Spell check? There was just a piece in the Washington Continent about misspellings of our mayor's name.

Almost everyone knows that the District's handgun ban is unconstitutional. It will be nice to hear that the majority of the Supreme Court holds that exact opinion.

Really, klaatu? Almost everyone knows it's unconstitutional?

That's funny because if the court chooses to follow 200 years of previous decisions, they would uphold the district's ban.

If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?

So, J. Rees, do you propose that all DC residents stay locked in their homes to avoid becoming victims of the scumbags that city government refuses to control?

Stare decisis is for suckers.

The ones who follow a handgun ban law are the ones you needn't worry about.
Criminals don't buy guns in stores, they buy them on the street.

And before someone pipes in with the old "but if they weren't in law-abiding citizens' hands, the wouldn't get stolen and be available on the street", answer me this... illegal drugs come from where?
Stores? Law abiding citizens?
Nope, they're shipped in. Ban guns all you want, the criminals will STILL get them.
You'll be the only ones unarmed.

Making gun control laws is like making parking violation laws and expecting someone who routinely drives 150MPH in a 25MPH zone to care.

Citizens are armed; subjects are not. We shall remain armed.

J Reed,
Can you get into your properly secured home? If so, I assume that anyone who held you or your family at gunpoint could as well. Unless of course, you were armed and trained and prepared to resist said person from entering your home? Or do you intend to entomb yourself and your family n your home?

Ridiculous argument.

The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st. Its really about freedom to bear arms to check to government, not to protect your property from a criminal. The fact that you can use them to shoot a robber is incidental.

The 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is about individual rights, so how could anyone conclude that firearm ownership/possesion is anything but an individual right. Disect the wording of the 2nd amend. Using Websters original dictionary (1820s) to obtain the ORIGINAL meaning of the wording and you will see that the founding fathers fully intended for the individual to have the RIGHT to be armed when/where they wished. Funny how liberals will push their 1st amendment rights to the very limit of sanity, but want to use the 1st amendment to eliminate the 2nd amendment.

This is an outrage! Who do these activists judges think they are! Writing their own laws like legislatures! Oh wait this is the gun ban? I thought it was upholding gay marriage. My bad.

The Constitution sets limits on the federal government's power (as related to the states and "the people"). If DC were a State the Supremes, with Kennedy as the swing vote, would find DC's ban within its right to regulate a militia. Because it's a District, they'll find it unconstitutional.

The first thing the Nazis did after invading country -- even before taking away the Jews -- was taking away the guns.

I once read about a study that said if an authoritarian regime took over America, there's a 99% chance it would come from the right.

People on the left should be the biggest proponents of gun rights.

With this court, it is a complete toss up. They may even refer to some form of international law or even decalare the constitution unconstitutional.

The Bill of Rights is NOT about individual rights. It is about the limitations of the government. The constitution and the Bill of Rights do not GIVE you any rights. They PROTECT them by defining what the Gov't can and can't do. The rights are already yours.

1. 48 states allow conceled carry
2. Gun free Zones are B.S.
3. My guns my right

If the Court wants to stick with 200 years of precedent, it'll find an individual right. Its opinions going back 150 years, anyway, treated the 2A as such ("the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went").

The lower courts, beginning in 1942 (a little less than 200 yrs ago!) started to claim it was merely a state's right. That position was so thoroughly levelled by legal scholarship that DC didn't even argue it here (arguing instead that it IS an individual right, but limited to acts with some undefined connection to a militia).

I have some video clips dealing with it linked to my page at www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com. The speakers are professors of law and civil rights attorneys, btw.

Charles:

Bingo, I was wondering how long it would take. So when any gun law is passed, it is removing the individual's rights. Anyone can choose not to exercise their rights based on personal decisions. I can choose to be silent or not buy/own a gun. That is my choice. However, I do not have the right to tell someone else that they can't speak or buy/own a gun. This doesn't mean that I can yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater or commute to work in my tank. All rights have their limits at the edge of what is safe for society as a whole. There are some who will argue that guns are not safe and should be eliminated. In that case, I would then argue that automobiles are not safe and should be eliminated. But wait...a car can be operated in a safe manner that is acceptable to society as a whole just like a gun can be operated in a safe manner. It all comes back to individual RESPONSIBILITY!

The founding fathers based the bill of rights on thier beleif that we have a right to "...life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness..."

Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all great, but pretty meaningless if one cannot defend his life. This is what we have come to today. In the founding fahters time, the threat to our liberty and prosperity was a political one. Today, the more immediate threat is physical threat to the lives of citizens.

Therefore, although it is true that the Second Amendment defends all the others, it also guarantees us the most basic right of all, which is to defend our lives and the lives of our families, loved ones and neighbors against those that would deprive us of life without reguard to society's laws.

I would like to see cities that enforce gun bans give a hard date as to when the police will give up there guns. Since no one should have a gun why would the police need them?
This will never happen since they know that criminals will always have guns and the the law is flawed in this area.

LUKE22:36

Our very own government violates just about every article of the constitution and we hardly brink an eye, yet here we are bickering about the right to kill. Where is the right to PEACE?

The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The 2nd Amendment states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Bans infringe, and the 10th Amendment prohibits states (and presumably cities and the D.C.) from doing that.

At least I hope the Supreme Court sees it that way.

All _reasonable_ people fully understand that the Second Amendment clearly guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and declares that there shall be no infringement. It also states that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. As the militia were understood at the time to be all able-bodied men, this amendment therefor presumes that if all men may be armed, the militia will be armed should it need to defend the commonwealth. Yet, though the armament of the militia proceeds from the armament of the populace, and it is a necessary precondition that if the militia is to be armed, the men must be armed, it is neither necessary nor a condition that the men be members of a militia in order to keep and bear arms.

The framers of the Constitution were all literate men, and knew full well the difference between conditional, dependent, and major clauses. The bit about the militia ("well regulated" or otherwise") is entirely a dependent clause. The right to keep and bear arms being not amenable to infringement, that is not a dependent clause, but the clause on which the other depends.

The Constitution means what it says, as written. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No State, nor the Federal, government has any such right and the Constitution expressly forbids it.

Thus: The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the People, that is to say, to all of them, as both a collection of individual persons and as the individuals themselves.

It's fascinating that it took over 200 years for SCOTUS to actually rule directly on a case, and not only that, within the lifetime of someone with direct standing in such a case.

They will, of course, uphold the Second Amendment as written. Further, they may even 'do the right thing' and start voiding a lot of State laws and a lot of cases already thought decided will be in court again for a speedy dismissal. I predict thousands of cases of civil actions against the several States and perhaps against Federal organizations for unconstitutional denial of the right to keep and bear arms.

So J.Rees, in reference to your comment "If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?"... I assume that you live in a house that is safe from fire. Do you own a fire extinguisher? Is is loaded?

Gun ownership is an individual right. Period. Why don't people who oppose it start a movement to repeal the 2nd amendment? I was always baffled by that.

When you are a senior,live in a place like DC, with the high crime, your wife gets rob at the front door,you may think about wanting a gun for protection.

Gun control means using both hands for one well placed round in your assailant. Face it: the D.C. handgun ban did nothing more than arm the criminal element and disarm law-abiding citizens. When the gun ban is overturned tomorrow, I will purchase my sidearm of choice: the Beretta 92S (15 rounds in the clip and one already chambered).

PEACE through superior firepower, Joe! PEACE flows from the barrel of a gun.

I think the ban will definitely be overturned tomorrow based on what I've heard from the justices during oral arguments. It's an unconstituional law and proven bad/ineffective policy. The bigger question is how far the decision will impact other gun laws.

Will DC leave its "no semi-autos capable (by design or readily converted) of shooting more than 12 shots w/o manual reloading?" Since nearly any semi-auto pistol can be fit with a larger magazine, that would effectively limit lawful citizens to revolvers and would basically still outlaw any rifle that uses a magazine. As a DC resident, I'd love to be "allowed" to own a semi-auto AR-15 for target shooting, hunting and home defense. Rifles such as these are extremely rarely used in crime but are unavailable in DC based on their menacing appearance.

Anyone remember an "assault weapons" crime wave when the 2004 national ban sunsetted? I sure don't.

The social ramifications can easily be spelled out in one word: war.

Same thing happens over and over. For "peace and security" the individual is forced to abdicate his/her responsiblity for their own life, and in the end- revolts!

I've heard it said for many years, that should the day come (as it may tomorrow), there will be a general ideological uprising whereby people will forcibly assert their own responsibility for their lives.

harumpf.

ballot box
soap box
belt-fed ammo-can box....

Properly secured? Jonathan Rees you live in a house with glass windows? What a stupid response to such a serious issue.. so now only people who can afford to have a secure home are afforded to defend themselves?

Let me quote Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect against tyranny in government." It's not about protecting ourself from criminals. It is about government tyranny (Bush is a perfect example of tyranny.)
And that is all I have to say on that subject. P.S. It does not matter what the US supreme Court or any court decides. They are not getting my guns......

There is no RIGHT to peace, Joe. Read the Constitution, you won't find it. ANYWHERE...
There is the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness, but even then it's the pursuit, there is no guarantee.

The Second Amendment DOES NOT give us the right to bear arms.

The Bill of Rights DO NOT grant any rights to anyone.

The Bill of Rights are restrictive clauses (read the Preamble to the BOR). The BOR says - "shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law". The BOR tell the federal government what they CANNOT do, NOT what we CAN do.

The right to bear arms is a natural right and we had it before the Constitution and we have it now. If government "regulates" guns or writes laws against guns, then government is illegal, and we all know what the Declaration tells us we should do when government becomes destructive of these ends. (It is our duty to alter it or abolish it).

Even if it IS ruled illegal... How many Americans will give up their guns?

None...

how many Americans will begin the violent overthrow of their goverment?

All....

Last time I checked, the rule of law serves the people, not the lawmakers.... If that mean getting our wishes known in other ways, so be it.

Dave--
I have read the brief filed by the Solicitor General for D.C., and they did indeed argue that the second amendment only applies to militia-related weapons. They further argued that, if the court rejected their first argument, the hand-gun ban was not prima facie unreasonable.

J. Reese writes: "If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why to you need a gun in the home?"

I am a veteran of 30 years in law enforcement, fourteen of those years assigned to homicide investigation. Would you like me to relate the number of home invasion homicides I investigated during that period? An extremely small number of homes are secure to the level that would prevent an intruder bent on entering that home with force.

this site has the gun nuts all upset with its take on how scalia voted on d.c. v heller case: www.straightrecord.com/scalia. the gun nuts seem so entrenched in believing what they want to believe and ignoring facts. they can't seem to fathom the militia issue.

The Supreme Court will most likely strike down parts of the ban. I hope they strike down the whole thing and restore the oringinal meaning and intent of the Second Amendment. Listening to the questions from each of the justices it appears it is headed for a 5-4 in favor of striking down portions of the ban. However, with Kennedy morphing into the new Sandra Day-O'Connor, his positions are becoming more difficult to predict. He (like her) seems to join opinions with little consistency.

And Charles, excuse me, but you are wrong. The Bill of Rights does not simply limit the powers of government, it protects the rights of the people. Government does not have rights, they have powers. And this is not the Bill of Powers, rather the Bill of Rights. Simplistic, I know, but evidently needed here. The Constitution enumerates the powers that the government has. The Bill of Rights was enacted to win the support of anti-Federalists who feared that the Constitution did not explicitly protect the rights of the people (unalienable rights given to man by God that are outside of government's domain). It protects the rights of the people ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") and restricts government actions that would do just that (see the 4th Amendment). And if that weren't enough, the 10th Amendment makes absolutely clear that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly enumerate a power to the government, then that power belongs to the people.

fieldenstern -- you can say gun nut as many times as you would like (although it makes you sound pretty uneducated and incapable of a serious arguement). But when you argue that the Second Amendment is referring to the right of a militia it also makes you sound ignorant. The first clause of the Amendment explains why the Founders thought the second clause of the Amendment so important. Again, government does not have rights, it has powers.

this site has the gun nuts all upset with its take on how scalia voted on d.c. v heller case: www.straightrecord.com/scalia. the gun nuts seem so entrenched in believing what they want to believe and ignoring facts. they can't seem to fathom the militia issue.
Posted by: fieldenstern | June 25, 2008 4:53 PM
---------------------
I believe that YOU are ignoring the fact that at this point in America, the entire gun-toting population IS the militia.... Loosely formed or not, we will still stand together and protect your rights for you.... We wont even send you a bill for the ammo we use doing it either...

The District's gun ban is fairly ineffective for a lot of reasons, in any case. Oddly enough, the penalties for possession of a prohibited firearm are rather low, low enough that a lot of people have been jailed repeatedly for it and they go right out and do it again.

Try to keep in mind that the main reason the guns were banned was as an anti-violence measure. Absent the violence (for example, someone who carries a gun but doesn't inappropriately use it), there's little reason to restrict guns and more than there's much reason to restrict an electric drill.

The crime that needs to be punished here is murder or malicious wounding. Raise the penalties for that, and people stop being so willing to engage in the sort of violence which mistakenly leads to banning the weapon rather than penalizing criminal intentions.

Maryland has an interesting approach. Anyone with a sane and non-violent background may purchase a handgun. However, the laws of Maryland are such that you effectively cannot have a gun anyplace except on your property, and even on your property you have a duty to retreat and you may not fire in self defense unless there is no way to escape and you feel that your life was in clear and immediate danger. Even then, any survivor may expect to win a civil suit even if they admit their presence was not lawful. Of course this is stacking everything in favor of the criminal and it practically requires cowardice, even in your own home. Maryland allows you to have guns, they just don't allow you to use them. More or less, you may keep (bvut not bear) arms, but if you ever fire them you will be spending a lot of time in court and prison. Thus is the Constitution subverted and evaded.

The Bill of Rights is what we call the first ten amendments to the constitution. It is in fact a strict limitation on the powers of the federal government. The protections of the US constitution were extended after the civil war when blacks were being denied arms under the excuse that the states law prevailed. The second amendment itself is clear but the supremes are politicos and at Kennedy has decided to be an internationalist. I expect him to go with the UN.

I'm gonna get me a gun, so don't piss me off !

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people: the mass of a community

Keep: to retain in one's possession or power

Bear: to carry

Shall not be infringed: what is your question? It seems clear to me.

Maybe the Founding Fathers didn't see the need to enumerate every reason people would need guns? Maybe some things were just so self-evident to them they didn't think it necessary? Remember they didn't have police forces in those days and people lived far from towns and the protection they afforded? Remember that the police have no duty to protect you.

and then there's the other militia arguement, that if the militia is not the free and armed citizens of this country, but is instead, some organized arm of the government, then this militia is to be regulated, as in controlled, by the armed free citizens of this country. In either case, the free citizens are not to be infringed either as the militia or as the regulators of the militia.

A gun is like a shovel. It's just a tool. Not to be worshiped, but used when you need it.The thing about those who want the tools of survival banned is for the most part can hire someone to use their tools for them. The bill rights is a economic equalizer. The poor can protect themselves as well as the rich. The 2nd amendment protects all, for in many places in this country a Law enforcement officer in at most time twenty to thirty minutes to answer a call. Washington D.C. dose not have those distances yet, I have understood that they lag in their response times.

It's about time something were done. It's amazing none of the Republican presidents took this question to court. The Bush "government" actually wants to remand the matter. We know Sen. Obama would be much worse with Sen. Magoo not much better.

Question for liberals: If every single other amendment in the U.S. Constitution deals with INDIVIDUAL rights, why do you presume that the 2nd Amendment deals with COLLECTIVE rights? At the time this precious document was penned, there was no standing army. The defenders wer the butcher, baker and candlestick maker. These men used their own weapons, their own ammunition and risked their lives without compensation nor reimbursement when over. Liberals have nothing to fear from law abiding gun owners.

Well, if SCOTUS supports the ban, how many nanoseconds will it be before the full page ads with Obama's total gun ban survey response are published?

