"

"The ruling does not take away the regulation of guns to certain people for certain reasons--ie mental people or felons. The Brady law is still in effect and other laws regulating guns.

People are not allowed to have tanks bazookas legally.

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-06-26 01:33 PM"

This is where I start getting confused. Where in the constitution are you finding these exceptions?

"What is so tough about reading english?

Posted by Sniper at 2008-06-26 01:40 PM"

That's funny. Law professors, judges, and other educated people have been struggling with this clause for pretty much the entire history of this country, when all along all they had to do was ask Sniper what it meant. I mean Professor Sniper, PhD.

"OMG! Sorry for the triple post!

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-06-26 01:22 PM"

Don't worry, it's not your fault you were born "special."

The Brady law is still in effect and other laws regulating guns.

People are not allowed to have tanks bazookas legally.

Posted by MURPHY

Not true on Brady. It had a sunset and has expired. It is true for the 1968 law (the result of Kennedy getting shot), it has no sunset and is still in effect.

People do have the right to own machine guns, silencers, and short long guns. There is a special tax required to own them.

The Brady law is still in effect and other laws regulating guns.

People are not allowed to have tanks bazookas legally.

Posted by MURPHY

Not true on Brady. It had a sunset and has expired. It is true for the 1968 law (the result of Kennedy getting shot), it has no sunset and is still in effect.

People do have the right to own machine guns, silencers, and short long guns. There is a special tax required to own them.

I'll be posting some relevant portions of the opinion for those interested in the court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Seems fairly logical to me.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keepand bear Arms shall not be infringed." See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law 585,
p. 394 (1867).

"Right of the People."
The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a "right of the people."
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shallnot be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

That's funny. Law professors, judges, and other educated people have been struggling with this clause for pretty much the entire history of this country, when all along all they had to do was ask Sniper what it meant. I mean Professor Sniper, PhD.

Posted by mOntecOre

NO, they are doing selective reading to push their adjenda.

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to "the people" in a context other than "rights"--the famous preamble ("We the people"), 2 of Article I (providing that "the people" will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with "the States" or "the people"). Those provisions arguably refer to "the people" acting collectively--but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right.

JUSTICE STEVENS is of course correct that the right to assemble cannot be exercised alone, but it is still an individual right, and not one conditioned upon membership in some defined "assembly,"as he contends the right to bear arms is conditioned upon membership in a defined militia. And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is "primarily collective in nature." See McDonald v. Smith, 472 U. S. 479, 482484 (1985) (describing historical origins of right to petition).

Joe, you got your shit together. Well put.

I was so stoked for this ruling, but now I want it reversed:

Or I could be a 36 year old man with 2 young sons that would gladly put 2 nines in your forehead if you threaten them.

Posted by Salaryman at 2008-06-26 01:50 PM

Great... now salaryman may shoot me... twice... in the fucking head.

You fucking silly ass liberals need a cuddle party or something... calm the fuck down.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration ofthe right takes out of the hands of government -- even the Third Branch of Government -- the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people -- which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding,responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

Sniper-

That is Scalia's language, not my own.

"Apparently we should just let Justice Kennedy be a one-man Supreme Court and decide all the cases himself.

Posted by JOE at 2008-06-26 01:41 PM"

No shit - Kennedy is definitely the new swinger on the court, replacing O'connor.

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez(1990):
"The people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . Its uses sugges[t] that the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"-- those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people."

"Great... now salaryman may shoot me... twice... in the fucking head."

But you'd still be posting here tomorrow.

"But you'd still be posting here tomorrow."

Posted by danni

FF

But you'd still be posting here tomorrow.

Posted by danni

that's pretty fucking funny...

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easyto see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning
would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war -- an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed.

"Great... now salaryman may shoot me... twice... in the fucking head."

But you'll still be smarter than Murphy.

No shit - Kennedy is definitely the new swinger on the court, replacing O'connor.

He is definitely not the Iron Clad Conservative vote that Reagan thought he was placing on the court.

As people age, they tend to become more liberal.

It's called "wisdom". Here's the study:

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution.
During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Anti-federalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787). Federalists
responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788). It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down. It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment's
prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right--unlike some other English rights--was codified.

"As people age, they tend to become more liberal.
It's called "wisdom". Here's the study:"

It's called "senility."

"As people age, they tend to become more liberal.
It's called "wisdom". Here's the study:"

It's called "senility."

"As people age, they tend to become more liberal.
It's called "wisdom". Here's the study:"

It's called "senility."

The 94 gun violence-related grants given while he was with the Foundation were about 6 percent of the total number of grants they gave during that period. [Joyce Foundation Annual Reports]"

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-06-26 01:42 PM |

Really???

Obama's Efforts to Fund the Self-Described Most Aggressive Group in the Gun Control Movement'

Yesterday I wrote that despite Barack Obama's claims that he believes in the Second Amendment, is a friend to gun owners, never supported a complete ban on handguns (despite a questionnaire from early in his career stating he did), etc., those claims are hard to balance with his approval of Chicago's effective ban on handguns. In Obama's entire time in the city, there's no record of him ever objecting to it.

Obama's audacity on this issue goes even further.

Obama was named a director of the Joyce Foundation in late 1994, and remained in that position until late 2002.

During Obama's tenure with the Joyce Foundation, donations to anti-gun groups increased dramatically. For example, in 1997 and 1998 the Violence Policy Center received $221,000 and $360,000 from the Foundation; those grants and donations increased to $1 million in 2000 and $800,000 in 2002. In all, during Obama's tenure, the group received $15 million from the Joyce Foundation.

The Violence Policy Center, despite its name, never seems all that concerned with beatings, stabbings, immolations or explosions. No, they're completely focused on gun violence, and they can effectively be called an anti-gun or pro-gun control organization.

Lest anyone think I'm mischaracterizing their objective analysis, note that their web site touts themselves as "the most aggressive group in the gun control movement." Also note studies like their one from 2000 entitled, "Unsafe in Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns," which declared the idea that the Constitution would forbid a national handgun ban a "pure myth." Also note the organization's subtly-titled book, Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.)

It's not just the VPC. The Joyce Foundation also provided several large grants to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, which can also be safely described as an anti-gun or pro-gun control organization. Besides their role in "litigation designed to change the way guns are designed, marketed, distributed, and sold," the center perpetually argued that guns in the home were more dangerous than protective.

In 1996, the foundation Obama directed approved $662,525 in grants to the Johns Hopkins Center, and by 2001, they gave another $600,000.

In the wake of today's ruling, you're going to hear Barack Obama claim passionately that he believes in the Second Amendment and that he is a friend to gun owners. It will be interesting to see how he can rectify that with his efforts to fund books like Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.

But you'll still be smarter than Murphy.

Posted by mOntecOre

Probably can drink my arrogant bastard ale quicker too... more venting...

"As people age, they tend to become more liberal."

They also shit in their pants more often.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
(Scalia)

What?? The Constitution is a living, breathing, document? The "strict constructionists" are going to hate the implications of this passage when it's used in future cases to justify decisions/results they don't like.

As people age, they tend to become more liberal."

Most political analysts would disagree

"It's called "senility."
Posted by ElmoVanPeebles at 2008-06-26 02:24 PM"

"It's called "senility."
Posted by ElmoVanPeebles at 2008-06-26 02:24 PM"

"It's called "senility."
Posted by ElmoVanPeebles at 2008-06-26 02:25 PM"

That is a fucking classic self-reorting retort! LMAO!

