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.