The gun is an inanimate object without a will of its own. Heroic in the hands of many, evil in the hands of a few. Smith & Wesson doesn't make a "good gun" on Mondays and a "bad gun" on Fridays. There are only good and bad people. Cain killed Able with the jawbone of an ass, not a Saturday Night Special and man has been killing man ever since. Whether one is blugeoned to death with a shovel or a violin makes little difference to the deceased. "Shall we ban water because someone might drown in it? Matches because someone might burn themselves?" Thomas Jefferson

The criminal will always have a gun, they used to make a one shot in their garage. So what good is taking the protection away from good people. Do they stop bombs even though they are not legal...nope...
Maybe if they try to take our guns, it will be time for another civil war?

I am a Obama-lovin' liberal--and a gun owner. I believe individuals have a right to bear arms for the same reason I believe we have a right to free speech. It's in the Constitution. If you don't like it, then change the constitution.

I am saddened at how so many of my "liberal" who claim to defend pure free speech as a protected right do backflips to try to find loopholes in the 2nd amendment. You can't say you support the 1st without supporting the 2nd.

I'm right with you DC Guy. I'm trying to talk to as many of my friends (mostly liberal) about the same issues. I will admit that it's weird for me to be eagerly anticipating Scalia laying a drop kick on this ban, but McCain does have a much better policy when it comes to guns. I can only hope Obama smartens up on the issue before November and moves to the center: affirming the full rights of honest citizens while attempting to keep guns away from known criminals.

Can you just imagine a politician asserting: "There is an individual right to the free exercise of religion, but it is subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation." ?

Leftists and right wingers would probably immediately rally in objection to such an absurd notion.

Why is it so difficult for anti-second amendment types to understand that for firearms owners, the individual right to keep and bear arms is a Civil Liberty that is every bit as important as the right to vote, free exercise of religion, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure?

Gun control can work, but not in a free society. For the same reason, drug laws could work in a society without due process, assumption of innocence, and harsh punishment.
Is that what we want in the "land of the free"?
With freedom comes some risk.

The Consitution Directly ties the right to bear Arms to the right to collective Defense in the form of well regulated militas. The linkage was clearly intentional. Its clear the writers of the ammendment intended weapon ownership to be regulated much more so than speech, or religion.
Since the purpose of gun ownership seems to be collective defense, banning Handguns seems fine, while banning rifles or shotguns wouldn't be.

The literal definition of "militia", is a bunch of armed citizens. A regulated militia is simply, organized. Says nothing about organization by the federal government.

Hey Tim,

Toss this quote to your liberal friends next time you raise the issue with them. I am assuming you won't have to explain who Eugene Debs is.

"The Constitution of the United States guarantees to you the right to bear arms...You have the unquestioned right, under the law, to defend your life and protect the sanctity of your fireside. Failing in either, you are a coward and a craven and undeserving of the name of man." Eugene V. Debs

The real purpose behind the Second Amendment was that local militias, composed of white males, were needed to prevent slave revolts and to apprehend runaway slaves.

The "citizen militias" that fought the British during the Revolutionary War were abysmal failures. They tended to run whenever the British engaged. It took the well-trained regular army under Washington (and trained by von Steuben) to actually take the fight to the British.

The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of this and the argument that the Second Amendment was meant to be a bulwark against tyranny is pure bunk.

In states like Virginia, the percentage of the overall population that were slaves was shockingly high. The inclusion of the Second Amendment was to reassure Southern slaveholders that the new federal government would not leave them vulnerable.

Nonetheless, the framers were not interested in an individual's "right" to keep and carry weapons, hence the amendment begins: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

That's the portion that gun enthusiasts always seem to forget to mention.

I am liberal enough to be called a socialist in some ways and I could not be more for gun ownership. If we dropped the war on drugs, everyday gun violence would be nearly a thing of the past.

Lone Ranger, there are at least a few of us liberals who understand that the 2nd amendment guarantees individual rights, just like the first.

Actually, the second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping militias around to keep slaves enslaved. Moreover, citizen militias were quite effective during the American Revolution at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and at Cowpens to name two examples that anyone remotely familiar with the American Revolution could instantly name. They were also effective in the Black Hawk War much later, and ineffective (although gamely attempted) in the John Brown rebellion at Harper's Ferry (to name one militia 'event' that attempted to undo slavery).

As to the Constitution, the presumption that "A well regulated militia" is the only reason for rights to keep and bear arms and therefore not indicative of an individual right is deeply flawed, in historical context (actual practice), in language, and in logic. Many citizens at the time of the Constitutional convention were both armed and not part of any militia at all. The phrase "A well organized militia being necessary to a free state" has no implied limitation on individuals rights but instead reinforces an assertion that free states have the right to a militia. The indivdual right is stated openly and explicitly in the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear" because "the people" is only used in the Bill of Rights to specifically reinforce individual rights exempt from restriction by anyone.

I think much of the anti-firearms movement is motivated by irrational fear or else totalitarian interests. If reducing the amount of carnage out on the streets were really the top priority of antis- they'd start by banning the ownership of automobiles, because automobiles kill and injure more Americans than firearms, and because there is no explicit or implied protection for any sort of right to own a vehicle. Of course, such a restriction would personally inconvenience antis, and therefore it will never be on the table. Instead, limiting *others* civil liberties is the goal; that is why I suspect a totalitarian bent in the hearts and minds of people who would disarm law abiding citizens.

Actually, there ARE limits to free speech and religion - no shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, no sacrificing virgins, etc. But the difference is that people are "harmed" without those particular limits, such as injuries caused by the panic in a theater, or (obviously) the dead virgin. Prohibiting weapons because someone MIGHT be harmed is different entirely, and would be more analogous to prohibiting an entire religion because someone MIGHT be sacrificed, or prohibiting theaters because someone MIGHT yell "fire".

Bye bye liberals.

playing liberals v conservatives is such a waste of time cause were all getting @#@$ed unless your an anarchist.

Fieldenstern, that interpretation of the 10th Amendment is nothing short of idiotic. Try reading a basic textbook on conctitutional law, or better yet a junior high civics textbook, before making yourself look like even more of an ignoramus.

Move to Canada if you want gun control, national healthcare - stop perpetrating your socialims in the U.S.

I should mention that at the time of the composition of the Bill of Rights, "well-regulated" didn't have the meaning of "organized and heirarchical" as some seem to suppose. It had the meaning of "standard issue" or "type-accepted" or "conformant to standards". It meant "sufficiently equipped". It meant that if people had to show up for duty, they'd all show up with flintlocks and Kentucky rifles, not with a motley collection ranging from an archer's set to a blunderbuss.

At the time of the Revolutionary war, it wasn't long after the Seven Years War ("French and Indian War" in the US textbooks) and people well remembered the raids of the natives as promoted by the French. Read the Declaration of Independence; failure of the British government to suppress raiding natives was one of the causes given for separation. People needed their weapons, and never moreso than in small settlements at the frontier. At one point in time, the British went so far as to collect the weapons of frontier settlers and quarter troops in their homes, claiming that (in modern terms) putting officers in peoples' private homes, there was no need for the people to be armed, and in any case, an armed populace would only inflame the anger of the natives and provoke more raiding. As we all know (or should know) that both didn't work and caused great resentment.

In the modern day, we are Invaded and though the invasion is generally unarmed and generally not particularly violent or criminal, nonetheless we are Invaded and should the intentions of the invaders turn to violence, we shall need our arms to raise for the common defense. We also need our arms to raise for the common defense as economic hard times move more people into lives of desperation and possible of crime. As the local "militias" (constabularies and professional law-enforcement, a Standing Army if ever there was one) are often corrupt, or controlled by corrupt political leadership, defense becomes the responsibility of the citizens and any failure to rise to needful defense is merely capitulation to tyranny. These are the things we were warned against -- and armed against -- by our Founding Fathers back in the mid-1770s.

Regardless of the historical precedents, any person clearly has the right to defend their home with readily-available deadly force in the form of firearms. This goes without saying as Natural Law, which was the philosophy of most of our Founding Fathers. No, they specifically meant that we should all have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a defense of the State against potential tyranny imposed from above by the Federal establishment, and as a defense of the County against the State, and of the township against the County, and of the individual acting individually or in concert with like-minded law-abiding fellow citizens, against all of the higher levels of organization. To conclude, the Right of the Individual was paramount to the framers of our Constitution, and the right of the individual to keep and bear arms in their own defense, as well as that of their neighbors -- or at the service of the State -- was paramount.

And that is as it should be. So say we all.

As a previous posters states the 2nd protests the 1st.

The right to bear arms is so citizens can shoot government officials and the army should they start banning freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.

With an armed citizens the government won't start banning these things. Please note the USA is the longest running nation in the history of the world with freedom of speech ... amazing.

Constitutional Scholar, you said:

The real purpose behind the Second Amendment was that local militias, composed of white males, were needed to prevent slave revolts and to apprehend runaway slaves.

The "citizen militias" that fought the British during the Revolutionary War were abysmal failures. They tended to run whenever the British engaged. It took the well-trained regular army under Washington (and trained by von Steuben) to actually take the fight to the British.

The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of this and the argument that the Second Amendment was meant to be a bulwark against tyranny is pure bunk.
__________________________________________

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

I'm not sure where you're coming from with your claim, and I'll bet you have a hard time defending your notions. I got these quotes from the Constitution.org website. The article I read also had this to say:

"The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society. Thomas Jefferson proposed that 'no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms,' and Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law 'to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.' The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example, recognizes the 'right of an individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State.'"

Jonathan Rees--why do you need to have sex in anything but the missionary position? Or to drink anything but tap water? Or to drive anything but a Ford Escort?

If you don't like guns, don't buy one. If you are afraid of potential danger from someone else owning one, change course and stump for a reenactment of Prohibition, because a drunk anybody is more of a danger to you and society at large than my gun in either a drawer at home or my pocket. If you don't like me because I like guns and chose to own them, see a therapist.

I am in no way a gun advocate or nutcase, but if the supreme court rules to allow this Gun ban, than lots of other places across the country will try it too, and when citizens lose that right, its a bad thing.

I'm very handsome. What will they ban next -- my devastatingly good looks?

Jonathan Rees .... What would you consider "properly secure" ... Criminals can break into "properly secure".

search for "Esoteric Agenda" on you tube. watch it. if the supreme court takes our gun ownership right away...then you what is next...they take your property and land and you are powerless to do anything about it...like I said...we're screwed

A ban on firearms is unconstitutional and the supreme court is going to get firebombed if they go out with this ruling.

The right to bear arms is inalienable and may not be infringed.

NEVER EVER SHALL IT BE INFRINGED.

Death to the new world order.

If there is a ban on handguns, then this is the beginning of the end, as the "slippery slope" is ridiculously over-lubed and at a 90 degree angle straight down for gun ownership rights. I don't have the leadership skills to start a revolt, but, my fellow Americans, the right to keep and bear arms Americans, the next civil war must be declared immediately and the country brought to its knees until the ban is overturned. That's why we ultimately have guns now-- to protect our rights and keep the gov't from turning us into subjects.

Gun Laws are just more laws for criminals to ignore amn impeed law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.
I've never understood the liberal push to create more gun laws. Criminals are menaces to society because they don't follow the laws that are already in place. What will more laws do ??? More laws will give them more victims to commit crimes against.

the day we really dont need guns is the day that everyone will know we dont need guns.

If the "supremes" rule against individuals right to keep & bear, what are you going to do? I have my line drawn in the sand. How about you?

ok let the bad guys have their guns and make it illegal for LAW-ABIDING citizens to have them . that is what the second amendment says .

The Second Amendment specifically gives us the right to arm bears. DC residents have the same rights as the rest of us, but they are denied their right to arm bears, and they don't get representation in the Senate. That's baloney!

A armed member of a society is a citizen, an unarmed one is a subject.

Which one are you ?

Citizens are armed; subjects are not. We shall remain armed.

Posted by: Grand Old Republic | June 25, 2008 2:23 PM

Exactly. I've been "held up" with a .45 just 5 inches from nose, until a person has been there, they have no zero clue what it feels like. If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.

So this article claims a "decades old" debate on the meaning of the second amendment. Laughable. The founding fathers knew exactly what the second amendment was for and so do reasonable Americans. The "decades old" debate probably started with a bunch of teenage liberal "free thinkers" sitting around smoking pot, just like how most of our other internal issues began. Unfortunately this same merry bunch of fools now runs Congress. It's also laughable when people declare that we need to take guns away from the citizens. Of course, the criminals will still have THEIR guns, and home invasions will be a piece of cake. Maybe the liberals out there see it differently, but I don't expect Congress to be able to protect me and my family. They can't even solve their own problems.

The D.C. ban on handguns has worked wonders. Look how street crime has dropped...wait...maybe I'm thinking about a different place. Hopefully rightful D.C. gunowners can start making the right kind of people dead.

The constitution means exactly what it says. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The militia is the people. You and I. You have the right to keep and bear arms. If you don't want to then don't! Just what kind of pretzel logic does it take to misconstrue that? The only question is will the Supreme Court follow the constitution. If the court says the sky is green with pink polka dots does that make it so?

England and Australia have banned all guns from all citizens.
The result?
A skyrocketing increase in home invasions and bodily injury to those who are cowering in their homes.
So even if the loony left (in cahoots with the UN) is intent on deleting the second amendment from the constitution, the result will be more mayhem - just without the homeowners being able to defend themselves. Sort of like the victims in Zimbabwe.
So "from my cold dead hands" ...

I think about it like this. Its my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If you choose not to keep and bear arms then thats your right. Its what freedom is all about. Now, stop trying to take constitutional rights away from americans. Our constitution got us this far thanks to the wisdom and foresight of our founding fathers. Thats america, our heritage and our legacy. If you prefer communism or monarchy then move to countries that don't value your voice. In this country, we all get to stand and be counted.

If you want it, here it is, come and get it...

Dear Jonathan Rees: the cops are too busy conducting nighttime seatbelt patrols (they advertise this) for me to trust them to respond to my security system. Then they have the audacity to charge EVERYONE a false alarm fee for said security system whether they have a false alarm or not. Cops are fine issuers, not protectors.

It is really simple...even though I have never owned a gun...the big "C" at any reading would afford those who choose, to own and bear arms. If libs are elected in mass it might be time for this old soul to bear arms to protect and defend the constitution.

So, the forefathers who wrote the Constitution...individuals who owned guns in a society of gun ownership...didn't think individuals should own guns?!?! That's what I love about you liberals---Y'ALL ARE INSANE AND DISHONEST.

The constitution means exactly what it says. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Just what kind of pretzel logic does it take to misconstrue that? We are the militia. You and I. If you don't want to bear arms then don't! The only question is will the Supreme Court follow the constitution. If the court says the sky is green with pink polka dots does that make it so?

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but the highest violence-by-firearms rates in the world are in the countries with the strictest gun control, e.g., Mexico and Russia, whereas countries that give every male 18 year old a gun - like Switzerland, have very low rates.

And if the government wants to take my guns away, they'll have to pry them from my cold, dead hands.

...If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?

Because when seconds count 911 is minutes away.

This is my question for those who don't think the second amendment protects individual rights...how's come the other NINE amendments of the BOR protect the individual from an oppressive government, but the second does not?

Seems like a cafeteria plan BOR to me....

Would someone please give me a rational and factual argument supporting gun bans. NO EMOTIONS just real backed up facts and logic. I'll read it, I'll listen.

At stake isn't just the DC ban, but the definition of the 2nd as an individual or collective right. I hope they're stupid enough to rule the latter...

If guns kill people, then I guess spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

From my cold dead hand.

Guns don't kill people; people kill guns.

If local districts can remove the second amendment, can my local district make a law that we no longer have to pay federal income tax?

My salad shooter is my right! From my cold, dead, manicured, french-petal scented hands!

This is not the first time Gun Control has been tried on Modern Countries.

Nazi Germany implemented Gun Control right before its Genocide

Soviet Russia before the Red Terror

and Communist China during Mao.

Gun Control works great if you want a defenseless Citizenry that can be "dealt" with by The State.

200 Million "Defenseless Souls" lost to these 3 Governments

History is just repeating itself.

the 2nd Amendment will fall just like the 1st, 4th, and 5th have already fallen.

Bush didn't triple the size of the ATF for nothing.

"Really, klaatu? Almost everyone knows it's unconstitutional?