Way to perpetuate a stereotype...I can hear the bibles a' thumpin'!

Welcome to 1787. Guns, scurvy, famine, indians...the far west!

"You can do a search on the DOJ website. Here's a place to start"

www.nraila.org

Posted by vernon

Couldn't find it so I guess your statement was BS.

Cops are outnumbered 10-1 by the violent -- and I mean violent -- gangbangers in Los Angeles. 15 people murdered by them in only one week last month. The liberal Democrats in Los Angeles and throughout California have constantly tried to take our guns away leaving the only persons armed being the 100,000 plus gangbangers and other assorted criminals. It is a constant fight in California for our right to own guns out here. My Democrat State Senator Jack Scott is one of the wosrt and is always trying to disarm innocent Californians and take away their guns.

Just learned on the radio this morning Obama joined with the other liberals in Illinois to law abiding people in Chicago from owning a gun to protect themselves? I'm going to have to really rethink my position on that guy now. Seriously. did Obama personally own a gun to protect himself, his wife and two daughters when he lived in Illinois? I'd like to know the answer to that one.

Scenario:

TWO IDENTICAL HOUSES SIDE BY SIDE -- HOUSES A & B
3:00 a.m. -- neighborhood is dark, everyone is asleep
One criminal packing a gun and knife pulls up in front of houses A & B
Criminal sees NRA sticker on bumper sticker of the car parked in the driveway of House B.
Which house did the criminal pick when he robbed and killed the occupant?
House A or B?

They also shit in their pants more often.

Posted by ATaxpayer

Now you are confusing old people with right wing moonpies who crap their pants whenever Osama Bin Forgotten releases as scraggly audio tape proclaiming death to the infidels.

wosrt = worse

"What?? The Constitution is a living, breathing, document? The "strict constructionists" are going to hate the implications of this passage when it's used in future cases to justify decisions/results they don't like."

I took the citations out of it. Scalia was referring to prior supreme court cases that have already extended those amendments to modern forms of communication and searches. What he said doesn't make the Constitution a "living breathing document." It simply means that guns which were not around when the 2nd amendment were drafted are also considered arms for purposes of that amendment, just as communication by cell phone is considered "speech" even though they had no cell phones in the 1700s.

That is different from changing the meaning of the constitution to conform to today's values which is what people who object to the idea of a "living breathing document" disagree with.

Cops are outnumbered 10-1 by the violent -- and I mean violent -- gangbangers in Los Angeles. 15 people murdered by them in only one week last month.

So I'm a racist big deal... Can we just admit the problem with guns is when guns are in the hands of minorities?

DC gun ban, Chicago gun ban, Philly is practically a war zone some nights, CC says 15 killed in a week last month...

These shootings aren't happening outside country clubs and in prep schools...

The really scary part is the decision on our right to own a gun for self-defense was such a close vote -- 5 to 4

We don't need anymore liberals on the Supreme Court that's for sure.

TWO IDENTICAL HOUSES SIDE BY SIDE -- HOUSES A & B
3:00 a.m. -- neighborhood is dark, everyone is asleep
One criminal packing a gun and knife pulls up in front of houses A & B
Criminal sees NRA sticker on bumper sticker of the car parked in the driveway of House B.
Which house did the criminal pick when he robbed and killed the occupant?
House A or B?

Real life analogy in Kennesaw Georgia -- the only town in the country that makes gun ownership mandatory. Guess which suburb of Atlanta by far has the lowest crime rate?

What this ruling has done is vindicated anyone who has ever ahd to inform another that:

"Nobody is going to take your guns away"

Posted by Manypaths

Ignorant flag.

D.C., Chicago, and NOLA are all cities that took guns away from people. Those saying, "Nobody is going to take your guns away" were just a bunch of ignorant shits, because these cities proved otherwise. This ruling is going to protect our 2nd amendment rights from the creeps running those cities, not vindicate the shits trying to say that nobody is interested in violating them (counter to reality).

Yup, all they did was reaffirm what was already a given!

Posted by Redneckville

Stupid flag, for ignoring that this came about because D.C. went too far in restricting gun rights. That this ruling didn't just "reaffirm what was already a given", but struck down a handgun ban. Hopefully Chicago will have to reverse its unconstitutional ban as well.

Welcome to 1787. Guns, scurvy, famine....

Scurvy and famine????? you forgot smallpox and polio.

How liberal stupid paranoid can you get?

Welcome to 1787. Guns, scurvy, famine....

Another interesting side note to my post about the mandatory gun ownership laws posted in Kennesaw Georgia: Scurvy and famine did not follow the passage of this law. So these are some unfounded fears you can set aside, panchovilla.

FF for Goat--

I appreciate the way Scalia wrote the opinion.

Thanks for the excerps Joe.

Obama is now a secret muslim, a secret hypocrite and a secret gun control policymaker hack!

Probably can drink my arrogant bastard ale quicker too... more venting...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-06-26 02:29 PM

Maybe--!! Too early--later..

That is different from changing the meaning of the constitution to conform to today's values which is what people who object to the idea of a "living breathing document" disagree with.

Posted by JOE at 2008-06-26 02:55 PM | Reply

Well said Joe.

A well regulated militia with 250 million guns )))). But this is the same SC which picked George W. Bush. So no surprise. A nation with Scalia and Thomas on the highest bench earns it.

The gun supporters will have their statistics and the gun opponents will have theirs. We don't need statistics of any kind to figure out that the more guns there are the more deaths and injuries there will be caused by those guns.

That's just math and common sense though supporters will say it isn't. Zero guns would mean zero deaths caused by guns. 100 miliion guns will cause more deaths than 10 million guns. It's the price we pay for keeping the constitution sacrosanct. Pity some people don't feel the same way about Habeas Corpus and searches and seizures but those are different and less important rights apparently.

Ultimately the Second Amendment is now saying that a militia can be party of one. I can't see how the founders could have meant that otherwise they would have worded it differently but I know the usual suspects could and would come up with all kinds of convoluted arguments to say that that was exactly what they meant.

But this is the same SC which picked George W. Bush.

pussy

100 miliion guns will cause more deaths than 10 million guns.

Depends in whose hands those guns were. If gun ownership was made illegal tomorrow and the 90 million honest people turned in their guns and th 10 million dishonest citizens kept theirs, would death by guns go up or down?

This is a no brainer. They would go up because the criminals (who of course would not turn in their guns) would be emoboldened knowing that honest people were disarmed.

I expected the SCOTUS to rule in favor of the right of citizens to bear arms as the Founding Fathers intended but I was dismayed it was only a 5-4 decision. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is clear and the fact that 4 of the Justices cannot or refuse to accept the intended meaning is extremely troubling for me. What is next for those 4 Justices that the 1st Amendment only applies to those who say the right things or who practice a religion acceptable to their beliefs?

Anything less than a 7-2 ruling in favor of the right of law-abiding private citizens to bear arms is both unacceptable and troubling. We must pay closer attention to who we elect in 2008 not only for President and the U.S. Congress but also the state offices up for grabs. This means electing officials who will appoint judges who respect the law as it was meant to be interpreted and who will rein in judges who attempt to reinterpret the laws to mean what they think it should mean rather than what the laws were meant to mean.