That's funny because if the court chooses to follow 200 years of previous decisions, they would uphold the district's ban."

False. Even the Miller decision indicated an individual right.

"The Bill of Rights is NOT about individual rights. It is about the limitations of the government. The constitution and the Bill of Rights do not GIVE you any rights. They PROTECT them by defining what the Gov't can and can't do. The rights are already yours.

Posted by: Charles | June 25, 2008 3:02 PM"

Thank you Charles for pointing out the correct stated purpose of our Constitution!

The Bill of Rights is not a list of things granted to us by government.
It is a numerical list of the natural
rights of man.
The founding fathers knew that in time
all governments become corrupt with thier own ideas of what is best for the governed.
The checks and balances are tools for
us to steer away from tyranical power.

I wonder if Justice Kennedy is considering the possibility that if he votes to uphold the ban, that it may affect the election results in November...

I almost wish he would...

Dreaming of the day machine guns are available in Walmart...! arfcom FTW!

I dont care if there is a gun ban. I will own a gun. I would love to see the govt do a house to house search for guns, or even find a law enforcement agency that would be willing to do it.

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.

Which part about people do you liberals not understand?

I'll fight for my right to arm bears!

The court used some uncharacteristic language at the official hearing today when talking about the opinions it will release tomorrow (Thursday). Don't forget about the possibility that they do not have the opinion ready and hold off on releasing the opinion until October...

I'm wearing out my gun catalogs. Hurry up!

The conservatives further the loss of individuals rights (patriot act,war on drugs) and the liberals just simply further the govt (welfare, healthcare) all in the interest of The military industrial complex and 90some% of us are all in the middle.

It doesn't matter what they rule. Come and get my guns. But bring an army; you'll need it. That law enforcement group is staffed by effeminate, left-wing, metro-sexual faggy-men right?

Well.... Actually, the lawmen in this country are on the side of the Right. You aren't going to get them to go door-to-door to disarm people they agree with. Not to mention the fact that there aren't enough of them anyway.

It doesn't matter what they rule. Many people will die trying to get my guns.

I hope the Chicago gun ban is overturned so people can start protecting themselves legally. Daley and his liberal friends are a menace to the hardworking families preyed on by gangbangers and thugs and poiticians.

I never plan to own one gun but pray the NRA and Gunowners win this lawsuit so the degenerates can get some of their own medicine.

Try and get mine!

If local governments can ban certain parts of the Bill of Rights because of their specific local conditions, then I'm going to insist that my City Council enacts an ordinance that locally repeals the 16th amendment and exempts me from Federal taxes!!! If it works one way then it ought to work the other. I love these clowns who argue the 2nd amendment applies to the "National Guard", which in it's current form did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written.

Liberals want to take your right away to own a gun in certain places. Liberals want to give all the Illegals the same rights as American citizens. Liberals why don't you all move to Canada.

You all must realize that without the 2nd amendment, you have no rights at all. If this amendment falls, so will the rest of them. Mark my words. The Congress is already trying to kick the 1st amendment with the "Fairness Doctrine"

The fact is: Government does not want to serve you and does not value you. They want to rid you of your rights so they can be drunk with power over you. They are globalists who want nothing more than the integration of our country with the rest of the world that does not have the freedoms we enjoy. If you cannot see this, you are as blind as Ray Charles in a dark alley.

Isn't it cool that we have a government agency called ATF -- Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms? I think that would be an awesome name for a convenience store in Arkansas. Like a one stop shop for your weekend needs.

If the 2nd amendment was intended only for a militia, then why weren't private weapons seized at the founding of this country and even during it's first 100 years? For that reason, the founding fathers of the country had intended that the amendment was for the individual rights and interpreted as such from the beginning.

The reason we have the 2nd is the ensure that we get to keep all the others. It goes way beyond personal protection. - Which is justified. But, moreover, it exists to ensure that government is kept weak, and the power belongs to the people. And, should the government overstep it's bounds, the people have a right and a responsibility to overthrow that government - with arms if necessary. The founding fathers spent more time discussing the 2nd than any other topic when they created this great nation... They were speaking from experience, having left tyranny abroad.

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press." Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States ... Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

"In England...A large proportion of the most valuable of the provisions in Magna Charta, and the bill of rights in 1688, consists of a solemn recognition, of limitations upon the power of parliament; that is, a declaration, that parliament ought not to abolish, or restrict those rights. Such are the right of trial by jury; the right to personal liberty and private property according to the law of the land; that the subjects ought to have a right to bear arms;..." Joseph Story, Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Book III at 718, § 1858. Chapter. Whole Book.

"Here, let us again pause, and reflect, how admirably this division, and distribution of legislative power is adapted to preserve the liberty, and to promote the happiness of the people of the United States...Fifthly, and lastly; by the separation of the judiciary from the legislative department; and the independence of the former, of the control, or influence of the latter, in any case where any individual may be aggrieved or oppressed, under colour of an unconstitutional act of the legislature, or executive. In England, on the contrary, the greatest political object may be attained, by laws, apparently of little importance, or amounting only to a slight domestic regulation: the game-laws, as was before observed, have been converted into the means of disarming the body of the people:..." Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D [Section 13: Restraints on Powers of Congress con't]. Whole Book.
--------------------------------------------
"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;..." Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D [Section 13: Restraints on Powers of Congress con't]. Whole Book.
---------------------------------
"the powers not delegated to congress by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. What we are about to consider are certainly not delegated to congress, nor are they noticed in the prohibitions to states; they are therefore reserved either to the states or to the people. Their high nature, their necessity to the general security and happiness will be distinctly perceived. "In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country.

The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest. The corollary, from the first position, is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

"In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence, "suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized and forfeited.

Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws." William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 125-26 (2d ed. 1829). (Mr. Rawle was appointed as a U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington. Mr. Rawle was also Washington's candidate to be the nation's first Attorney General, but Rawle declined. Chapter 10. Whole Book).
----------------------------------------------------------
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (Julian P. Boyd, Ed., 1950). See more discussion on this quote HERE.
------------------------------
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646 (June 25, 1788).
-----------------------------------
"A free people ought not only to be armed..." George Washington, speech of January 8, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790. Complete text of the First Annual Message to Congress.

This is about "People Control" Not Gun Control. If we don't stand up now and fight the Gov't will become even more involved in our lives. Oh and I would love to see someone try to come and get our guns :)

It's not about guns = good or guns = bad.
It's about the right to keep and bear arms and that is an inalienable right. People who support the infringement of this right are encouraging a violent revolution and should be treated like criminals.

So, Johnny Rees-boy, I can't put a rock through the window of your house?

Here's how it works in a free society: the Johnny-boys disarm themselves because they think resistance is futile. I keep my 12-gauge, .45, and 2 cranky dogs because I don't. The bad guys leave my house in a bag. Just like Johnny and his family leave his.

Where are you J Rees...

You put forth such an intelligent argument...

They can take my guns "...from my cold dead hands." :)

The real purpose behind the Second Amendment was that local militias, composed of white males, were needed to prevent slave revolts and to apprehend runaway slaves.

-------------------------------------------

So you say, I seriously doubt your scholarly credentials are legit with this unsubstanciated BS...You'll see this alot: "Prove it!"

You have a lot of deep seeded issues to deal with and I for one am glad you'll be leading the way in the eventual confiscation of our weaponry...

You will never be that unhappy again...

-------------------------------------------

The "citizen militias" that fought the British during the Revolutionary War were abysmal failures. (PROVE IT!) They tended to run whenever the British engaged. It took the well-trained regular army under Washington (and trained by von Steuben) to actually take the fight to the British.

-------------------------------------------

Keep trying to pass your intellect as fact numbnuts...You keep proving that real well...

-------------------------------------------

The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of this and the argument that the Second Amendment was meant to be a bulwark against tyranny is pure bunk. (Prove it!)

-------------------------------------------

The "drafters" (as you state) had more education, more character, even with their fundamental differences, and still created the foundation for our form of government and laws with that document, than you have tried to state in your own special way here today...

-------------------------------------------

In states like Virginia, the percentage of the overall population that were slaves was shockingly high. The inclusion of the Second Amendment was to reassure Southern slaveholders that the new federal government would not leave them vulnerable.

-------------------------------------------

Man, do you not have this fixation on the whole slavery issue...Seems like you miss the good ole days there boy...Youof all people will actually need a gun to protect yourself from yourself when you try to reassurect those times...

-------------------------------------------

Nonetheless, the framers were not interested in an individual's "right" to keep and carry weapons, hence the amendment begins: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

-------------------------------------------

And again, here is a BIG TIME PROVE IT!

-------------------------------------------

That's the portion that gun enthusiasts always seem to forget to mention.

-------------------------------------------

Well, it has been established in many "true" Constitutional Scholars writings over the years that the militia is embodied by the citizenry of this country, hence the term "the people" is synonymous with the term "militia"...

I highly recommend you seek life and entertainment elswhere...You really need to advance your knowledge and interprative abilities to match wits with those of us who would gladly pay for you to seek refuge in Cuba, or some other warm climate where you may live your life in that type of socialist utopia...I honestly believe you'd be much happier there...

And we all want you to be happy...

I really want the governemnt to stop "protecting" us from ourselves.
Daley and Obama are hypocrites to have bodyguards while the average citizen is left defenseless. Conceal and carry is the best way to go in Chicago and DC.

There's one thing people like Joe should realize. There's more to this than protecting ourselves from intruders or robbers. As individual gun owners, we protect our nation. How you ask? Because no country wants to bring a full military, boots on the ground attack (including and especially China) against a nation with an armed citizenry. There are 300 million people here, and a lot of us are armed. We WILL defend our homes, our families, our property, our friends, and our nation against any and all armed aggressors who wish to do them harm.

There are too many bleeding heart, "give peace a chance" liberals in this country who have no concept of consequential thinking. Take away our individual right to bear arms, and you risk far more than an individual's personal security.

I recently belonged to a State Defense Force, authorized pursuant to USC 32 Sec. 109 and our state statutes. This "militia", as it is referred to in state statues is authorized as an auxiliary police force under state statute with police powers when called to state active duty by the governor.

We come to that call to active duty ARMED. Our weapons, like our uniforms, and equipment, WE PROVIDE, not the government. Therefore, in consideration of the 2d Amendment argument, how can the MILITIA, which is the people, come to the call if they have no arms?

The 2d Amendment is clearly the last resort for the citizen if peaceful assembly, the courts, and our representatives in Congress have failed to resolve any dispute and government is abusive in its response to the opposition.

Anyone believing that the 2d Amendment is other than an individual right needs to read Washington et al regarding the importance of the 2d Amendment.

The folks who came to the call of the Continental Congress were initially armed with their own privately held weapons.

Why do you think Great Britain's populace is unarmed?

We taught them a nasty lesson that the Crown will not ever forget.

The 2nd Ammendment says, "a well-regulated militia" when they discuss right to bear arms. A reading of the "Federalist Papers", reveals that, since we did not have a standing army at the time wanted the frontiers folk to have weapons. Make guns illegal, put violent offenders with guns away for life. That'll do the trick!

I'd love to blast the next home intruder!

"But the difference is that people are "harmed" without those particular limits, such as injuries caused by the panic in a theater, or (obviously) the dead virgin. Prohibiting weapons because someone MIGHT be harmed is different entirely, and would be more analogous to prohibiting an entire religion because someone MIGHT be sacrificed, or prohibiting theaters because someone MIGHT yell "fire"."

That is what I earlier implied (or at least intended to).

I would ahve been toast if LA had silly gun Laws during the Riots.

Free countries entrust their citizens with the right to defend themselves with the force of firearms. The founders of our nation understood this - it's tragic that liberals concerned with the well being of criminals would deny us this God given RIGHT.

Thank God I live in Arizona. I carry concealed every day. If I ever see someone's life in jeopardy, they will be glad I was around. I missed saving two young men being tragicly killed by three minutes. If I had been there at the exact moment and not had my sidearm, they still would have died.

The written record of history regarding the Founders' intent underlying the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear: it's on the side of the DC appellate court and individual rights. That's why they ruled against the gun DC ban.
Demonization and political cuteness doesn't cut it since the invention and proliferation of the internet. Too many people know the truth, including some liberal law professors.
For you anti-gunners who hate
(or doggedly lie about) the 2nd Amendment, the procedure for amending or repealing it is found in Article V.
Anti-gunners: a majority of Americans are fed up with wannabe political "cutesy-ness" and manipulation. If you don't like a law, work to change it: either try to repeal the 2nd Amendment the right (constitutional) way, or go to straight to hell without passing GO and without collecting $200!
The Supremes' choice is actually quite simple. They can either 1) regain some credibility, or 2) lose what little credibility they have left since their widely hated Kelo decision.

Forget the guns, Get ropes and start linching the filty black robed communist!

I live in Tuolumne County, CA and to be elected sheriff, a candidate has to be in favor of concealed carry. An applicant undergoes a motor vehicle dept screen, and computer check for past misdemeanors and felonies. We have a lecture and test every two years. If we get a DUI, the permit is revoked. I have unholstered my revolver only once, when three men were threatening myself and a friend at 5AM going fishing at a local lake. They fled. (Later that day they were arrested for a break-in in downtown Sonora.) No person in Tuolumne County history with a concealed carry permit has ever been arrested for a gun crime. Since recent church shootings in Scotland, Australia and here, I now take it to church. Killers know where they can shoot with impunity...they are called schools, churches and "gun free zones". I am afraid of the famous 5-4 decision coming our way...but I guess it will, for now be just the poor people of DC.
As in the gunman TODAY in Kentucky who killed 5 at a plastic factory before killing himself. No concealed carry permit. Bet he would not have passed our local criteria.

The article is correct in that it is only a "decades-old debate." For more than 130 years, there wasn't any mystery as to what the 2nd Amendment meant, or what the Bill of Rights meant. It was a superfluous restraint on federal power, not a grant of individual rights. Thus, the 2nd Amendment only says that nowhere does Congress have the authority to pass gun laws (since it doesn't have an enumerated power dealing with gun laws) except in DC where Congress has plenary legislative authority. Thus, DC has the authority to outlaw guns if it wants to, but nowhere does Congress have the authority encroach upon the people and the states. Thus, the SCOTUS decision tomorrow will be nothing more than the arbitrary personal opinions of 9 ivy league law school graduates. God bless America.

people argue that guns are for sporting and personal security, that may be true in some ways but the true purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give the people a way to overthrow the government if it became too powerful and lost the ideals of democracy

I agree that the 2nd amendment was intended as a check on government, but let's face it, the government has long exceeded the power the Constitution gives to it. This creeping facism (ie "The Third Way") is not going to be defeated in the end.

In the meantime, self, family, and home defense are the primary issues for most people. At 35 and with a slight build, I cannot physically overpower many potential attackers. Without my gun I, and my family, will be at the mercy of every punk with a screwdriver. In the UK, where they have banned most guns, do you know what the big, newspaper headline issue is these days? "KNIFECRIME"

"You'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands...." And I mean that to the core. It's the most important right in the Bill of Rights an it has NOTHING to do with hunting or any other recreational activities. Suck it Left

Ban guns? Why, sure!

We banned illegal drugs years ago, and when's the last time you heard about drugs causing problems in society?

Legislation: the solution to all problems.

Conclusion.... Yes, I'm a liberal Obama loving Californian. I also strongly believe in the 2nd, and thus, own several handguns, shotguns, and what has only recently been coined "evil assault rifles"..... As do many of my friends here in California.

SO QUIT ASSUMING ALL LIBERALS ARE AGAINST GUN OWNERSHIP!

Word to the wise: Buy them now before our rights are stripped for good. The Supreme Court's ruling will do little in the end. Even Bush had asked that the DC ban be supported.

A tyrannical government, as well as criminals and others who would do us harm, would like nothing more than to see Americans disarmed. Eventually we will end up like the British: Increasing gun violence against defenseless citizens and little to no legal/private gun ownership.

I think the Second Amendment guarantees private gun ownership rights. However, in the present lawsuit, I wouldn't mind seeing a minor footnote in the Court's judicial opinion, merely observing that most gun advocates are a-holes, and many of them are also tin-foil hat wearing loony a-holes.

I agree with all in here who say that criminals will get guns no matter what. I am a firm believer in gun rights minus owning a 50 cal. machine gun. Law abiding citizens should not have this RIGHT that IS in the CONSTITUTION (what makes us a country to those who forgot) taken away. We cannot keep erasing away at this piece of paper, we are nothing without it.

Who thinks socially retarded Seung-Hui Cho (the VT gunman)had the criminal contacts to buy a Glock on the black market? The psycho could barely communicate with his classmates, let alone develop the criminal contacts necessary to buy a hot handgun.

What he COULD do was walk into a gun store, legally purchase an easily concealable handgun, and shoot 32 people to death.

So lets not pretend that legal handguns only make it easier for law-abiding citizens to walk around strapped. Easily obtainable handguns make it easier for EVERYONE--from the hotheaded drunken fratboy to the emotionally unstable outcast--to take another person's life with the twitch of a finger.

Especially in a violence-plagued city like DC, flooding the streets with guns is not without consequences. Sometimes I think people forget that the challenges facing dense population centers like DC are quite a bit different than those faced by more rural communities--which is why non-residents of the district (like the Cato Institute elitists behind this lawsuit) should leave the citizens of DC to deal with their own problems how they see fit--not encourage the federal government to impose its will on the District of Columbia.

If recent decisions made by this court are any indication, I'll bet they vote 5-4 to uphold the ban.

The second amendment is the most misunderstood amendments of our constitution and it has been misinterpreted for years. The Bill of Rights were actually added to give STATES rights, not individuals. The founders feared that the states would not ratify the constitution for fear of too strong a central government. So, they included the second amendment giving the states the right to form a militia. Well we now have the National Guard instead of Paul Revere so we do not need to bear arms in our homes.

After the ignorant rulings these clowns made today, who knows? There will be alot of bootleg guns round these parts if they rule against guns

Sure, we can get rid of all the guns, as soon as we get right of the need to have them first. Currently, I don't see any meaningful progress towards putting an end to crime... in fact, I only see the opposite. We give criminals more rights than law-abiding citizens. At least if everyone has the right to bear arms, freedom and justice still have a chance.

We should ban knives, too. After all, they can be used as weapons. And how about we take away the saws, too. Ooh, and scissors. Don't forget the matches and icepicks while you're at it!

Wackem and Stackem

When the Communists first came to power in Romania, they went from home to home and confiscated everyone's pistol or hunting guns. A nation that cannot take arms against an abusive government is no longer a free country.

I assume the court will say DC's outright ban on handguns in unconstitutional but will continue to allow state and local government to license and regulate them. At least I hope so. I feel much safer living in a place where you have to have a really good reason to get a license to carry concealed weapons than a place where every crackpot you run into might be packing. If the decision does away with every law regulating the ownership and possession of guns, which most commentators here seem to wish for, I think it will become much more dangerous. For one thing if after these bans are lifted many more people are walking around armed, a altercation about a parking spot may result in a corpse instead of bloody nose.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. - George Mason

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. - Thomas Jefferson

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... - Samuel Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton

Enough said.

All of you weak kneed paranoid cowards hiding behind your B-movie diaglogue and gated suburban enclaves. Shave your gotees and stop listening to Hannity and Limbaugh, fer cryingoutloud. The majority of gun violence in this country is overwhelmingly perpetrated by minorities in poor neighborhoods using illegal/unregistered weapons. On each other. Your histrionic grandstanding and misappropriation of historical facts/quotes smacks of smarmy right wing fear mongering and just plain sheep-like mentality that got this country in the jam it finds itself in today.... Your fear is not my fear. And your sanctimonious noise doesn't belong in my constitution. I live in brooklyn new york, and I don't find it neccessary to own a handgun. What exactly is your excuse?

No doubt, what would it have been like in New Orleans after the huricane if you didn't have a gun to defend yourself. They were rapeing and pillageing in those parts. It was weeks before there was any kind of order and even still its a very dangerous town. These gun control weenies never think about that kind of stuff or never think it could happen to them.

DC's gun control ban is pathetic. They don't let their citizens protect themselves and the government sure cant protect them. Why anyone, anywhere votes in a democrat into office is beyond me. Any City the democrats are in office, the cities suck. Their school systems sucks. Check out the public bathrooms, they cant even clean them!! They are a treasonous bunch of fascists.

Would someone please (a pro-gun person please) comment on the lower violent crime rates in european countries which have gun control, and what we should tell the numerous parents of innocent 3 year old children who have been through years of excruciating pain or death caused by folks exercising their 2nd amm rights?

" The first thing the Nazis did after invading country -- even before taking away the Jews -- was taking away the guns.

"I once read about a study that said if an authoritarian regime took over America, there's a 99% chance it would come from the right.

People on the left should be the biggest proponents of gun rights."

Sorry "info" but the official name of the Nazis was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" . They were on the Left, until the left-wing academia realized that all the mass-murderers were on the Left - (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) and turned them into Right-Wingers. The Left is where the threat resides.

Yea things here are pretty peaceful here when my ole 44 magnum is laying on the table who cares about all these whine bag girly men that thinks we will live in koombaya what a bunch of idiots. I know one thing i am getting tired of politicians and judges ruling our lives i have had enough have you ever heard of don"t tread on me.

The "Bill of Rights" rocks! I'll never understand how the left wants to make you believe that #1 and #3-#10 are "individual rights" yet #2 is not! And #1 is only your individual right if they agree with what you say (UNfairness Doctrine)! By the way...for those of you wanting to buy pistol magazines with 15 rounds, don't forget there is still the "Brady Ban" which limits capacity to 10 rounds! I don't think this case will deal with that!.

Mexico has very tough anti-gun laws. You can not buy guns anywhere. You can only posssess one with permission of the Mexican Military. But guess who has the guns - The bad guys of course.

Pat G.....Ive been reading a lot more news of moms killing thier kids than kids killing themselves with guns.

Maybe the Court will come to a compromise. Ban us from owning guns, but allow us medicinal marijuana so we don't think too much about it.

"Dave--
I have read the brief filed by the Solicitor General for D.C., and they did indeed argue that the second amendment only applies to militia-related weapons."

We must distinguish three different arguments here.

1) "The 2A only protects a right, of a State, to have a well-organized militia." This was the position taken by the lower federal courts over 1942-present (excepting Heller & Emerson). In this view an individual had no right to arms, even miltia-suitable ones. The right wasn't his, it was a right of the State. This view was disintegrated by legal scholarship in recent decades, and DC did not argue it.

2) "The 2A protects an individual, but only in possession of miltia-suitable weapons." This is (arguably) US v. Miller. DC didn't reall argue it either. Handguns are militia-suitable. The military issues them, and they are standard issue for police (one of the militia functions was law enforcement). In any event, DC prob. realized that even if this won on handguns, they'd be toast on, oh, assault rifles, maybe machineguns. Very militia-suitable, those. So it didn't argue this, either.

3) "OK, it's an individual right, but only protects individuals who have some sorta connection to a well-regulated militia, which doesn't happen to exist anymore, esp in DC." This is what DC argued.

Personally, I opt for

4) The militia clause and right to arms clause are clean different things, and the first is no limit on the second. The 2A has two clauses because it's talking about two different things. Some Framers (Geo Mason) valued the militia as an organization; others (Tom Jefferson, the PA minority, New Hampshire ratifying convention) wanted to protect an individual right to own arms. OK, please both. If it'd just been about the militia, why not stop with "A well regulated militia is necessary to a free state"? There were two constituencies to please, and so it took two clauses.

"If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?"

Maybe for those criminals that know how to break a window?

You live in a missile silo?

Geez

I don't understand what the Supreme Court has to decide. 2nd Amendent gaurantees right to arms. So what's there to question?

Yea, klaatu, Maryland "The Free State". Free to be a criminal or free to live in fear of them. I left there after 15 years of residence like my butt was on fire and my head was catching. It is against the law in Maryland to have a magazine in the car with one round in it even if there is no weapon in the vehicle. Maryland State Police pushed the waiting period for all purchases back to over 21 days around the time I left back in 1998. We only go back for funerals now...

All the gun bans in the world won't keep thugs from getting them...If they can get them, then we should be free to keep them.

I wouldn't put it past this damn supreme court to rule the constitution "unconstitutional." It's such a toss up because they seem to rule in accordance to what is "popular" in the news at the time of the ruling. "They can have my guns...When They Pry It From My Cold Dead Hands."

I love how politicans who want to ban firearms have armed security courtesy of our tax dollars.

My guns must be defective as none of them has ever injured or killed anyone.

The police cannot protect each of us; try calling 911 when you want an escort to your car in a dark parking lot. We are responsible for our own safety, and we must be given the tools to protect ourselves.

"So, the forefathers who wrote the Constitution...individuals who owned guns in a society of gun ownership...didn't think individuals should own guns?!?! That's what I love about you liberals---Y'ALL ARE INSANE AND DISHONEST."

good question, but also don't forget the fact these men were also deeply religious but fully intended on keeping any Christian religion out of government.....hmmmmmm

I would say that a ban on gun ownership would be unconstitutional; BUT requiring registration and restricting the actual carrying of the gun would be constitutional. For example, you can own one but it must stay in a safe box at a police station, unless you carry it, in which case, it must be prominantly displayed on your person at all times. Make it hard to actually keep it in one's possession.

The right of the individual to keep and bear arms has a long tradition in Western civilization. The Greek philosopher Aristotle thought that bearing arms was necessary for true citizenship and participation in the political system (in Politics). On the other hand, the Greek philosopher Plato believed in a monarchy with few liberties and saw the disarming of the populace as essential to the maintenance of his orderly and autocratic system (in Republic). The Roman politician Cicero supported bearing arms for self-defense of the individual and for public defense against tyranny (in De Officiis). Machiavelli, the Italian political philosopher, advocated an armed populace of citizen soldiers to keep headstrong rulers in line (in Discourse).

Nice who ever wrote it?

Argue all you want, until that person is in your house and the cops don't show up for twenty minutes or the robber is between you and the phone. Everyone believes the police will be there in time to save the day. Will you stake your family's lives on it? I won't.

Not one single lib can tell me one thing Bush has done that is "tyrannical." All of it is a bunch of partisan hooey. It is heresy, based on innuendo, smoke and mirrors, conspiracy theory and smearing. It is incessant, it is insipid, and it has indoctrinated the entire mush-minded masses.

As far as gun rights, we need them to protect our property from would-be socialists like Pelosi & Co. and the future Prophet of the United States Obama.

One can listen to the case at: www.oyez.org

Although one can never be certain until they actually issue the opinion, the gun ban and mandatory trigger locks are most likely history based on the comments by 4 of the 5 justices in the oral arugment (presumably Thomas will concur).

For me the most interesting thing about the case was that all three lawyers who presented an argument were in favor of some version of gun-control.

The question is how many gun control laws will be overturned or scaled back. If the court continues to base its decisions on "objective indicia of consensus" (what is the law in the majority of states) then one should expect that the ban on carrying will also be overturned since 40 states have a "right to carry" and the magic number of states the court seems to require for its "indicia" is 30 states.

Thirty states, coincidentally, is the number of states where machine-guns are legal. I mention this because Bush's lawyer pleaded that machine-guns not be banned in whatever opinion the court issued (he didn't want the court to rule on the DC gun ban at all). However, having pointed out the elephant in the room, I think it is unlikely that the Supremes will ignore it.

Reporters and others will give their own spin on the decision; you can read the actual opinion here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html

We now return to the usual "Yes it is" vs "No it isn't" comments.

To DC Guy & Tim and all of the rest of the Obama supporters:

Please know that you candidate stands with Daley and the rest of the Chicago Democrats on firearms. They want to ban all guns. They know that will never happen, so each year a new package of gun bans is proposed in Springfield, IL. This year it included a ban on semi-automatics.

Hey Pat G.

The countries that have recently banned guns that I am aware of are Australia and Great Britain. Both have seen a skyrocketing crime rate since guns (including antiques)were taken away from law abiding citizens. The crimninals know that they no longer have to worry about confronting an armed citizen. Oh, and by the way...the crimninals are committing crimes...they don't care if using a gun is illegal!!!

When we invaded Iraq, we still allowed an AK in every home for personal defense.

with all the home invasions !

"I dont care if there is a gun ban. I will own a gun. I would love to see the govt do a house to house search for guns, or even find a law enforcement agency that would be willing to do it.

Posted by: Brian | June 25, 2008 8:03 PM"

They did after Hurricane Katrina. Go to video.google.com and watch America: Freedom to Fascism.

we all have the right to defend ourselves, it's not about the guns it is about our freedom. out of my cold dead hand

keep crying about gun control
see how long it takes the police to come and save you wife and kids

give me a break
grow some balls
and learn to defend your property and family

Kennesaw, Georgia is a nice suburb of Atlanta. Very low crime, every house hold is required to own a firearm by law. Remember, an armed society is a polite society.

The racists in this country must be disarmed. Most gun owners are white supremacists who want to start a race war.

BAN THE GUNS!

Obama, ya'll!

Charles is correct: The 2nd amendment does not grant me a right to own a gun, and neither is my right to gun ownership dependent upon the 2nd amendment. The wording is "shall not be infringed." It acknowledges the right existed before the Constitution was drafted. Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to RETAIN the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Five Words: From My Cold Dead Hands!

Read this.

http://www.gopcatholics.blogspot.com

If they outlaw guns, then I will be an outlaw!

I am afraid that these clowns will rule 5-4 in favor of the ban. Remember the Kelo decision and the First Amendment/"Campaign Finance Reform" decision? Does anyone think that these elitists work for the people? The route this country in now taking is incompatible with the 2nd Amendment and it's true purpose as espoused by the Founders (so think the puppetmasters). And the puppetmasters pulling the strings on our "Justices" will make them dance to the tune to the Globalists. I'd love to be presently surprised - but - In other words: We're Screwed. These knuckleheads have a GOLDEN opportunity to stick it to us and will say we don't have an individual right to K.A.B.A. You watch.

Scott, you and others suggest that the national guard stands as our state regulated malitia.

I ask you this: Who controls the national guard? Seriously. Could any state demand that our "malitia" return from Iraq at any given moment? Who controls their deployment? Who are they receiving their orders from?

I agree completely with most of what the pro-gun people are saying, and I don't think we need to or will ever become the UK / other countries where most guns are outlawed. However, do we really need to "Arm Up" like we're some kind of military element? The vast majority of gun owners I know have a small collection, hunt, or own a handgun. Then there are the "gun nuts" who get their giblits off collecting millitary grade weaponry. How many guns is too many? Do we really need to sell sniper scopes to civilians? More than handguns bother me, I'm concerned about the people who horde millitary grade weaponry who aren't the U.S. Military.

IT'S BETTER TO HAVE A GUN AND NOT NEED IT THAN TO NEED A GUN AND NOT HAVE IT...

If guns remain in law, then my in laws will have guns. Please outlaw guns!

It doesn't matter how the court rules about your guns. All that matters is whether you exercise the good judgment and courage when the time comes to use them.

Joe, please!!!
It is not about a right to kill, it is about a fundamental right to meet force with equal or greater force. No one wants to be a victim of these violent offenders running around unchecked by overwhelmed police forces, and I for one will NEVER give up my rights.

If the court issues an opinion that guts the second amendment then Texas will undoubtedly exercise its right to secede from the Union. From what I have been given to understand Wyoming will do the same. A people that are not willing to protect themselves are not worthy of living a life of freedom. I will side with the Texans.

J Reed. What is a properly secured home? I live in DC and houses here are built the same way they are other places. Which means they are easily accessible to a determined invader. Everyone has guns here already. It wont make a difference to the crime rate if you want a gun for crime its not hard to find one.

the jonathon rees comment about living in a secure home is one of the stupidest and most condescending things I have ever read.

Wow. People are passionate about this subject... probably because it's GUNS. They're a pretty powerful thing in many ways - symbolic, deadly, the main focus of many great movie scenes! I understand the intrigue.

To be honest, I don't own a gun - as I moved from the midwest to New York City a while ago, I no longer really have a use for one (no readily accessed hunting here... and I don't think I can legally own a gun here either. or nunchuckos).