Without an armed citizenry there are no rights except the ones the tyrants "benevolently" bestow upon the obedient masses.

"We don't need statistics of any kind to figure out that the more guns there are the more deaths and injuries there will be caused by those guns."

Actually, yes you do. You're asserting that "the more X happens, the more Y happens," with X being gun ownership and Y being deaths and injuries. You need stats to prove that just as much as you need them for anything else.

"Ultimately the Second Amendment is now saying that a militia can be party of one. I can't see how the founders could have meant that otherwise they would have worded it differently but I know the usual suspects could and would come up with all kinds of convoluted arguments to say that that was exactly what they meant."

Maybe you should read the opinion - it doesn't look convoluted to me. It looks like there was a perfectly historical basis for interpreting it this way, and that your notion of a "militia" doesn't work with the way the term "the people" has been used and interpreted in our Constitution.

100 miliion guns will cause more deaths than 10 million guns.

probably. But so do more cars and more unprotected sex. It's the society we live in and it represents the risks we are willing to take.

Glad they ruled with the people on this one.

However, being extremely cynically I don't see this deterring the anti-gun crowd one bit. Expect to see measures limiting ammo, parts or leveeing large taxes on weapons. They won't make guns illegal, just too costly or too much of a hassle to own.

your notion of a "militia" doesn't work with the way the term "the people" has been used and interpreted in our Constitution.

Posted by JOE

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" seems clear enough to me, so I'm not arguing that we should reinterpret the Second Amendment. The part about "people" meaning "person" is less clear to me and if, indeed, there are many precedents stating that people means person, I can only say that I'd have to consider each one on its merits because people clearly can sometimes not mean person in the real world. Given that people does mean person as far as the Constitution is concerned then you are obviously correct in saying that a militia can be a party of one and this, in itself, is not a convoluted argument.

I stand by my own belief though that if constitutional interpretations do mean that people always means person regardless of context then regardless of the fact that I have no constitutional or legal qualifications or expertise entitling me to say so I still say that such interpretations are full of shit.

I read the links in Goat's 3:01 p.m. post.
If those articles about Kennesau, Georgia didn't provide solid proof how mandatory gun ownership in a city can drastically lower the crime rate I don't know what else does.

Think maybe I'll add Kennesaw, Georgia to my ever growing list of places to consider moving. The peace of mind from knowing you're living in a very safe city might be worth it. Hmm, wonder if the ladies of Kennesau's "Welcome to the Neighborhood Committee" also tuck a 38 caliber in with the jam and biscuits when they come knocking on your door with their "Welcome Basket." Guess I should take some firearm lessons down at my local shooting range now so I'll be prepared. :)

An armed society is a polite society.

POSTED BY VERNON

You are talking about the US of A? Amazing.

An armed society is a polite society.

POSTED BY VERNON

You are talking about the US of A? Amazing.

Joe,

I'm not saying we don't need stats to back up any argument that we care to make one way or the other, I'm just saying that mathematically and experientially we know that more instruments available to kill people easily with will mean that more people will be killed more easily.

Goatman,

I know your argument about which people give up their guns and which don't is both compelling and flawed. Its flaws are subtle and beyond my desire at this point to make my brain hurt thinking about it and turning those thoughts into words. But you're wrong. So there. Maybe you're not, though! Later. Maybe.

"The part about "people" meaning "person" is less clear to me"

If you had read the court's opinion, you'd know that the phrase "the people" has always been interpreted to refer to individual rights.

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shallnot be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

"I'm just saying that mathematically and experientially we know that more instruments available to kill people easily with will mean that more people will be killed more easily."

If that's the only thing you're trying to prove, maybe you don't need stats. Perhaps a far more relevant inquiry would be whether the increase in gun ownership simply means more criminals dying, which many people would not consider to be a bad thing.

"But you'll still be smarter than Murphy."

"Probably can drink my arrogant bastard ale quicker too... more venting...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-06-26 02:29 PM"

Not sure about this. Based on Murphy's posts yesterday re: Obama leading in McCain in some poll, she's got a lot of excess venting in her head. I'll bet you can feel a breeze blow right through it.

Which way to the gun store???

I am gonna get me a BIG GUN!

FACT!

Posted by James_Dean at 2008-06-26 04:12 PM"

What? BIG GUNs cost money? FACT?

Nevermind.

James_Dean

Somebody please explain why countries that do not allow citizens to own guns have lower violent crime rates than countries that do allow individual gun ownership. The no-gun countries should be where "only the criminals have guns," right? So what gives? (And save the histrionics - I'm not saying I think we should not be able to own guns, but I suspect that the "only criminals will have guns" argument is specious.) Anyone want to give it a shot?

Perhaps a far more relevant inquiry would be whether the increase in gun ownership simply means more criminals dying, which many people would not consider to be a bad thing.

More criminals will die if gun ownership is increased. Obviously. A good thing? Probably. More non-criminals will die too. Obviously. A good thing? No.

There are no simple answers here. If the Second Amendment did not exist today then any attempt to change the constitution to include it would almost certainly fail given the certain opposition of the government. Is that a good thing? Yes and no.

The political response is interesting. The Mayor of D.C. has condemned the decision and declared in effect that he is going to be able to circumvent it. Surprise?

One fellow claimed that the gun control laws were intended to deprive blacks of the right to own weapons.

Why are the urban areas the places where the weapons are so often used to commit crimes?

Lots of trees, a nearby lake, lots of history. Kennesaw mountain was the last battle before Atlanta fell and the old earthworks are still in place -- a great hiking area. The General is there in an interesting museum downtown. It is only 90 minute drive from CHattanooga, TN which is a surprisingly tourist friendly town.

I just may give Kennesaw some serious consideration
Sounds alot like what I had in mind. Thanks.

"Money? I have more money than most on the Retort.

FACT!

Posted by James_Dean at 2008-06-26 05:11 PM"

Other than your boyfriend, you have no idea how much money anyone on the Retort makes.

FACT!

I like the idea of lots of trees and I like hiking in forests. I'll look up info on the climate there.

If you review the Bill of Rights--all of the Articles go to the individual, the rights of the people over the gov't.

It is amazing that the 4 other justices see the 2nd Amendment --to defend yourself--not being protected and think it is just fine for the gov't to take it away.

Just like property rights--the same 4 liberal justices (plus Kennedy) in the Kelo case said the gov't can take away individuals property and sell it to a Mall based on tax revenues.

Obama would nominate Ginsberg justices and McCain would nominate Roberts justices.

"McCain would nominate Roberts justices."
posted by Murphy

Not according to McCain:

"As models of who he would select, John McCain pointed to Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia."

I suspect that the "only criminals will have guns" argument is specious

Posted by mOntecOre

Feel free to explain how law abiding citizens can own guns in a country where owning guns makes you a criminal, and still be considered law abiding citizens.

Obama's campaign told the Chicago Tribune last year, "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."

"McCain would nominate Roberts justices.

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-06-26 05:24 PM"

We should be so lucky. Try someone more in the mold of Scaliamos. Neither Scalia nor especially Thomas is even qualified to carry Roberts' briefcase.

I am in the top 2 percentile so statistically I DO know I make more than most on the Retort...

FACT!

Posted by James_Dean

Are you sure it isn't the top 2 percentile with Down's Syndrome?