But I do still have some thoughts on this matter. First, I think keeping a gun for "protection" is silly - and people who feel they need a gun to protect themselves from intruders or the government probably just have some serious trust and/or paranoia issues. People - a gun cannot replace a good psychiatrist.

Conversely, people who argue that taking guns away will "solve the problem" also have issues - as in serious denial, or a desire to live in a magical fairyland - also not very functional. I say this because in general**, "banning" something scary doesn't make the scary thing go away - it just makes it a lot scarier because it joins the elite "illegal" category, which adds a new element (and host of dangers) to given subject. But hey - that can make for great gossip.

My verdict: I think I should be able to own a gun. I want to know that I can own one, even though I don't really want one right now, and I know I'd never need one. (In that tight of a situation, I would rather just employ a regular bic to the ol' jugular.)

A gun is just a tool - though it is a powerful and symbolic one. But the simple fact is that there are a million other ways to kill people both accidentally and intentionally that don't involve a gun, and restricting "guns" as a "solution" to end killing - which is the only viable motivation - doesn't solve any real problems at all - therefor, it would be a silly and pointless thing to do.

The fact is that people will react too quickly and shoot innocent people out of fear from time to time, and people still will be irresponsible enough to leave loaded guns lying around houses with kids in them. But people have been dying from accidents since, well, we've existed. And criminals will always find guns, or other effective ways of killing people, so that certainly won't be solved.

I firmly believe that bans don't fix much. All they attempt to do is force common sense upon a fairly nonsensical mass of people - and believe me, I can understand the intentions of their creators, and even sympathize quite a bit - but I would rather have funds directed towards correcting root problems that generate societal problems, than toward catching people being naughty. I think we should be a bit more humble about our policing behaviors in general, in fact. I have seen one too many power trips for my comfort.

So! I guess I hope the court rules that the handgun ban DOES violate amendment numba two.

**To clarify, by "in general" I am referring to crap like, oh, prohibition, the holocaust - really any event where a specific thing (sorry to call people things, I don't mean it like that) was designated as "the cause of problem x." ***

I

King Kennedy, self appointed King of the US and his 4 self appointed Princes are bound and determined to rule this country without regard to the wishes of the people and separation of powers. This is now a monarchy ruled by King Kennedy and the 4 Princes. Just think this country once had the guts to revolt over tea taxation now we just let ourselves be raped of freedom and a government for the people; of the people.

Hey secure house guy,
I've kicked in enough "secure" house doors in my career to know that very very few people can afford to make their house a fortress. So far there hasn't been a house I could not get into one way or another. No, I'm not a criminal!

hermeneutics...

think about it...

violent...

hermeneutics...

think about it...

then...

decide course of action...

peaceful...

violent...

QUOTE: ===========
The racists in this country must be disarmed. Most gun owners are white supremacists who want to start a race war.

BAN THE GUNS!

Obama, ya'll!

Posted by: LRH | June 25, 2008 8:29 PM
==================

And clearly, most of the people voting for Obama are world-class morons.

When the Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights to The U.S. Constitution was written, "well regulated" did not mean the militia would have regulations governing it, but, rather, that it would be "well-armed and supplied with the latest military weapons". This means that, since all able-bodied men are in the militia, all able-bodied men should have access to the latest military weapons. After all, the Second Amendment is about the people protecting themselves from tyrannical governments.

C'mon now, really. What do you need guns for? Just vote for Hillary. She knows what you need, and she'll protect you. She's tough. Heck, if she gave Obama just one of her testicles, then they would both have two.

Hey folks...we're going down a slippery slope here...before you know it...there won't be a constitution and you won't have rights. The criminal, on the other hand, enjoys everything we have taken from us.

Every nation that instituted gun control proceed with confiscation, then extermination, 56,000,000 people eliminated.
No guns, no freedom, no life.

Wow!

I could wake up tomorrow morning with a constitutional right to concealed carry!

I'll be on the way to my local gun store, post haste!

And crime as we know it will end.

WITHOUT THE 2nd ADM, ALL OF THE OTHERS ARE IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS "ACADEMIC" !!!!!!! INCLUDING THE 1st ADM..

I own an assault weapon. Actually I bought from the government through a nifty little program called the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It's a M1 Garand that some hero carried everyday during WWII. I like to hold it and look at and remind myself that real men used to inhabit this country.

A government that fears it's armed citizens, should be very afraid of it's armed citizens. Our Government, if within check, needn't fear an armed citizenry.

Hopefully, we will see our Government uphold the 2nd.

If not, then we'll have proof that we don't have the same government we had in the beginning, and that the powerful in Washington aren't even trying to pretend anymore.

Pat G,

It is sad that I have walked the streets of many cities in the world (including the middle east) at midnight without fear or provocation - but I would not do the same in D.C., Boston, Philly or Baltimore unless I was spoiling for a fight. However, the root cause of this isn't due to firearms, rather it is due to our culture. As an American veteran, I have come to understand that we (the west) are a very violent, warlike people. The puzzling thing is that we do not hesitate to inflict violence on other nations, but won't inflict the same violence on criminals or even uphold the rights of victims. Also, not all European cities are safe - this is an American misconception. If I were not looking for a fight, I wouldn't walk about London after 10pm especially following an Arsenal or Spurs match. We need a cultural change for peace, and the punishment of violent crime - until that happens, we will not see any change in the levels of violent crime.

"Not one single lib can tell me one thing Bush has done that is "tyrannical." All of it is a bunch of partisan hooey. It is heresy, based on innuendo, smoke and mirrors, conspiracy theory and smearing. It is incessant, it is insipid, and it has indoctrinated the entire mush-minded masses.

As far as gun rights, we need them to protect our property from would-be socialists like Pelosi & Co. and the future Prophet of the United States Obama.

Posted by: Kyle | June 25, 2008 8:26 PM"

Is a conservative allowed to tell you what Bush has done that's tyrranical?

1. Switched the original USA PATRIOT Act with another script before the vote, which didn't afford legislators sufficient time to review. Many of the provisions violate the 4th amendment including "sneak and peek" as well as several clauses that don't differentiate between American citizens and "agents of a foreign power".

2. Invaded a sovereign nation that was not an imminent threat to the United States.

3. Signed presidential directives basically giving him dictatorial powers, included PDD51/NSPD20 some of which is so classified that congress cannot review.

4. Ordered the torture of, not only enemy combatants, but, in one case I'm aware of, a US citizen.

5. Has referred to the constitution as a "God damn piece of paper".

That's just off the top of my head.

Jonathan Rees said, "If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?"

Jonathan is right. Locks on houses prevent all burglaries, locks on cars prevent all car theft, fences on borders keep out all illegals, 'Do Not Enter' signs keep out all trespassers, speed limit signs prevent people from speeding, etc. Perhaps we can all get a visa to Jonathan's planet where his reality applies.

with all the home invasions !

The meaning and intent of the second amendment is not actually controversial to anyone that is even mildly afflicted by an education. It's intent was to prevent future governmental bodies from disarming citizens. The founders saw that as an obvious step towards the tyrannies they escaped in Europe.

DC is one of the most violent cities in the country and it is also "gun free". Has the gun ban improved the city's crime? Crime has gotten WORSE since it was enacted. Furthermore, all of the mass shootings that have happened in the US have happened in GUN FREE zones. Several attempted mass shootings have been terminated BY gun owners in gun allowed zones.

Beyond that, even if guns did make us less safe that is a price of freedom. The freedom of speech means we are afflicted with hate speech, radical political opinions, and other assorted information that is disharmonious to society. We suffer that disharmony because it is a price of freedom. The freedom of religion is also something that has to be paid for in chaos and a lack of safety. If we had a state religion or forbidden religion then we'd be generally free of a lot of the religious problems the US has always had. It is a price of freedom.

If you want to live in a locked down police state where the politicans control everything and if you complain will throw you in jail for causing trouble... then go ahead and make a slave of yourselves. There are enough countries in the world like that already. The US however is not for peasants and slaves to the state. It is for Citizens. As a full Citizen of the United States of America I have the right to be dangerous. I have the right to speak my mind. I have the right to think whatever I like and express that to anyone I like. I have the right to hang out with anyone I want.

That is what america is supposed to be... And don't tell me "well, the other party wanted to circumscribe some freedom so we should be able to do the same"... Nonsense. No one should be allowed to do that and that some people get away with bad things is no excuse for others to do the same and never has been in any sane discourse. If you disagree you probably won't mind getting murdered because some people have obviously gotten away with that from time to time.

Any one that takes time to read the federalist papers or any other writings of our founding fathers knows that we as citizens have the right to own and bear arms without restriction!!! All this is a smoke screen to disarm us citizens for preparation of the new world order takeover. Dictators always disarm the people through the courts before rounding up the masses for saluter.

Muddy,
Sorry, you don't get it. Being armed is being armed and that as a collective of the citizens effectively defines a militia. If what you say does hold any weight, then why not suggest the same to all law enforcement, that each carry only carbines or shotguns? If getting the handguns off the street is such a good thing, then let me see you insist the cops present an example as the role models they are by ditching theirs.. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I WILL REMAIN ARMED!!!

Of course! I did not realize. If I have an intruder at 3 AM I just need to call Hillary or Obama. They will protect me. I am saved. Thank you Thank you Thank you.

While everyone is debating rights, shouldn't we consider these two facts:

1) A large majority of D.C. residents support the ban

(because...)

2) Prior to the handgun ban, D.C. was the murder capitol of the industrialized world. After the insitution of the ban, the D.C. murder rate fell from astronomically high levels to just plain ole high levels. The new owner of this dubious mantle is the Baltimore/Washinton corridor where handguns are not banned. Isn't it clear that the best "protection" is prevention of arms proliferation? Further, isn't the argument "making us safer is more important than individual rights" the logic most conservatives apply to the Patriot Act and other government anti-terrorism activities...?

"As a DC resident, I'd love to be "allowed" to own a semi-auto AR-15 for target shooting, hunting and home defense. Rifles such as these are extremely rarely used in crime but are unavailable in DC based on their menacing appearance."

A high-powered rifle, in this case a .223 with a 10-30 round magazine may or may not have a military ball round go through and evildoer criminal then 3-4 double sheetrock walls in an apartment, then sweet Auntie Petunia's brain in APT 6G. Or penetrate completely through one wood house and retain lethal power as it enters your nice neighbor's occupied abode. It might, or it might shatter and only go through one wall.

An AR-15 is also unsuitable for all hunting (too powerful for squirrel and rabbit, too weak for big game) save varmints.

It is that sort of ignorance, that people unfamiliar with firearms are thinking of getting inappropriate weapons for the urban environment that have not just anti-gun Leftist fascists nervous, but also us NRA members.

The AR-15 (or Ruger Mini-14) or bolt action .223s are great on accuracy, however, and have much usefulness in more open spaces....

How come you libs are so "gung-ho" for the First Amendment, but when it comes to the Second Amendment, you get a little "testy"?
The bill of Rights is not an ala carte menu.

Mike in MD nailed this discussion on the head. He said:

"The ones who follow a handgun ban law are the ones you needn't worry about.
Criminals don't buy guns in stores, they buy them on the street.

And before someone pipes in with the old "but if they weren't in law-abiding citizens' hands, the wouldn't get stolen and be available on the street", answer me this... illegal drugs come from where?
Stores? Law abiding citizens?
Nope, they're shipped in. Ban guns all you want, the criminals will STILL get them.
You'll be the only ones unarmed.

Making gun control laws is like making parking violation laws and expecting someone who routinely drives 150MPH in a 25MPH zone to care."

Absolutely spot on, brilliant!

Cheers!!

If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?"
I don't know about you, but I leave my home pretty frequently.

Uncle Sam taught me how to use a weapon in 1968 and I have carried one ever since then. I doubt the supreme court decision tomorrow is going change anything to those who value their safety. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Good point trax!
Also, most of the time when a crime victim displays a gun, the bad guy runs...no killing needed!

W. Stout

A properly secured house....
In just about every house I've had I placed an inch and a half piece of angle iron embedded in the jamb and drilled out for the dead bolt. I've often wondered how many ankles have been broken, my me, in absentia.

Well after the Supreme Court voted in favor of terrorists and child rapists, would any of you be surprised if they voted to take away our gun rights?

I own, collect, load, compete, hunt, and defend with the firearms in my possession. I have never threatened another person with my firearms. People I compete with on the National Match and IPSC ranges (with "military style" semi-auto high capacity magazine firearms, long guns and hand guns mind you,) have never felt threatend or manaced by me regardless of their political or personal views. Firearms can be safely owned by the people. It is the criminal element and irrespolnsible people who are responsible for the so-called "gun violence" that most people who oppose personal ownership of a chunk of iron that is just as dangerous if thrown accurately as fired. My concealed carry permit allows me to carry a weapon outside of the plain view of people around me. The fact that I worked In downtown Baton Rouge, La at night convinced me I needed protection. Crackheads that buy an illegal substance from people who illegaly distribute it would walk down the sidewalks in front of the open gates to my equipment yard, people who had no compunction against doing whatever was nescesarry to procure their means of another fix, made me feel a little uneasy. I am willing and able to defend myself, my neighbors, and my fellow citizens from those who wish to do them ill. This includes the federal government.

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, ther is a twilight when every thing remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air -however slight_ lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

Justic William O. Douglas (1939-1975)
a defender of free speech

Here is what Jesus Christ had to say on the subject of arms.

"And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword."Luke 22:36

Don't worry, they won't take our guns.

What they will do is make it harder to get ammo and ammo suplies.

There is nothing in the constitution that says they can't outlaw or restrict the sale of amunition. Without it your gun is just a club.

S4R

If guns kill people, then I guess spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

From my cold dead hand.

Posted by: Matt | June 25, 2008 7:59 PM
-----------------------------------------

Lest you forget, Rosie wants to take away your right to bear arms to protect your children, but she hires an ARMED body guard to protect hers.

Liberal pinko hypocrite....

I would like to have a sign made up and posted in front of the homes of those who want to steal our right to defend our lives, family and property.
It would state "This home is occupied by a Liberal Democrat. This means they do not support gun ownership and do not have a gun on their property. We ask that you please take this in consideration when determining which homes to burglarize. Needless deaths may be overted, as they won't kill your *ss!!"

Hey.. Chas D.. I don't care how many doors you have kicked in "IN" your career..
Unless you have a warrant ..you better not try to kick in my door..
I wager that my "career" experience which also includes support to the Constitution to include the 2nd Adm... will trump yours... to your regret...

Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. He he he. Avid gun owner here, strong believer in my 2nd amendment rights. Gun totin' woman who has used it successfully in self defense. Frankly, gun control is the sick belief that somehow a woman who is found dead, raped, and strangled with her own pantyhose somehow has more dignity than the woman explaining to police how her would-be rapist got that bullet hole.

DC residents should own guns not because of crime but because the government has them....

I would like to have a sign made up and posted in front of the homes of those who want to steal our right to defend our lives, family and property.
It would state "This home is occupied by a Liberal Democrat. This means they do not support gun ownership and do not have a gun on their property. We ask that you please take this in consideration when determining which homes to burglarize. Needless deaths may be averted, as they won't kill your *ss!!"

GUN CONTROL!!!!
Is hitting your target!
Go get em Supremes..put these gun-grabbing liberal pond scum turd balls where they belong, before the biggest one of all becomes president.
Guns for the good guys!

I wouldn't do it, but if someone were to drag them out and strip them of their dirty robes if they rule against the 2nd amendment... I wouldn't have a problem with it.... just an opinion. :)

This is a stupid debate. Criminals do not care about the laws seeing as they continually abuse them. You are an IDIOT to believe otherwise! We the people have the right to bare arms as it is the only way to protect us from tyranny! It is also used as a means to defense of our property and ourselves! You utopian's that believe that the govt can protect you wait for a criminal to come into your house (you call the cops) and see how long it takes for them to get to your house that doesn't have a gun! Then... maybe then, you will realize the importance of having a gun to protect YOURSELF! That is reality... not what you are constantly bombarded with anti-gun stories. Those stories are almost always dominated by CRIMINALS and not law abiding citizens! Wake up!! I for one will not let the govt get my "arms"! Anyone else that feels that guns should be banned from law abiding citizens are sheep waiting for the slaughter!

Easy to self load your own bullets.

Outlaw gun powder and lead?

Nope.

Both females in my life are armed, both with what God gave the. You enter my home at your own risk. If the Rottweiller doesn't get you my wife will. The dog with teeth and the wife with a .45 springfield.

Don't worry, they won't take our guns.

What they will do is make it harder to get ammo and ammo suplies.

There is nothing in the constitution that says they can't outlaw or restrict the sale of amunition. Without it your gun is just a club.

S4R

Posted by: S4R | June 25, 2008 8:42 PM

----------------------------------------

I've thought about this for years.

The easiest thing to control is the primer...it's small and easily controlled, if they know what they are doing.

J Rees that's one of the most ignorant comments I've ever heard.

why do you need a gun in your home if you live in a home properly secured???!?!!? who is going to protect you from the protector?? or oversee that by being protected/controled you do not lose your other rights? I would love to see liberal gun bans attempt to be implemented. Upper level "liberals(see communists)" know their true intentions, however its so sad to see the hordes of young and sway-able followers of the democratic party follow blindly as they are guided over a cliff. This is what communist governements do to get into power. WAKE UP AMERICA.

Self defense is a basic *human* right. It is not granted by a government, it is not part of a law or a piece of paper. It just is.

Fortunately, the one piece of paper that this country depends on recognizes this fact.

Those who would give up an option to defend themselves to others are not truly free. Those who would take this option away from others are the tyrants that our founding fathers warned us of.

Attack this right at your own peril, the Nationalist Socialist States of America(TM) will not stand, Senator Obama.

"power comes from the barrel of a gun" -- Chairman Mao

David M.
Good points! Thanks for making me laugh!

Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring everyone to own a gun. What happenned?

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then.

If I'm a criminal in Kennesaw, I'm probably going to drive to the next town. But more important, the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government in check. More people have died at the hands of their own government than from any other cause.

"Why does anybody need a gun?" If you have to ask this, not only are you breathtakingly ignorant of history, but current events as well (Sudan, Darfur, England, etc etc.)

My Dear "Constitutional Scholar"

1.) The phrase, "citizen militia", is redundant. And though it may well be true that the militia of the time would benefit by organization, the framers of the constitution were limiting government power with the BOR, not granting power.

2.) Read my earlier comment, "regulated militia" doesn't say regulated by whom.

This country will be disarmed only if we give up due process, presumption of innocence, freedom of movement, and a host of other liberties we all enjoy that make this the greatest country in the world. Otherwise, you'll no more make guns disappear than heroin, with the stroke of a pen.

This was already decided over 200 years ago. What a few traitors in black robes say will only divide us more. The 2nd is not about deer hunting as the treasonous marxist propagate, its about protecting us from the traitors who propagate.

I live in Japan. No guns, no crime, safe to walk the streets at night anywhere at any hour. After having experienced this, I can say there no greater freedom than guns being illegal. Long past time to strike the 2nd amendment from the constitution. It is an anachronism.

Great post, Joe.

I wonder if anti-gun politicians (presidents, senators....what have you)would be under this umbrella if the SC rules against this?

Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer, Obama (God help us) are all anti-gun for us "little people" who pay their salaries but, they have NO PROBLEM having fully automatic weapons defend their families 24/7.

When are we going to address this publicly? Are we not "One Nation"? Then why are even anti-2nd Amendment politicians afforded armed protection and "We the People" are not?

Is this not the zenith of arrogance? I'm still waiting for a reporter to actually ask Obama if he would live under the same laws he would impose on us.

I think we know the answer. Doesn't it get under your skin that they actually believe their lives and the lives of their families are more important than yours? That your lives are expendable?

Think about it....

"Those who give up their liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Brad in Tokyo...

...yer an idiot....

I find this notion that gun ownership is somehow a cornerstone of an American's freedom simply baffling. Since us Brits were sent packing there hasn't been a credible threat of invasion by an external agressor. The constitutional right was to bare arms for the purposes of forming militias because of fears that a standing army would be commanded by men with royalist sympathies. The guns don't safeguard you against tyranny, your marvellous system of government does that. They dont protect you from criminals, every statistic on that matter suggests the contrary.
Ilegal guns flood the UK, it's a major problem, but nobody here calls for a right to arms because that simply throws fuel on the fire.

I Georgia everyone has or carries a gun. Most have conceilable permits, some dont. None are bothered by the police unless they act out or use it in a nondefensive way.Than they come down hard on them. I traveled the entire US and always had a sholder holster no matter where I went. Never was I bothered. Live Free or Die.

This is about whether or not the District has the same poers, as a state, to set such regulations....not whether the 2nd applies to an individual.
The District did not ban guns, it just placed what some perceive to be, unreasonable restrictions on that ownership within the confines of a home.

Scalia has a very fine to walk on the specifics of this case.

"We shed a lot of blood for this country. We are not going to give up our country for a mere X on a ballot. How can a ballpoint pen fight with a gun?"

Recent quote by Robert Mugabe. Honest question from a despot who has already unarmed his citizenry. CLUE STICK PEOPLE.

The name says it All....

There is peace through superior fire power.

The Stupid will drown in the Crap they create. The Constitutionalists will ultimately survive and rebuild what the Collectiveists bring to ruin.

I have to admit that we should have one law for all people. So if they gut the second ammendment then the Senators, Presidents, Congressmen and other pond scum should not be allowed to hire armed guards to protect them. Let them live the life of the little guy like the rest of us.

Funny that liberals argue AGAINST drug laws because 'they make criminals out of law-abiding citizens' but gun laws? They want them, they want more of them, and don't bother telling or showing them that they have the opposite effect to what is intended.

Another thing, the anti gun people are like from another planet with their arguments- such as saying if people can conceal-carry a weapon then the streets will become old West shootout zones when people have minor fender benders. The left always dreams up such wild and idiotic scenarious. Turn off logic, engage limp-wrist and heart, and spout cr*p.

J. Rees. You're an idiot. I hope your home is never broken into, because with your mentality, you'll be unable to protect yourself or your family...if you have one.

Well,

Tomorrow I am going to find out whether I need to join a militia or not.

I hope not, but if I have to.. "

"I once read about a study that said if an authoritarian regime took over America, there's a 99% chance it would come from the right.

People on the left should be the biggest proponents of gun rights.

Posted by: info | June 25, 2008 2:58 PM "

It is the right taking away our liberties Right now!

Brad in Tokyo

Stay there please...we want no cowardly nerds in this great country.
Now go back in your geisha girl outfit, we wont tell anyone you're in drag.

I just wonder how many of the liberal gun control advocates have served in the military in any position that might remotely involve self sacrifice. Hummm it is a quandry. I just can help notice that there are those that tell the rest of us what to do and then there are those of us that do. Self sacrifice is not in the liberal household.

The 2nd ammendment does not grant the right to bear arms. It recognizes that the right Pre-exists the constitution and shall not be infringed.

Brad in Tokyo obviously knows nothing about Japanese history. At one time Japan was controlled by a tyrannical oligarchy known as the samurai - the only people allowed to own weapons. The ninja came about as clandestine fighters of this tyranny. They had to develop ways to defend themselves and their interests by using unconventional weapons.

You idiots! So don't buy a gun - get mugged and have no way to defend yourself. The constitution guarantees me the right to own mine! Go back to grade school and learn how to read. Geez. And you people vote too?

If they want to support gun bans then do it the way the founders intended. An Amendment to the Constitution. Why are liberals so apt to piss on the document?

I just wish that the sheeple who listen to those liberal gun grabbers, would have enough conviction to post a sign in their front yards announcing that they don't have any guns in their homes.

It would help those of us who exercise our 2nd amendment rights sleep better, since the home invaders that liberals are protecting would not risk their lives by breaking into our homes.

Individual right? Of course.

The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights surrounded by other individual rights.

The X Amendment concerns the States. If the second amenment was #9, then it would be more confusing.

IF SCOTUS RULES IN FAVOR OF D.C., THEN THERE WILL BE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN ABORTION AND NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.....LOL....OMG...UNBELIEVABLE

rhombus said "There are too many bleeding heart, "give peace a chance" liberals in this country who have no concept of consequential thinking. Take away our individual right to bear arms, and you risk far more than an individual's personal security."

Here is another road block to bringing liberals into a clear line of thinking. They do not believe human nature is evil, they DO believe that the world in which we live can be perfected. Indeed the world cannot be perfected. Some people ARE evil, even some politicians and legislators who would wish to take away all rights of the citizenship.

Don't misunderstand, I have the highest respect and love for our men in uniform. However if our government veers much more from the guidelines that our founding fathers set up, with the technology the military has... we're screwed.

I have a hard time believing the SC will rule any other way except in the defense of the second amendment. Anything else goes directly against everything I have ever learned about our constitution and believe about our country.

And if they somehow diminish the rights of gun owners in any way I can only imagine the civil unrest that is sure to follow.

Which, my friends, is exactly why we have the right to own firearms - to forestall tyranny.

Just remember, without the second amendment, there is nothing to enforce the first. Which is exactly why they are in the order assigned.

"Tomorrow I am going to find out whether I need to join a militia or not.

I hope not, but if I have to.. "

LOL!

Just move to Texas. Free ear plugs with a purchase of any 50 caliber BMG! : )

Brad in Tokyo,
Oh IS IT safe to walk the streets in Tokyo. Was the recent mass stabbing a figment of our imagination. A killer will kill no matter the weapon, and I have a right to defend myself with whatever weapon I choose. Speak the truth Brad, it is not safe anywhere.

To the scholar that posted about the ineffectiveness of citizen militias during the revolutionary war - the presence of a little thing named "America" betrays your revisionist thinking.

However, the only amendment to preceed the Second Amendment ensures you the right to do such a thing, and all the amendments you sorth through to cherish are a consequence of arms that were brought to bear.

Between bravery, and the British, were guns that facilitated independence.
All the revisionist prattle in the world can not cover up this truth.

I love how liberals think the only reason a person could want to own a gun is:
A) hunting or
B) fighting off some foreign invader. Neither of these could be further from the truth. The actual purpose of the 2nd Amendment is tied to this phrase from the Declaration of Independence: "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Whenever someone wants to take your guns, its reasonable to assume that they intend to come back and take your rights later, when you are defenseless.

Armed, you are a citizen. Unarmed, a slave.

Most people here are missing the point. The right to bear arms was included in the Constitution not so much because of people's need to defend themselves from their neighbors, it was to defend themselves from their government. As soon as anyone can give me a clear and compelling reason why I should place absolute faith and trust in my government, then I will disarm. Until then...

If the court upholds the illegal DC gun ban, they condem this country to a second civil war which will make the first look like a cake walk. This second civil war will not happen tomorrow, or next week or next year, but this event will happen within your lifetimes and your childern's as well. History has shown this to happen time and time again.
Great saddness for a once grat country.

All guns are not illegal in DC...only certain ones. So people's rights have not been denied only regulated. So the nonsense about the Second Amendment and your right to bear arms is infringed in DC is nonsense. PEOPLE CAN OWN GUNS IN DC ALREADY!!!

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. States that allow non felons to carry guns on their person and require them to be trained how to use them are much safer and more civilized. There are less carjackings bank roberies and assults. Washington DC our nations capital is one of the most dangerous places to live in the USA and yet it is still littered with police. Locks and laws are made for people who would not break them anyway.

What is it with 'Left & Right'?

Most people do not know where East & West is as they stand let alone know which is Left or Right. There are good and bad people everywhere. 'Good & Bad' Should are proper labels; they are not transitory. Bad is Bad, and they are always taking. Good is directly related to a belief in God/Good.

If I may,
I have seen the worst type of people carry weapons. When I was in Iraq it was not the AK's or the SKS's or the RPG's the I was in mind of. It was the little ones with had guns given to them to shoot at US Marines. Yes little kids. Now Back home it hasnt changed. The little kids here are looking for a trophy to put on the shelf. To say hay I shot that man/woman. It will never matter how u want to remove the weapons. The drive to get them is greater.
There is never going to be a shortage of weapons here in the US. We took this place by force and will keep it by force. All laws aside. Any man /Woman with a gun will never surender it to any 1 man without a fight. The Right To Bear Arms has been our lagacey. pardon the spelling. We Shall Never Give It Away! Never Give Up! USMC 8541...........>:)

For those would would agrue that banning guns would make things make "peaceful", let me explain something and you tell me which way is more peaceful. For several years in a metro area not far from me, carjackings were happening on a weekly basis. People just like YOU, minding their own business, driving through a major area to get to their jobs, because it was in the middle of everything and it would take you an hour extra to get around that area. The police were overwhelmed, and of course could only respond AFTER a carjacking had occured. Then the state decided to relax its guns laws, allowing people to carry guns in their vehicles and protect it (and themselves) as an extension of their property. Guess what happened? Carjacking dropped to almost non-existent. Now, which sounds more peaceful to you? There is nothing more peaceful than the sleep I get knowing that if the sound of breaking glass wakes me up I have the ability to shoot the intruder before they hurt my family.

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."-Joseph Stalin

Given how there is a gun ban already in place in Washington D.C. I was shocked to learn that it is one of the most dangerous cities in the United States.

I thought this liberal gun ban was to prevent such statistics. The only one being deprived of the 2nd Amendment is the law-abiding citizen. Just another example how facist liberalism is an utter failure.

Now the criminals and gangs are nervous because they might not have all the anarchy they have been enjoying for decades. I am sure the ACLU will be there to hold their thugs hands and be a shoulder to cry on.

Gun control is the answer. That is why I go to the pistol range regularly and carry a concealed weapon. YeeHaw!!!

Info, your an idiot.

Even if SCOTUS rules that the 2nd amendment only provides for a collective right on the Federal level, the 10th amendment would bar the Federal Government from using such an interpretation of the 2nd amendment to limit the individual right to bear arms contained in the constitutions of 43 States. Nothing in the Federal Constitution prohibits the states from recognizing the individual right to bear arms. This is covered by the 10th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

http://hematite.com/dragon/StateRights.html

If the framers only had a collective right in mind for the 2nd amendment, then you would have to assume that all the authors of these 43 state constitutions were too stupid or ignorant to know about it. My favorite is Maine's constitution in saying every citizen's right to keep and bear arms shall never be questioned.

MAINE "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."
Me. Const. Art. I, S16

At most, the SCOTUS would only be able to kick preserving an individual right down to the state level although the Federally administered territories are out of luck along with these 7 states without a constitutional right to bear arms.

California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin

Trax,
The Constitutional Militia of the Republic of Texas would welcome you.

Hey Ed K.
You wrote:Hey.. Chas D.. I don't care how many doors you have kicked in "IN" your career..
Unless you have a warrant ..you better not try to kick in my door..
I wager that my "career" experience which also includes support to the Constitution to include the 2nd Adm... will trump yours... to your regret...

Posted by: ED K | June 25, 2008 8:43 PM

Ed,
I'm impressed with your creds. But who said anything about violating anyone's 4rth amendment rights? You may want to go read my post again and see that I was pointing out the fact that nearly all homes aren't really "properly secure" as a prior post had suggested they should be (so nobody would need a gun for home defense). But maybe you can come to my academy and teach my Constitutional Law class in my place! Maybe I'll learn something from your expertise.
Later...

Craig, you're an idiot. Go try to buy a revolver in D.C. to defend yourself.

To me this is simple. There are people who depend on others for their safety and people who only trust themselves with their safety. If you don't like defending yourself, you can try your best to get to a phone and dial 911, then wait 10 minutes. If you are actually in danger... right now, you reach past the phone, grab your gun then call 911.

I don't understand how some people don't even want the option to protect themselves!
Not only that, they don't want others to have the option either!

I don't even own a gun, although it might not be a bad idea. Nonetheless, the leftist liberals who so desire to take away our inalienable right to keep and bear arms are the very same people who whine and complain every time George Bush wants to monitor international phone calls made by terrorists, to protect those liberal leftists' sorry as*es.

2 incidents of random stabbings occurred in Tokyo this year. I believe this is significantly below the number of mall/university shootings in the US, and with far fewer fatalities.

Just imagine what the body count would have been if the perp in Akihabara had had a gun. I still feel safe to walk the streets here at any hour anywhere, something I cannot say about any city in the US.