Based on your grammatical performances, I'm willing to bet my right hand that you're lying, and I'm keeping my right hand.

Hey look, I found your picture on the interwebs...

...wipe your but with your left...

Case closed. FACT!

Side note. PVC pipes in the corner of your apartment do not denote wealth Jimmy.

Somebody please explain why countries that do not allow citizens to own guns have lower violent crime rates than countries that do allow individual gun ownership.

What are their ghettos like and do they have large populations of black and hispanic citizens?

Sorry, but on this issue, I'm not sugar coating anything... Its not the White areas of cities that people are afraid to drive through. If inner city minorities weren't allowed to own guns there would be much less crime in this country.

Jimmy, it's good to see you're staying positive after such a pride-destroying smackdown. Delusional, but positive!

Kennesaw mountain was the last battle before Atlanta fell and the old earthworks are still in place -- a great hiking area.

Went to kennesaw during an OCS tour. Very nice place to tour.

Oh yea,

Great day for the United States. The constitution was interpreted correctly.

This is Rubes post from the Death Penalty thread:

These 5-4 votes are getting annoying too btw

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-06-25 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Still feel this way Rube or are you a hypocrite?

Some people here are sad and lonely.

FACT!

I don't understand how the insane number of guns in American society today helps us keep a "well regulated militia."

Is it the number of guns or is it the number of owners.

Next on the docket, is the "well regulated militia" run by the government.

RCADE & FRIENDS...must be upset...that the 2nd amendment will stand

The reason the DR libs on this site failed to take guns out of americas hands is because they failed to address key issue when taking guns away

what are the issues you might ask.....the issues are simple....

how do you protect people...when they are faced crimes that can be considered life and death emergencies

....you can not protect all the people all the time....and cameras only record what is happening (Brtiian has the highest rate of unsolved crimes...even with camera on every corner)....until this issue is addressed guns will always remain in americas hands

....another issue is....why disarm ordinary americans when we have gangs in america armed to the teeth..... how can any government disarm all of america....when they can not disarm criminals

american people have had guns for over 200+ years....its nearly impossible for america to get rid of guns....if the 2nd amendment was to be addressed.....it should have been addressed 200 years ago....not now.....hell in the wildwest days....america had a chance to address the 2nd amendment....but did not....why....because individual ownership was a right of every american....they knew that back then and we know it now.......our forefathers packed heat during their travel to the captial.....they knew they needed self protection

only now that the liberal movement has gained strength....have our 2nd amendment rights been under assult....why...because liberals tend to want to copy european governments (they are european at heart not american)

WELL GUY WELCOME TO AMERICA...WE DONT NEED NO STINKING BADGES

The no-gun countries should be where "only the criminals have guns," right?

Uh.

Right.

So what gives?

"What gives" in regards to what?

(...but I suspect that the "only criminals will have guns" argument is specious.)

That's because you're a dumbass.

Anyone want to give it a shot?

Google "Cuidad Juarez" and "violence".

Or better yet, pick up a fucking newspaper, fight past your habit of jerking off to Garrison Keillor's column head picture on Page 3, and try getting all the back to the Latin America section for once.

Your world will get a lot bigger.

a) I do not like guns.
b) I did not even like guns when I was required to carry one.
c) I am pathetic with machine guns, although I am quite a good shot with a 9mm.
d) I was okay with carrying and shooting but when it came to the taking apart and cleaning I did the usual feminine thing of batting my eyelashes at the nearest Marine and got him to do it.
e) We do not have a gun in the home.
f) My husband really wants a gun in the home.
g) We have recently been looking at hand guns and right now the only thing holding us back is the price.
h) At some point in the near future I think that we will own a gun.
i) It has taken 16 years for me to go from "gun!!!!!!" NEVER, to "okay if you really want one you can have one but you can only ever use it to shoot a burgler" type of acceptance.
j) I just hope that said gun is never used on any member of my family by a bad guy who either found it or wrestled it out of our hands.
k) Did I mention I really don't like guns?

Even a broke clock is right twice a day. As much as it pains me, I must say, Scalia etal got this one right.

Went to kennesaw during an OCS tour. Very nice place to tour

The 22+ miles of hiking trails are some of the best I've been on. You can choose to go up either mountain, or around the perimeter of them and more level ground to Cheatham hill. All are under the canopy of pines and hardwoods. I hiked them all many, many times the 13 years I lived there.

A night time hike by the full moon is unlike any other. A little spooky knowing all the souls that died there, but very enchanting.

A FRIEND ONCE ASKED ME..... why do i own a gun...its the police job to fight crime not mine

i told them i also own a fire extinguisher....if i see my kichen on fire should i let the fire dept handle the blaze (and fuck using a fire exinguisher because its the fire dept job)

well the same applies to guns....when im being robbed a gun point or somebodies breaking into my house.....should i just call the cops...and hope that the bad guy does the right thing....or hope the police get there on time

i rather have it and not need it...than not have it when i need it

LITLE...WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU JOIN THE MILITARY...AND HATE GUNS???? YOU KNOW THE MILITARY IS ABOUT KILLING PEOPLE DONT YOU (sounds like a silly descion on your part)

ALSO...WHY WOULD YOU NOT TRUST THE PERSON YOU SLEEP WITH A GUN??? MY GIRL WAS A MARINE AND I FULLY TRUST HER WITH ANY GUN SHE WANT TO POSSES

Fools, that amendment was written so Americans could kick the U.S.government's ass , when they have had enough of the oppressive taxation, redistribution of wealth, and marxism. As real Americans are aware, U.S. military cannot be used against Americans, that is why the liberal marxist debris, reid,pelosi,clintons,osama obama want to do away with the U.S. militaries and have the U.N. do all the policing around the world.The American people are also to consider any armed foreign military on any U.S. soil as an invading force, and take up arms against them, regardless of what the current U.S. government at the time says.That will keep the obama garbage in line .

And what about asswipe obama making the statement (twice) " that a man has no right to protect himself even in his home " fuck that worthless piece of shit, he is no leader , just another @%&*%@! .

This is a good ruling. But it is also a good ruling because Scalia and Thomas had to sway from their so called "strict interpretation" of the constitution philosophy to get to this ruling. Hahahahahahahaha. I guess that argument is dead now. Or I guess "interpreting the intent" of the Framers is only good when it is good for conservative issues. Hahahahahahaha

This is a good ruling. But it is also a good ruling because Scalia and Thomas had to sway from their so called "strict interpretation" of the constitution philosophy to get to this ruling. Hahahahahahahaha. I guess that argument is dead now. Or I guess "interpreting the intent" of the Framers is only good when it is good for conservative issues. Hahahahahahaha

"Fools, that amendment was written so Americans could kick the U.S.government's ass"

Rightnut

Uh, no it wasn't. First off, don't get me wrong, I love the new ruling. But the second amendment was written because each state had a militia made up of its male population. Therefore they wanted to make sure the Federal government could not stop that. Each state required its male citizens to own arms. The National guard later took the place of the militias. The National Guard traces its history directly to the state run militias. This means that the National Guard is today's "well regulated militia".

The 22+ miles of hiking trails are some of the best I've been on. You can choose to go up either mountain, or around the perimeter of them and more level ground to Cheatham hill. All are under the canopy of pines and hardwoods. I hiked them all many, many times the 13 years I lived there.