You're right, there are crazy people who lash out with violence everywhere, but we can choose what tools they have at their disposal when they snap.

If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today.

the type of guns intended to be owned are the politically incorrect ones. That's a fact. Also a fact is that the right is from a higher authority than any court or any government. All the leftists that support bans are ignorant of such facts.

Why is it that you people only care about legality of owning and carrying a gun? Do you NOT REALIZE the extent of government control over every other possible aspect of our lives?

It's all about appeasement... you're too busy caring about the glock in the closet and when the decision comes down tomorrow that we CAN keep our guns you'll feel like you won and America is the greatest.

Did you win? What, when government looses site of the principals of democracy are you going to go out fighting the AC-120s with your 9. Yeah, thought so.

Mr. Jefferson was a genius as were many of the founding fathers. Those ideas just don't mean ANYTHING anymore and that's a shame we ALL bear.

If they do find the DC ban unconstitutional, which they should, how long will it take to get the Chicago anti gun laws overturned?

We don't buy no stinking guns from anywhere but out of the back of a truck.

When I took my concealed carry course several years ago the police officer who taught the class said: "In my 35 years in law enforcement I've only prevented one crime from taking place when I accidentally stumbled in on a robbery in progress. My job is to drape the yellow tape after the fact and then try to catch the bad guy. My job is NOT to protect you from crime. That's YOUR job and I applaud each of you for making the decision to do that."

If I may,
I have seen the worst type of people carry weapons. When I was in Iraq it was not the AK's or the SKS's or the RPG's the I was in mind of. It was the little ones with had guns given to them to shoot at US Marines. Yes little kids. Now Back home it hasnt changed. The little kids here are looking for a trophy to put on the shelf. To say hay I shot that man/woman. It will never matter how u want to remove the weapons. The drive to get them is greater.
There is never going to be a shortage of weapons here in the US. We took this place by force and will keep it by force. All laws aside. Any man /Woman with a gun will never surender it to any 1 man without a fight. The Right To Bear Arms has been our lagacey. pardon the spelling. We Shall Never Give It Away! Never Give Up! USMC 8541...........>:)

the revolution will be begin when the supremes come out and rule guns bans ok

Re: "If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders"

What is it that you propose, that we should all be surrounded with a flaming moat? Police do not stop a crime in progress very often. They merely record the statistics of the crime! Home protection STARTS AT HOME!!!

Just remember folks...the NRA will claim
they were responsible for getting this thru the Supreme Court...yet what we found was that they actually tried to get this case thrown out...Go read what really happened at http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/

The NRA says they are protecting our 2nd Amend rights but what we really see is that they seek to compromise our rights by making back room deals with some of the most anti-gun politicians in this country, all in the name of good-will.

Screw good-will and screw the NRA... good-will won't protect you when you get car-jacked...good-will won't protect you when they break into your house...but Smith and Wesson will.

To be better informed, don't just read what the NRA wants you to hear, but read (and join) other 2nd Amend groups like the GOA and KABA

God gave us this right !
the 2nd amendment only confirms it !
Luke 11:21
New American Standard Bible
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own mansion, his property is safe.

King James Bible
When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

American King James Version
When a strong man armed keeps his palace, his goods are in peace:

American Standard Version
When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace:

Bible in Basic English
When the strong man armed keeps watch over his house, then his goods are safe:

"Don't worry, they won't take our guns.

What they will do is make it harder to get ammo and ammo suplies.

There is nothing in the constitution that says they can't outlaw or restrict the sale of amunition. Without it your gun is just a club.

S4R"

I agree SR4, it doesnt matter if the SCOTUS rules in favor of Heller in this case, the Anti-gun lobby ( Obamacrats) will go after the ammo. They will mark it,license it and tax it to regulate it since they wont be able to do it to the guns.They will argue that the 2nd Amendment didnt say they couldnt regulate the ammo so they will.
Ofcourse this will eventually start up a black market for ammo that will again threaten to make criminals out of law abiding citizens.

Thats why we call it Home protection

The third model, the Individual Rights Model, holds that a right of individuals is to own and possess arms, much as the First Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech.

Those for the right of individuals to keep and bear arms presumably have no issue with people being allowed to have their own napalm, biological weapons, even nuclear weapons?

Its a "right" after all. Bloody rediculous to foreigners like me, to be honest. How about a little bit of common sense.

When this so called government invalidates our Constitution and/or portions of our Bill of Rights, it is no longer the government of the United States of America. Action must be immediately taken to stop this tyranny.

Treason is still a capital offense.

Clearly we are being attacked from within and have been for some time. Liberal politicians and judges legislating from the bench must be removed.

In that vein, Justice? Kennedy seems to think that the Laws given by G-d "evolve". Rape one of my kids and watch what happens.

G-d said the penalty is DEATH.

If the Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, but a collective right, then the remainder of the Consttution is a useless as the paper it is written on. The Second Amendment is the right that secured all others.

George Washington,
I agree with you. If they think the queers in San Francisco make a stink about gay pride, wait until the gun owners show gun pride. Could be very ugly.

Prediction: 6-3 Affirmed for Heller

Scalia Opinion
Ginsberg, Thomas, Concurring
Breyer Concurrence and Dissent
Stevens Dissenting

If we allow the gov to do this they are in total control of all the weapons.That's what I found in research of Police State The Beginning when I took in College Police Coarse.It might alarm you if you search around on this data.So go ahead let them take your rights away a little at a time.Good luck later.

Brad in Tokyo, the United States does not have the number of police on the beat that Tokyo does. Also, there have been other killings in Japan beyond the two you acknowledge. If he had been allowed to own a gun, so would the others in Akihabara, and he might have been stopped sooner.

Another point: the police, in spite of their best efforts, do not have a responsibility to keep you safe at all times. It would be physically impossiible. Would you like a police substation in your home?

As others have pointed out, the Bill Of Rights is to limit the government's controls over our rights, not to grant them as a priveledge.

To the guy who asks why European countries with gun bans have lower gun crime rates than the US, you're comparing apples and oranges; different cultures, different histories, different economic situations. A proper comparison would look at the effect of implementing and repealing gun bans on crime and violence within a particular location or between more similar locations. For example, England and Australia recently enacted gun bans, and crime, including gun crime, went up. A county in Texas recently repealed a gun ban, and crime there, not suprisingly, went down. Nazi Germany instituded a gun confiscation and then proceeded to slaughter millions of its residents. Therefore, gun bans are COUNTER-productive to the cause of reducing crime and violence and gun violence in particular.

You, and others, also pointed out the problem of accidental gun injuries, but this has to be balanced against the intentional gun violence against the innocent prevented by the innocent having the means to defend themselves. Given the relatively small number of accidental gun injuries and deaths in, for example, Australia, in the year before their gun ban, as compared to the increase in intentional gun injuries and deaths since the gun ban, one must conclude that the gun ban has still been a net detriment. This is so in all relevant examples.

So you don't mind choosing the perps' tools of death and destruction, but you don't afford the right of the victim to choose whether they have a fair fighting chance to survive? I don't get the logic!

I feel secure not because I have faith that government will protect me (in fact I do not feel it will), but because I am armed.

And I would rather die a thousand deaths in terrorist attacks than to even consider relinquishing my Second Amendment right to defend myself against tyrants - foreign and domestic; republican or democrat.

With the beating the Bill of Rights has taken over the two terms of this administration--I fully expect the Supreme Court to uphold the ban and for the ban to trickle out to individuals across the country.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court clarified the 1st Amendment to be freedom of religion as long as the religion is Christianity or The Chosen People.

"You have the right to oppose my gun just like I have the right to watch you mugged and beaten to death." -me

The fact is that the Bill of Rights was created to specifically make clear that those rights are reserved for the citizenry and are untouchable and furthermore no one, as the Federalist Papers say, should mistake it and view it any other way.

22,000 gun laws are currently on the books and not one has ever stopped a criminal who was really determined to commit a crime.

I think people who are in favor of banning handguns should post signs in their front yards and windows declaring that their homes are "gun free zones".

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Note to gun grabbers.....This is not up for debate, it is an unalienable right, a free nation depends on it, a free man depends on it...don't tread on me.

Jonathan Rees: There is no such thing as "home that is properly secure from intruders". Just ask any victim of a home invasion. They will get in no matter what you do.

Dave Hardy
Great DVD. I bought one. Thanks for all of the hard work. You have been a great help. Hope to hear you on NRAnews.com
george

It does not matter what SCOTUS thinks. The criminals have decided that they do have a right to own a banned gun and to use that gun in a crime. While those of who support the 2nd talk a good talk about taking up arms to those who want to talk away our guns, that has not happened except in the Rev. War. At least the criminals are willing to go to jail to keep their guns. I forgot that the criminals normally do not go to jail for breaking gun laws.

I wonder what Ruth Bader Hitler will have to say

I don't have a gun. I don't have a permit. I've never shot a real gun (does a bb gun count?). If the SC decides against a citizen's right to carry a firearm, I will be signing up at my local dealer for a pistol class, then for a carry permit.

If locales want to further seperate themselves from what is American, locales already with a population that is 90 percent immigrant / non-American such as the DC metro. I say let 'em.

Unlike a neocon I won't cry on the matter. Even the Distric of Colombia has secession rights; they will likey choose to say FU to America, like they already have as both a vasal of Israel, and a provance of Little-Monrovia.

God you people are so stupid! can't you morons see whats going on? Have you not heard about the New World Order? They need to disarm you before they can move ahed with it!

"Those for the right of individuals to keep and bear arms presumably have no issue with people being allowed to have their own napalm, biological weapons, even nuclear weapons?"

G-O-N-G! What a profound misunderstanding of the issue.

I don't really care how this case is decided - I'll still get, keep carry and reload what I want, when I want and where I want. Ain't no limp wristed sissyfag of the Supremes gonna tell me otherwise.

You won't take my gun. And you won't take my pickup truck or my mullet hair cut!

Genius comment Ed. Wallowing in the idiocracy of your own echo chamber, you failed to realize that according to all the major humanitarian groups in the world, Christians are persecuted above all others. Sadly, you're just another intolerant member of the preachers of tolerance.

It's all about not letting those addicted to money and power convince you that they own you. Historically all power structures have sought to convince the masses they are a type of cattle (chattel) to be used and told what to do and when to do it. Liberty is a very rare jewel indeed and we must all fight to protect it.
I'm not in favor of the shock troops owned by the power elite being the only ones with guns. That's the road to Tyranny, which is far more common than liberty and ever the goal of those in power. The United States is being killed from Within and those in power are doing far more harm than any "Terrorist" ever could. Ironic ain't it?

Protect some human life. Own a gun.

http://tinyurl.com/5lwpw9

I teach courses on critical thinking and normally go to comments linked off Drudge for laughs and to read to my class as examples of poor logic, odd reasoning and ad hominem after ad hominem. I have to admit, though, that there are some well reasoned arguments here, both for and against gun control. Thank you for giving me hope that there are some intelligent people out there!

Great Scott! Where did all these posters come from?

I firmly believe the Supreme Court will will favorably for the individual rights for all citizens of this fine country. That is, DC residents will be recognized as full citizens having all the rights and protections afforded by the US Constitution.

John Smallberries,
Republican Candidate for DC Council, AT LARGE

Vote big, vote Smallberries this fall!

I pray they never ban my guns, but if they do -I shall not obey, in fact, I would be prompted to obtain more guns because when they ban law abiding citizens from having guns, we'll be like sitting ducks if we obey.

As a military officer, I am required to bear arms in defense of the Nation from time to time. But when I come home every day in the District, that is considered a crime. I'm not a lawyer, but that just seems kind of absurd. Not that I want criminals to get guns either, but the ban has been in effect for 30 years and they seem to be doing just fine. The ban has failed to stop how many murders in DC this year? It has failed so badly Chief Lanier is arming some officers with automatic weapons now. If the police can protect themselves, why can't I?

Nazi disarmed the willing public before they took control. They had to. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to maintain control after they began committing their own brand of atrocities.

Fear the state, not the petty criminal.

"THEY WILL GET MY GUNS WHEN THEY PRY THEM FRON MY COLD DEAD FINGERS"
The Great Charalton Heston

I live in the UK. And here is a fact for the anti-gun liars on here.

Since the UK banned most prviate gun ownership, gun crimes have gone up over 700% which now puts them at a per capita crime rate above the United States.

Fact period end of story. The first step of any tyrant is to remove the threat of an armed citizenry. Just ask Hitler and all the others.

I own a gun and it makes me happy:)

I don't shoot my gun as much as I would like, that makes me sad:(

The court can rule what ever the hell it wants and I will always own a gun. Instead of a licensed dealer to buy from, I'll just buy it from a drug dealer.

The Police? What a joke. The Police are worthless for protecting you. They are too busy setting Speed traps to collect extra money for the city and going after all sorts of no-victim crimes like marijuana users and prostitutes because they are easy convictions and that gets them an annual raise. They are not going to do real police work and solve a real crime perpetrated on you or protect you when you need it. You are on your own brother. And if there is ever a disaster, you will REALLY have nobody to enforce anything but the citizenry.

All you liberal pillow biters will cry in your lattes tomorrow after the SCOTUS shoots your pro-fascist arguments in the head once and for all.

When they kick in your front door, how you gonna come...?
With your hands on your head , or on the trigger of your gun"
The Clash - Guns of Brixton

If anyone thinks the 2nd amendment isn't in trouble, their kidding themselves. Look at Sen. Obama's voting record in Illinois. He'll also (most likely) have two democratic houses of Congress to give him what he wants...some sort of gun control ban bill he can sign. He might also get to appoint more than one Supreme Court justice. You have been warned!

I've travelled to several places in the world and WITHOUT exeption is always the ones that have the strict gun laws where people suffer the most at the hands of criminals and their government. Guns do not provoke violence... they curtail it.

Why a handgun ban in DC? Sound racial to me, it's so many other things that can destroy a life other than guns.

C'mon, how could anyone possibly believe there is a right to bear arms in the Constitution? A right to an abortion--of course, that's obvious. Clearly that was intended. But a right to keep and bear arms? What kind of tortured construction is necessary to infer something like that from the text?

Before you know they will be outlawing my 10" cock!

I concur with another poster.....look at the current infringement of our liberties...and then remember...Hitler took away guns before he went after the Jews!

Lock and Load

Does everyone here really think that they interpret the Law? It is all made up political nonsense. Go back to the Bush election for you liberals and Rowe V. Wade for you conservatives. It is all BS. Long live George Carlin and his memories.

The actual wording of the 2nd amendment makes it quite clear that when the constitution was written it was not intended for every tom, dick and harry to have guns just for the sake of personal defense.

"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."

Ergo, if you want to have a gun you have to be part of a militia or a strictly controlled association dedicated to the defense of the state. The amendment is not about protecting the people from the state. It's also quite clear from the context in which this document was written that a militia was needed to defend the country from foreign aggression. That's no longer the case. And, please don't give me some contrived story about how you need to defend against terrorists. If they were going to attack (big if in my opinion) you wouldn't even know about it and then you certainly wouldn't need to shoot them, they'd already be in little bits.

The problem with everyone having guns is that we are often affected by something called emotions. Some people can't control their emotions and so they buy a gun and settle the problem with it. Knives are too messy and visceral so most people even when angry won't use one. The other big cause of death from guns is accidents.

Simply put, criminals will always have guns, but you having a gun probably won't help you in many cases because they are likely to surprise you or shoot you first.

Gun Advocate: I'd still save your sorry butt if you were in trouble. But you're an idiot.

Sorry butt's post-
"You won't take my gun. And you won't take my pickup truck or my mullet hair cut!"

Posted by: Gun Advocate

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

While the court is finishing up their briefs, I have a question.

Doesn't refusing to let them have your gun until they pry it from your cold, dead hands require clinging to it bitterly? Really, doesn't it?

It it and outrage for the government to try to take away america's 2 right. The founding fathers intended for the common man to personally carry his own fireman whenever and wherever. Think about it, if you had a crowd with about 150 law-abiding citizens all armed with firearms, would you as a criminal want to assasinate, or murder someone within that crowd?