Just now put my name in on Kennesaw's town website and requested a slew of brouchures about the town/recreation areas be mailed to me. Small town compared to my town of over 110,000 people. Kennesaw had a little over 25,000 people in 2000. Seems nice. The average income in Kennesaw is more than I make but no big deal as long as the cost of living is not high like it is out here in CA. Does it ever snow?

Out of curiousity I put in a search for Kennesaw homes on a realtor's search website for "2+ bedroom homes with 1+ baths under $200 G" and it came up with over 300 homes for sale. Bookmarked it and I'll take a look when I have some time to go through it. They even have homes with actual basements!! A real novelty for someone from CA :)

These 5-4 votes are getting annoying too btw

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-06-25 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Still feel this way Rube or are you a hypocrite?

Posted by COMMONSENSE

I still feel exactly the same way... its been said earlier, but its almost like the only justice who should show up anymore is Kennedy... the other 8 seem to vote the same way everytime. Those 8 are very political in their rulings, and that isn't how its supposed to be.

BTW I don't own a gun, and although I've thought about getting one before, unless things change I really don't see myself getting one... no need... so this ruling really has about as much bearing on my life as Roe v. Wade.

Geeze, I can't believe how inexpensive a few of those houses in Kennesaw are compared to California. You can't even buy a garage out for some of those prices. There must be a catch or downfall in there somewhere for those prices.

"buy a garage out for...." = "...buy a garage out here for..."

Also -- Ever snow there? What about mosquitoes? Do they eat you alive in Georgia?

To OBAMA FANS:

I had decided to give him a chance and vote for him as McCain would be nothing more than a guaranteed repeat of 4 more years of Bush globalism and greed.

BUT -- help me out here with one of my concerns --
If Obama had been President when the last appointee was made to the Supreme Court he would have nominated a very liberal judge and today we would NOT have the right to own a gun to protect ourselves because Obama would have made sure any judge he put on the Supreme Court would have swung this vote the other way.

Today's Supreme Court decision -- under an Obama Supreme Court -- would have been 5-4 AGAINST owning a gun for self defense. Now tell me why I should vote for Obama when if any of the current judges on the S.Ct drop dead the court will then tilt entirely to the left because he will appoint a very left wing radical judge. It's not only me -- a registered independent -- who is concerned about future S.CT appointees but also millions of other Americans (independents or those "on the fence" about voting for Obama) too. We came within ONE single vote on today's ruling of losing our right to have possess a gun for our own self-defense.

Really makes me wonder and reconsider. I don't want McCain but I don't want a radical lib in the White House and Obama said only last year he believed DC's banning of guns for civilians to protect themselves in their own homes IS constitutional! Now he's flip flopping today like crazy but I don't care. He really did not want us to have a gun to protect ourselves. WHY SHOULD I VOTE FOR OBAMA? I'll be open minded about it. I honestly don't want to debate anyone -- just want to know your reasons why I (and millions of other Americans) should not be concerned about Obama, if elected President, loading any Supreme Court vacancies with radical leftist judges. I'll look back on here later.

There must be a catch or downfall in there somewhere for those prices.

Yep, you have to live in a town full of redneck grits.

Mosquitoes? That's just the beginning of it.

Obama: "I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally," he said. "And a lot of people -- law-abiding citizens -- use it for hunting, for sportsmanship and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets, we are going to trace more effectively how these guns are ending up on the streets, to unscrupulous gun dealers, who oftentimes are selling to straw purchasers. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. Those are all approaches that I think the average gun owner would actually support.

"The problem is that we've got a position, oftentimes by the NRA, that says any regulation whatsoever is the camel's nose under the tent. And that, I think, is not where the American people are at. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions."

Fools, that amendment was written so Americans could kick the U.S.government's ass , when they have had enough of .... marxism.

Posted by rightnut at 2008-06-26 07:34 PM | Reply

I'm fairly confident that Marxism was not a topic of discussion at the Constitutional Convention.

Obama: "I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally," he said. "And a lot of people -- law-abiding citizens -- use it for hunting, for sportsmanship and for protecting their families.

OZ... your OBAMA qutoes was made today...that was OBAMA political pandering....he does not really mean it....he is trying to infulence republican votes who are disenfranchised by their party....nothing else...OBAMA has never done anything to help out the pro-gun community....he has never defended gun-rights owners ...until his campaign need them to...it all political bullshit

CC... to answer your question....Mccain is no pro-gun either..(im going to vote for mccain).....so you can vote for either one becuase their stance on guns is pretty much the same....or mcsame.....the only thing that might be different...is that mccain will not put a SC justice that is anti-gun

OZ... your OBAMA qutoes [sic] was made today.

"In a February interview with WJLA's Leon Harris..."

Good idea to to read from the link I provided.

Nonetheless I've had a hard time voting for Democrats who I would otherwise support because their anti-gun and anti-male positions. It's cost them a lot of votes.

Obama is a city boy. The only side he sees is the gangbangers who obviously don't register their firearms, carry them illegally, and commit crimes. I think overall he'll make a good president, but the only way he can count on my vote is if he puts Sam Nunn on as VP.

The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

My question is:

How many people who own guns have actually fired them in self defence.

Maybe 10 a year?

Keep lunatics , legally and illegally from owning guns.

Legal owners (NRA Nazis) scare me more than the criminals.

A grown man who can't defend himself with his hands only, deserves to die.

Y'all are pussies with little dicks

CC--

Nominating SCOTUS judges and other judicial appointees is perhaps the single most important consideration for me with voting for McCain.

Obama will pick someone from the ACLU Attorney Panel to be his choice. And you are right--if Obama gets to nominate the next SCOTUS-and something like this issue came up---we would all be banned from guns to protect ourselves and our families. And that is not even the tip of the iceberg with another liberal justice on the court.

Our country is the greatest on the planet. We can and have survived many POTUS --their programs and wars and treaties and bills.

But with the issue of judicial appointments they last far into the future--that affect the country in bigger and greater ways than what the POTUS did when they were president.

This will be Bush's greatest legacy--his appointment of Alito and Roberts, because the rulings are so close.

And I salute McCain as he was on the Gang of 14 and got those guys passed thru the Senate. There were so many folks criticizing him for doing this and it worked!

Notice how Obama wasn't on that bipartisan committee. And he voted against Roberts and Alito.

If you honestly think that Obama isn't a globalist, or won't continue the war in Iraq--then I have some farm land in Iowa to sell you..;o)

He is the ubber hypocrite and lying out both sides of his mouth on this issue and so many others. He is the ultimate hypocrite.

There is a clear choice this election. McCain is not Bush--but the media would like folks to think he is and the man is not.

Is it astounding that 4 justices could misread and misunderstand the Constitution on the 2nd Amendment. But activist judges, who they all are, vote with what they think the country should be like--and then maybe the populace will catch up.

That is not the way the judges are supposed to make their rulings based on--but they do.

The stakes for the future have never been higher with the issue of judicial appointments. If we have another justice like Ginsberg--the country will not be the same. And the effects will last a lifetime into our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives.

It's interesting that people struggle with a right to bear arms when it's EXPLICITLY in the Constitution, yet have struggle little in determining there IS a right to abortion.

And I don't mean to make an argument against abortion -- I'm saying that if you think there IS a right to abortion and question whether there is a right for individuals to bear arms -- then you may NOT be reading the real Constitution.

And... if the country doesn't like the result of today's decision -- the remedy is not judicial activism. Rather, it's by another amendment to supersede the 2nd Amendment.

All this talk about how this could hurt inner cities isn't relevant to interpreting the Constitution. Similarly, the fact that people disparage/insult/verbally attack others it NOT a reason to get rid of our freedom of speech.

The answer is reasonable controls meeting judicial scrutiny in compliance with the 2nd Amendment or a Constitutional amendment.

The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Posted by moneywar

True, but the very words "bear arms" denote military. These words were very rarely used to mean carry weopons. People confuse "arms" with "firearms" instead of the proper latin word "armis" from which it came, and which has pretty much always been used as a military term. And however you slice it, you can't get rid of the "well regulated militia" comment without doing a bit of reinterpretation.

Before the national guard the militias were well regulated. Five years after the Constitution was adopted, the US adopted the Milita Act of 1792. This Act shows us what the requirment was for being in a militia. You can plainly see that you were required to "bear arms" for the militia. The National Guard made this obsolete later. Read it below.

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

WELL REGULATE MILITA...means Well Trained and well equiped.....it has nothing to do with regulating firearms....(besides...why would a government in its early years want to regulate flintlocks and muskets)

Jasper,

Your quote includes this: That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

The use of the word "arms" there clearly denotes firearms.

From today's opinion: "In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. . . . Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque."

Scalia nailed it!

there was crime in early america....traveling on the roads back then was dangerous....since there were no police force...people had to defend themselves from bands of theives that ambushed people going from city to city....remember i got shotgun during the wildwest....well crime still exsisted in early america...even when our forefathers wrote the constitution

Funny, so may of your just love the SCOTUS when they support your world view - surprise, you do not always get what you want [hey, but if you try real hard you just may get what you need].

Good post murphy....

Fer many people around the world the image of the average American includes a gun.

Making guns illegal in the urban enviroment is a bit of a mug's game.

You can't effectively root guns out of that enviroment, therefore it behooves folk to look at allowing honest, law abiding citizens to own and carry guns (even CCW) and to tighten regulations to better track the sale of guns and bullets and keep them out of the hands of those who should not possess them like crazy folks and felons.

"A well regulated militia"

It's the only ammendment that mentions regulation by name.

Spud thinks there's a good reason fer that.

/Anyone suprised that a notorious lefty like Spud is pro gun?

//A people shouldn't be afraid of their government a government should be afraid of it's people.

~V fer Vendetta

Be Well.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

4th Amendment Trashed by Democrats
The Democrats Betray the Fourth Amendment
June 24, 2008
Anthony Gregory

What else is new?

one might die...

WELL REGULATE MILITA...means Well Trained and well equiped...

~Judas.

Gawd, yer thick.

You make bricks look unsubstantial in direct comparison.

Be Well.

/Anyone suprised that a notorious lefty like Spud is pro gun?

//A people shouldn't be afraid of their government a government should be afraid of it's people

NO...BEING PRO-GUN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL PARTY

WELL REGULATE MILITA...means Well Trained and well equiped...

~Judas.

Gawd, yer thick.

You make bricks look unsubstantial in direct comparison

TELL ME SPUD...HOW WERE GUNS REGULATED BACK THEN....HOW DID THE GOVERNMENT TRACK GUNS...WHAT WAS THE ATF OF 1700s....DID THE MUSKETS HAVE SERIAL NUMBERS????

We don't need statistics of any kind to figure out that the more guns there are the more deaths and injuries there will be caused by those guns.

Posted by BlueInBushland

I guess you can prove that wild idea.

Guns were illegal in DC. I guess they didn't have anyone shot with a gun. Damn, that is a leap.

Scalia is in his element with his opinion on this case.

Again--the Bill of Rights --all of them including the 2nd Amendment all have to do with the Poeple's Rights.

Not with the gov't or the military.

Heck the 3rd Amendment tells the soldiers to stay out of the people's houses unless invited.

It is all about People Rights--not the gov't or the military.

Besides--how on earth could you say only the militia could keep and bear arms without including the people.

The militia was the "people".

And it would be just like a gov't to ban the guns from the individuals so ONLY the militia could keep and bear arms--effectively disarming "the people."

It is pretty simple that begs the question--How could 4 of the justices think differently?

As for Obama--he is a secret hypocrite and had to hurry back to HQ of his plane and get his talking points from his handlers.

The guy is such an empty suit it's hilarious! He thinks he's a constitutional lawyer--really!!

He signed in his own writing a question "YES" he agreed to banning guns in 1995 (year ?).

Hey! Obama can have that opinion--Just ADMIT it and move on with head bashing.

But he won't and hems and haws, and abbidee-abbidee-abbidee, and cah-cah-cah, and just plain old lies.

ITS FUNNY PEOPLE TALK ABOUT "WELL REGUALTED"...but have no clue on how the government regulated guns back in the 1700s

WELL SPUD...GET BACK WITH ME...YOUR ANSWER...ON HOW GOVERNMENT REGUALTED GUNS IN THE 1700S....maybe you can find out if they did background check or something...maybe a 3 day waiting period...or they might have a police musket inspection task force

SPUD is funny thinks Spud knows it all

the scary part is that four of them tried to do away with an amendment to the constitution without no input from us....the people.
EXCEPT WE DO HAVVE input......its called presidential elections and this shows just how important they are.

scalia's comments were spectacular

one thing though as someone so rightly pointed out.
this will mean that DC will be having people shooting at people and killing them because this liberal law banning handguns had to be the answer.........yeah right.....

Judas,

Scalia preemptively destroyed your argument:

"Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. . . . Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque."

SOMEGUY...i said nothing about keeping a bearing arms...i said about WELL REGULATE MILITA

So as Colbert says--

Me and My militia is allowed to carry a gun!

The 2nd amendment clearly states, in two parts:

(1) A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, (2) (and) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

What parts of the 2nd amendment don't you libs understand?

The funny thing is, you libs cry when Bush "tears apart the constitution" with secret wiretappings because it may flush out your gay activities and therefore put your marriages at risk.

But when the 2nd Amendment of the constitution is at stake you cry foul because you are affraid of straight guys with guns.

Amazing....This shit just writes itself.

Judas,

I think the concept of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from the tyranny of government. The purpose of keeping and bearing arms was for the protection of the people, through, if the need arose, a militia. Hence, the individual right to bear an arm so that if the need arose, the individuals have the arms and the knowledge of how to use. Without keeping and bearing arms, that knowledge of use would be deficient.

Consequently, this is why the Militia Act of 1792, which you quoted at length above, says that a soldier shall bring "himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid".

Does that answer your question as to why the 2nd Amendment begins with "A well regulated Militia"???

My Dad (old school Marine Corp.) always told me that if I ever had to shoot someone I found climbing in my window to be sure I pulled him completely into the house first before calling the police. Otherwise you'd get into legal trouble for shooting the guy before he had completed his breaking and entering.

Murphy

CC--

Nominating SCOTUS judges and other judicial appointees is perhaps the single most important consideration for me with voting for McCain.

Obama will pick someone from the ACLU Attorney Panel to be his choice. And you are right--if Obama gets to nominate the next SCOTUS-and something like this issue came up---we would all be banned from guns to protect ourselves and our families. And that is not even the tip of the iceberg with another liberal justice on the court.

Our country is the greatest on the planet. We can and have survived many POTUS --their programs and wars and treaties and bills. But with the issue of judicial appointments they last far into the future--that affect the country in bigger and greater ways than what the POTUS did when they were president. This will be Bush's greatest legacy--his appointment of Alito and Roberts, because the rulings are so close....

I'm glad you addressed my post. You feel like I do. That's why I put my post out there with those questions about Obama and future Supreme Court appointments. It hit earlier me today when I got to thinking how close this vote was and had Obama been President it would have been 5-4 against gun ownership instead of the other way around.

As much as I despise Bush, the ONE decent thing he has done in office is to appoint Alito and Roberts to the bench. You're right -- presidents come and go but Supreme Court judges last a lifetime and beyond.

McCain would destroy a lot of our government programs as he is nothing a continuation of Bush and I firmly believe McCain will drag us into a war with Iran. Let's face it -- Americans were given choices made in hell for President this year. A super liberal on one side and a Bush free trading globalist on the other both who want totally open borders and to turn us into a third world country. Who loses? America's middle class.

*sigh*

TELL ME SPUD...HOW WERE GUNS REGULATED BACK THEN

Only white men were allowed to own them.

That's a regulation right there.

Here, read this.

Does that answer your question as to why the 2nd Amendment begins with "A well regulated Militia"???

You can read the opinion here: www.scotusblog.com

Posted by SomeGuy2 at 2008-06-27 12:04 AM | Reply

Why is that well regulated militia necessary?

SORRY -- I messed up with the bold print.

"The funny thing is, you libs cry when Bush "tears apart the constitution" with secret wiretappings because it may flush out your gay activities and therefore put your marriages at risk."

Banned BEACHFuss

that's fourth amendment:>)

4th Amendment Trashed by Democrats
The Democrats Betray the Fourth Amendment
June 24, 2008
Anthony Gregory

What else is new?

McCain --did learn about the Immigration fiasco--he now starts every sentence with

"First we must secure the borders" Painful lesson--but you can teach an old dog new tricks with McCain. (Check his calls for drilling offshore and everywhere else that is America)

I am not sure what gov't programs he would destroy??

The Congress is going to do the blockade with EU approval on Iran. If there was a dust up with Iran--it won't be our soldiers going in.

We will just bomb the shit out of it--all AF and Navy.

I am not sure if that would be comforting as the shit--more shit would hit the fan.

Iran can't get a nuke though.

The other thing about McCain is that he is one stingy MF. He actually means what he says about earmarks and pork spending. He has lived it for 26 years. That's a track record.

Gov't needs to spend money--but they spend it on shit and we are further in debt and the deficit! Another problem.

McCain has integrity--may not agree with everything--but 65% is pretty good. He will do right about judges. Again that is probably my most important concern.

Why is that well regulated militia necessary?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

See the post you quoted from to see why.

NOTE: if you disagree with it's need today that's okay. But the Constitution provides for it so it stands until a superseding Constitutional amendment is passed to overturn it. You DO NOT remove Constitutional provisions by simply reading them out of the Constitution -- you take the appropriate steps, and if you have large numbers on your side for passage and ratification, then go for it!

"Iran can't get a nuke though."

Morphined

Obama still a muslim?:>)

Truthout: Congress Will OK Iran Blockade

Iran said FU to US on them using petrol oil $ & shifted away from the $ ~ is why US is threatening them with nuke BS.

Saddam was switching to Euros for his oil payments...when GW invaded, too

If North Korea allows the IMF in..."everyone" will be happy:>)

The Shrinking Influence of the US Federal Reserve

Humiliation for Mr. Dollar: Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Bank, faces a general investigation by the International Monetary Fund. Just one more example of the Fed losing its power.
For seven years, US President George W. Bush refused to allow the IMF to conduct its assessment. Even now, he has only given the IMF board his consent under one important condition. The review can begin in Bush's last year in office, but it may not be completed until he has left the White House. This is bad news for the Fed chairman.

When the final report on the risks of the US financial system is released in 2010 -- and it is likely to cause a stir internationally -- only one of the people in positions of responsibility today will still be in office: Ben Bernanke.

" If there was a dust up with Iran--it won't be our soldiers going in.

We will just bomb the shit out of it--all AF and Navy."

Yeah, General Murphy, there could be a "dust up."

"TELL ME SPUD...HOW WERE GUNS REGULATED BACK THEN"

Only white men were allowed to own them.

Things have changed. Back then men 18-45 YO were required to belong to militias and only men who were property owners could vote. Many things are no longer the same but our right to bear arms and protect ourselves from harm will never be taken from us. America has 260,000,000 guns in a population of 300,000,000. America has also been a country which has never been taken over by foreign invasion and we never will -- all because we are an armed populace.

After Hilter first came to power, he promised the German people if they voluntarily surrended their guns to the German government he would guarantee them peace and they need not fear ever going to war. They surrendered their guns to Hilter. Need I say more about what happened afterwards.

Yeah like 38 States to ratify an Amendment.

Goog luck on the 2nd Amendment changing.

I find it really interesting that it took 32 years to dump the ban!

Obama still a muslim?:>)

Bani

Obama is a secret muslim ;o)

Obama is a secret hypocrite too.

" If there was a dust up with Iran--it won't be our soldiers going in.

We will just bomb the shit out of it--all AF and Navy."

Yeah, General Murphy, there could be a "dust up."

Posted by nullifidian

General Morphine's favorites stuff?

The Weapon of Mass Destruction Is Cancer
The DoD hasn't gone public with their findings. WRAMC has dedicated floors six and seven to the stricken soldiers arriving daily -- their life may have been spared on the battlefield, but the savage beast within -- cancer -- had created its own war.
Since soldiers are uninformed about depleted uranium (DU), they are not wearing protective gear and are unknowingly inhaling and ingesting the toxic dust.

While the DoD denies that cancer is a "War Wound," many are left inflicted with the life-threatening illness, uncertain and fearful of their own mortality and military career.

Obama is a secret hypocrite too.

Posted by Morphined

including yurself tonite?

lol Beachfuss loves the Bill of Rights now?

Posted by Bani at 2008-06-27 01:00 AM | Reply |

Bani - I love it when you call me Beachfuss.

Seems sexual. Do you like pussy too?

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitutition states:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that declares a right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

One key controversy revolves around who is prohibited from infringement and whether the Second Amendment prohibits individual States from infringing upon this right.[1] In United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875) the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment only limits the power of the federal government, but it has been contended that it extends to state jurisdictions by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2]

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual right.[3][4]

& the $/4th states? fuzzywuzzy?

Now that I have your attention...

Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear. Fuzzy wuzzy had no care. Fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy was he?

Beachbuzz

Are you the guy who used to blog on here who owned those cabins for rent by a big pond and at the time had a 2 year old little boy and you were going to perform an operattion on your goldfish one night? Why can't I think of his name???? Also, what happened to DrKnowitall (DKIA)? I miss that crazy guy. He was one of my favorites. Is PWZ still up and running?

good nite fuzzy...the 4th is just as important as the 2nd & the 1st...later

operattion = operation

Hey, can we make a new rule on DR -- after 9:00 p.m. we don't have to continue
to make all those stupid spelling corrections.

Seems fuzzy to me...haha

Say, anybody got any speed they can send me via cyberspace (grin). Got to stay up late tonight to get some stuff done around here. Guess I'll got make a fresh pot of coffee strong enough to grow some hair on my chest. That should wake me up if I drink a cup or two.

Beachbuzz

Are you the guy who used to blog on here who owned those cabins for rent by a big pond and at the time had a 2 year old little boy and you were going to perform an operattion on your goldfish one night? Why can't I think of his name???? Also, what happened to DrKnowitall (DKIA)? I miss that crazy guy. He was one of my favorites. Is PWZ still up and running?

Yes Chris, I am that guy...

My boy is now 4.5 and the goldfish are, sad to say dead. DKIA died in Iraq. The PWZ is alive and well.

Things have changed

~CChris.

Agreed.

Here's the deal, America was a country that was founded by violent revolution against a government that represented unendurable tyranny to those who would be free.

Spud always wondered what was the underlying context of the fact that many Americans feel so strongly that gun ownership is a birthright. Spud has come to believe that it comes from the sure knowledge that ones government can not always be trusted to do right by their citizenry and that power must always be checked and balances.

Handguns are, in effect, a great equaliser.

An armed citizenry is part of the equation of balance that the Founding Fathers planned to prevent the historical excesses of previous types of governments.

They surrendered their guns to Hilter. Need I say more about what happened afterwards.

No need. It's agreed.

"Hey, can we make a new rule on DR -- after 9:00 p.m. we don't have to continue
to make all those stupid spelling corrections."

Doesn't bother me, Chris.

People who point out spelling errors, are sanctimonious A-holes.

Spud always wondered what was the underlying context of the fact that many Americans feel so strongly that gun ownership is a birthright. Spud has come to believe that it comes from the sure knowledge that ones government can not always be trusted to do right by their citizenry and that power must always be checked and balances.

Spud - our constitution states quite clearly:

The concept of a universal militia, consisting of all free white men bearing their own arms, originated in England.[9][10][11] The requirement that subjects bear arms and serve military duty,[12][13][14][15] dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense (see Assize of Arms). At that time, it was customary for a soldier to purchase, maintain, keep, and bring their own armor and weapon for military service. This was of such importance that Crown officials gave periodic inspections to guarantee a properly armed militia. King Henry III required every subject between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land owning subjects) to own a weapon other than a knife. The reason for such a requirement was that in the absence of a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of every man to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons.

Chris - I didn't mean to demean DKIA dieing in Iraq. I hate it as much as you do. But what can you do? He was a good friend.

DKIA died in Iraq.

That is terrible. Lisa told me what a great guy he was.

He was a great friend. Regardless of what anyone thought of him.

I'm sorry for your loss, BB.

My old friend from high school was lucky enough to come back in one piece after a few years in iraq.

He was a republican, now he vows to vote for whomever will get us out of there. So he's an Obama guy now.

In high school he was a Clinton hater and loved Bush 41, so the transformation was a bit of a shock.

I'm going to be ill. I was joking one night about he was going to die in Iraq. this has to be the worst feelings I have had in a long time. This truly sucks.

How do you know this - about DKIA?

BB- I apologize for the "chummy" comment.

Fuck it. I've forgiven people for worse behavior in the real world, and we never really fought all that much to be honest.

However, I cannot forgive what Jackass did to Larry, and that guy on cruel.com.

There is a lesson to be learned though. don't allow your information on the net and you won't be exposed. I heard that guy from cruel got fired, kicked out of school and arrested. Wow sucks to be him.

You're an irredeemable bastard, messiah/jackass. There's no excuse for what you've done. None.

DKIA died in Iraq

DKIA was KIA?

Bummer.

RIP.

Be Well.

Fuck off potato head. You don't give a shit for our troops or vets.

OTOH, I just checked the database on the LA Times for DKIA. I know his real name and he isn't on it. Unless he changed his domicile...that would be strange because he was stationed in SD and his parents lived up in LA.

So again, Source?

Alexandrite I don't expect you to understand the concept of "any means necessary" but the feeling of hurting another human being is the greatest feeling I have ever known. It is a shame you can't relate.

Just in Violent: crime in DC down 69 percent! Mayor baffled!

Go look at what dick Daily has said today, its fucking hilarious. If i ever had to live in South Side Chi_town I would demand my land lord provide a gun as part of the rent agreement.

WHO WOULD MUHAMMAD SHOOT.

infidels.

Ok if the 2nd amendment wasnt a "individual right to be protected" it would not have been in the Bill of Rights. It would have been a Article or section of the Constitution plan of Government.

If the 2nd amendment only applies to Militia(military), then it is only logical that the 1st amendment only cover publishers, not individuals, right? or am I mistaken about the idea the the BILL of RIGHT protected individual rights, like unlawfull search and seizure, or forced soldier quartering, or self incrimination?

I would demand my land lord provide a gun as part of the rent agreement.

Just imagine a big apartment complex and each unit comes with a pistol, training on a indoor range, and say 50 rounds a month. That would be a cool promo.

In Israel everyone carries a gun.

In high school he was a Clinton hater and loved Bush 41, so the transformation was a bit of a shock.

It's not really a shock for people like him and me who vote for the person instead of the party. Too many people have it ingrained in their mind that it isn't normal to vote for different parties in different elections.

I really liked Carter the first time and voted for him in '76, but couldn't stand him and voted for Reagan in '80. Same with 41 and 43. Voted for both of them the first time, but not the second.

Goatman- You'd have to know the guy. He was a big republican partisan.

But this was years ago. And before he was front line.

Alexandrite I don't expect you to understand the concept of "any means necessary" but the feeling of hurting another human being is the greatest feeling I have ever known. It is a shame you can't relate.

Posted by messiah at 2008-06-27 02:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Beachbuzz- I hope you're not still friends with this piece of trash.

Alexandrite they haven't liked me since the time I found out where Rex lived from his IP and threatened to go on local blogs of his area and say he was pedophile to watch out for. it was just a joke but Rex certainly didn't take it so well. I was banned henceforth.

I'm sure all the criminals are relieved about the supreme courts ruling and are lining up to register their guns.

you know after 15 years of reading it over and over, up and down,front to back, and i still cant sind the word HUNTING in the Constitution ANYWHERE. SO why do we bring up this "right to Hunt", its not a right given anywhere in the Text of the Constitution.

Long bit of posting on this topic. Well, looks like they got this one right, IMO. For anyone that wants a good laugh about rights check out this video and RIP Mr. Carlin.

Clearly these are activist judges on the USSC. The amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". That seems clear enough, but these judges have interpreted that to mean "shall be infringed". Legislating from the bench is not their job.

Bob - I can be labeled a liberal and conservative depending on the issue. This is pretty clear, guns don't kill people, people kill people. The second amendment gives an american the right to bear arms. I'm not a gun toting person myself, but I understand and give people their due. Really, a law banning guns only keeps them out of law abiding citizens hands. There's been lots of crime in DC for ~30 years with a ban that just doesn't work.

This is a good ruling. But it is also a good ruling because Scalia and Thomas had to sway from their so called "strict interpretation" of the constitution philosophy to get to this ruling. Hahahahahahahaha. I guess that argument is dead now. Or I guess "interpreting the intent" of the Framers is only good when it is good for conservative issues. Hahahahahahaha"