Why should law obeying homeowners be subject to gun control laws because of the lawless behavior of urban subgroups doing crime who get a hold of guns illegally to begin with and probably make up less than 5 percent of U.S. society as a whole? If you read real U.S. history not the stuff they have erased or presented as revisionist history, we did not have rampaging criminals in our cities doing crime like today even though guns have always been around. Perhaps other issues should be evaluated like how the criminal justice system was liberalized in the 60s to allow repeat criminals out again and again and how this has caused the exodus out of cities because of the decaying environments.

The 2nd Amend. protects all other amend. and rights we have as citizens. Without it, how is one to keep the goverment in check if it came to that? Protests in the streets will not stop a tyrant if one existed hell-bent on taking over the states, a fine argument will not protect you and your neighbors when an attack comes (or you home is robbed)and the police do not answer when 911 is dialed. Gun rights protect our liberty in more ways then one. I never get the logic with the gun control people, look at Chicago for example, you cannot even buy ammunition there, yet the south side is like the killing fields this year. Side note: Obama's backyard that is, pfft.

"...could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms."

There is no debate. There are only criminals that seek to do violence to the Supreme Law of the Land.

Look the reality is that since the Clinton administration unleashed it's reign of the neo-haters, the country has been more divided than ever. The party of the donkey continues to feast on its favorite meal of feeble minds fed with anger and hate in varying sized portions. No president in history has undergone more vitriolic hate and calls for his assassination, all aided by the major media. The era of hot but sane debate is long past and we now sit by watching the flames grow. Sadly we will either rediscover our commonalities or fall into the dark abyss of fractured societies. From there, only two options await: civil war or self-destruction. They are not mutually exclusive either.

You loose one of these right, get ready to loose the rest of them.

Watch the movie "Innocents Betrayed" You will never want to be without a firearm by your side again. Seriously, do some research on countries that have banned firearms....it's a one way ticket to disaster.

Hank,

You made me laugh you sarcastic son of a gun (no pun intended).

never have i seen such liberal idiots.. as some of you who posted here.. my god your stupid... its simply unimaginable to me that people can be that dumb... my god some of you are so stupid i cant help but wonder how you manage to get thru everyday life.... its mind boggling...

Fat hillbillies with handguns in the glove box of their El Camino's do not constitute a militia.

My fellow citizens, please listen to what you are saying. All that will come out of this is genocide for the black man. Please heed the warnings of Jim Brady and attach strong controls and registration requirements to any gun policy nationwide.

Former Mayor, Marion Berry

Jamie Gun,
Get bent we don't want anymore socialist up here in Canada, I despise Liberals as much as the rest; send them to the Socialist Paradise of Cuba if you have to.

Whatever it takes good people of the US of A, defend your Second Amendment rights. You all don't want the B.S. we have up here when it comes to 'responsible' firearms ownership.

Nobody will be required to own a gun. The criminals will prey on the weak. I'm a cop and I believe law abiding citizens should learn how to handle handguns and defend themselves and their loved ones when needed

In 2005 there were 192 million handguns owned in the US and 250 million cars owned. Handguns killed 29,569 people and cars killed 42,636 people. That means that .015% handguns killed a person, whereas .017 cars killed a person. Cars are more deadly than handguns.
Regardless, it is one of only a handful of rights granted to citizens. It was not intended to grant the State a right to a militia nor to hunt. This right was guaranteed to individuals to violently overthrow any unjust government, like the British.

Ban or no ban. It is really irrelevant whether nine individuals tell me I can own a gun or not. It will be extremely difficult taking what I have from me and the millions of other citizens in this country like me. Go ahead and try. I dare you!

For those wanting evidence - or needing an education, here are more quotes from our founding fathers and other men of note.

'The Constitution & Firearms'

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;..." Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789 quoting Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State by the Honorable Samuel Adams, Esquire.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..." Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. 1824. ME 16:45.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States ... Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (Julian P. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution."

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;..." Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646 (June 25, 1788).

"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them ..." George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380 (June 14, 1788).

"to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them ..." Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,... in the several kingdoms of Europe,... the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist Papers # 46.

"Whoever considers the unprincipled enemy we have to to cope with, will not hesitate to declare that nothing but arms or miracles can reduce them to reason and moderation." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775.

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?" Patrick Henry, "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" speech delivered on March 23, 1775.

"The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us." Patrick Henry, "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" speech delivered on March 23, 1775.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, Chapter IV, Sept. 12, 1777. Whole Book.

"The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped;..." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers # 29.

"...one loves to possess arms, tho[ugh] they hope never to have occasion for them." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to George Washington, June 19, 1796. ME 9:341 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors) 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967). (Letter to Peter Carr, his 15-year-old nephew, August 19, 1785)

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them ..." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775. I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894).

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764. (FULLER QUOTE) John Adams also quoted Beccaria's analysis at the opening of the Boston Massacre trial.

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense ..." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426, June 16, 1788.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." James Madison reading draft Amendments. I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)

~~~~

And there are many more such quotes by wise men of the era when our constitution was first created. So only a tyrant or a fool would attempt or bless the disarming of American citizens.

In the coming worldwide utopia, no one will need guns to defend themselves as criminal activity will cease with the implementation of my new "precrime enforcement agency" that catches criminals before they commit a crime. Did I mention everybody will love everybody and there will be no more suffering, pain, or sorrow? But I'll need about half your paycheck to get it done. Thanks.

Der größte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre, daß alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten.

[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.]
--- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
[Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

First point...To ban handguns is not the same as banning all guns
Second point...Supreme Court will give limited rights to ban certain weapons in certain areas under certain conditions (using their usual vague definitions)
Third point...this will open the door to the legislating gun ownership away from the people...game over and we loose...the establishment of the all controlling government the lefties want will happen...

California Senate to Consider

Sweeping Restrictions on Ammunition Sales!

Assembly Bill 2062, sponsored by State Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), is scheduled to be considered by the Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, June 17.

AB2062 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a "handgun ammunition vendor" in the Department of Justice's database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require vendors to keep a record of the transaction including the ammunition buyer's name, driver's license, the quantity, caliber, type of ammunition purchased, and right thumbprint, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. All ammunition sales in the state of California would be subject to a $3 per transaction tax. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited. Any violator of AB2062 would be subject to civil fines.

Some Day, A .22 and a box of bullets will be worth an oz. of gold.

The guy with the gun and bullets will leave with the gun and the gold.

S4R

I love my machine gun. I love to clean and shoot it. The 2nd Amendment protects this for me.

--Alfred Einstein

jol, I love the smell of napalm in the morning, and, remember, if you don't nuke me I won't nuke you! :-)

Trax, please explain my profound misunderstanding? I am a simple bloke, admittedly. Where do you draw the line about which "arms" your great constitution allows you to keep? Please dont pop a cap in my ---- for the enquiry.

Mr. No Longer Mayor,

You presided over a continuing disaster in your city, and smoked crack to escape your responsibility.

While far more men die on the streets of this country, than soldiers in the Iraq war zone due to unchecked and unchallenged criminals, you chose the pipe.

So stick this in it and have a puff.

As a Jewess in the US, I would like to remind everyone that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. And that America wasn't won with a registered gun! That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!

Did someone actually say "If your house is secure why would anyone need a gun??" Didn't everyone see the roaving thugs and hooligans smashing into homes and businesses after Katrina?? DUH!

Why cant I own a bazooka? Or a thermonuclear warhead? I mean, its the right to bear arms!! How come I cant own what the government has? How will my glock stop those govmt tanks as they turn on us?? CITIZENS SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE ALL WEAPONS!

I take a wide stance on this issue!

Without the right to own guns, you have no way to uphold liberty.

The right to keep and bear arms by an individual was an understood and broadly accepted fact granted by the US Constitution. The second ammendment was writen to clerify the militia's rights however was not intended to infringe on the individual's rights. Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers argued against having any ammendments arguing that their mere existance would bring into question and "unalienable" rights that were not specificallty addressed.
While all of the arguments and discussions are intellectually stimulating, the question for the supreme court is simply to determine the "intent" of the law and can anyone really say that the founding father's did not, or would not want to protect an individual's rights to bear arms. Just by putting yourself in the time period and thinking of what they intended should anser the question.
The fact that our founding fathers all carried weapons and had them at their homes for hunting and self defense should dismiss any notion they intended to allow this right to be infringed.

There are two types of people:

Gun Owners

And

Victims

Pick One.

If I understand it correctly, the phrase,
"well regulated" meant, back then, "well
equipped." If you don't have arms, you're
not "well regulated." I learned this when
studying the origin of "regular Army." It
doesn't mean frequent bowel movements.

"The actual wording of the 2nd amendment makes it quite clear that when the constitution was written it was not intended for every tom, dick and harry to have guns just for the sake of personal defense.

"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."

You have no idea what your talking about.
Read the US Code on Miltias and you will see 2 kinds.
The Organized and the Unorganized.
Title 10
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

And again read the 2nd Amendment.
In the days when it was written 'Well Regulated' meant efficient.Look it up in the dictionaries of the day.
Hence a Well Regulated Militia was a efficient militia when all able bodied ( law abiding) citizens had them in their homes.

You can always tell the elite city folk like j.rees, reality check and of course the moral pillar marion Berry. The very fact that Berry wants tight controls tells me to go the other way.
J. rees says we should keep ourselves prisoners in our own homes instead of having a firearm to KILL anyone trying to harm us or ours.
Reality check is just plain insane. You try to take or outlaw my hand gun 9s) you will have a serious problem. Sooner or later the citizens of this country who are tired of you liberal lunatics are going to rise up and deport you bastards.

Molon Labe

All of you weak kneed paranoid cowards hiding behind your B-movie diaglogue and gated suburban enclaves. Shave your gotees and stop listening to Hannity and Limbaugh, fer cryingoutloud. The majority of gun violence in this country is overwhelmingly perpetrated by minorities in poor neighborhoods using illegal/unregistered weapons. On each other. Your histrionic grandstanding and misappropriation of historical facts/quotes smacks of smarmy right wing fear mongering and just plain sheep-like mentality that got this country in the jam it finds itself in today.... Your fear is not my fear. And your sanctimonious noise doesn't belong in my constitution. I live in brooklyn new york, and I don't find it neccessary to own a handgun. What exactly is your excuse?

Posted by: lee harvey | June 25, 2008 8:21 PM

___________________________________
Wow.. a New Yorker ... arent you just so cosmopolitan and sophisticated.....
us southern hicks just got no sense when it comes to what we believe in....

It doesent matter to me if you are a republican or a democrat... I am a Libertarian.. keep the government out of my house, my wallet, my writings, my speeches and I hope to do the same for you... The biggest problem I see right now is that most activists and lobbyiksts are to concerned with keeping someone else with disagreeing with them. Most "activists liverals" seem to thing that if you dont agree with me.. I can make it illegal for you to voice your opinionl I am all about the free market and free speech, if you have no skills or ideas, it will be very hard for you to make a living. I am a highly skilled and highly trained technician.... without my skills, broken cranes wouldnt lift anything. I make a decent living before the government (state and federal) take their cuts. I can see donating 10% of what I earn... but 47% is way too high....Obama would make it higher... I think McCain would too. No matter who wins this election.. we all lose...just hope and pray that other patriots like me will protect your right to dissent to my opinions.

From one angry gun toting meat eating voice raising independant thinker.

Don't you guys realize that if drug cartels can import 10's of tons of cocaine at a time (which has a low density and takes up a lot of space) then they could more easily import 10's of tons of weaponry, machine guns, rocket launchers, hand grenades. etc.

Once the sources for firearms in the US dry up and the market price for guns increases, those open air arms markets in south America will begin to ship them northward. Except those sources can provide any weapon wanted, including anti-aircraft guns.

If the Mexican government can't keep hand grenades, hand guns and explosives out of their prisons, what chance do we have? Check the news, the Mexican mafia and related gangs routinely get hand grenades into their prisons.

Is this really what you want by eliminating firearms in the US?

"Fat hillbillies with handguns in the glove box of their El Camino's do not constitute a militia."

Posted by: Reality Check | June 25, 2008 9:32 PM

I'd rather see more of that than I would Federal jack-booted thugs (gestapo) confiscating arms and rounding up citizens for the detention camps-gulags!!!

People also need to teach their wives and kids how to shoot and reload. That is one of the best legacies you can leave them. What people also need to do is have several guns and don't keep them in the same location. That way, if a government were to ever try to take any away, the govt. won't be able to find them all. Also, have a few cheap guns easily seen that you don't care if they take. They'll think they got them all, but you'll know where the good ones are hidden.

The preamble to the constitution states that the goverment was formed, amoung other things, to insure domestic tranquility. Since that is the stated purpose of the document then it pretty much trumps anything that follows. There will be no domestic tranquility as long as anybody who wants a gun can have one.

J. Rees:

I live right outside of New Orleans. After Hurricane Katrina, the police came around and started confiscating guns from the law abiding citizens trying to protect their families and their personal property from the gangs, drug addicts, and thugs running the streets. There really wasn't any "secure" home or neighborhood, unless you secured it yourself.

Your comments were moronic at the very least. Our neighborhood had it's own "militia." For the most part, the cops were gone and we were left to protect ourselves. That's what the Second Amendment is about.

Wake Up!

"If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?" -Jonathan Rees

Are you kidding me? Surely you can't be that big of a fool! What, is everyone supposed to live in Fort Knox? NOT realistic or practical!!! Get real. And, as far as the police protecting you, they can't be everywhere at once. No way, no how. Yeesh, what a truly ignorant & naive (i.e. post-modern liberal) thing to say. What exactly is "properly secure?" I still cannot believe someone had the stupidity to say that...

I heard a new slogan today, I really like it. Fits my mojo.

Bang Bang you're dead, fifty carbon credits in your head.

Peace love and nickel beer.

A WELL REGULATED MALITIA REFERS TO THE LEVEL OF EQUIPMENT WHICH THE MALITIA IS UTITIZING. THEREFORE IT IS NOT GOVT. CONTROL BUT CONTEMPORARY ARMS WHICH ARE STATE OF THE ARTS LIKE THE Swiss who require all ablebodied men to have automatic weapons and ample supply of munitions at home . I don"t remember any other nation invading Switzerland. If its good enough for them its good enough for us at home and on the mean streets of NY LA DC etc.

Read your federalist papers, firearm ownership was not intended to enable you to hunt, or protect your home and family. The idea was to keep tyrants in line.

As a Soldier I can tell you I will not give up my weapons. Charlston Heston said it best "From my cold dead hands"

Hey, why don't we just burn the Constitution and give all our freedoms away to the government. This sounds just like what the Founders would have done. They too must have been limp dicked morons.

Let's not forget the most important issue here. It does not matter if hand guns are banned or not. Criminals will still have guns. Your house may be secure but you are not outside of it. Has anyone even looked at the statistics of arrests in DC to see if there has been any arrests made where a hand gun was involved. I am certain there are. The ban only prevents law abiding citizens from having them. criminals will still have them and use them.

Thanks to F. Jackson above for posting both the 10th and 2nd amendments:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The 2nd Amendment states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

But I wish to make a slightly different point.

What a pity that the Bill of Rights was not written so that the 10th amendment preceded the 2nd.

If it had been, I do not think that any court could ever have interpreted the language of the 2nd amendment as referring to a collective right, rather than an individual one.

Note the careful and meticulous language of the 10th as it distinguishes between powers "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So when the 2nd amendment refers to the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, how can it NOT be referring to an INDIVIDUAL right?

You don't see the difference between fire arms and WMD's.... are you serious?

Oh yeah, I saw a great bumper sticker the other day, "GUNS KILL PEOPLE...like spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat"

This isn't even a close issue folks. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to bear arms is individual. Plus, they've recently held that the phrase "of the people" refers to personal rights. If the Court does not find an individual right, it will be only because they have no regard for the Constitution. It would be equivalent to holding that people don't have a right to free speech.

Barry Huh?, I chose the crack pipe, yes, and it was a bad thing to do, but crack made me peaceful and helped me stay awake for those long nights in the city. Guns are just bad, plainly bad!

Former Mayor, Marion Berry

Look it is fact... cities with very leanient gun laws or those out in the "country" have very little crime. Not ALL criminals are total idiots - they do realize that a unarmed home is a much easier target, with no chance of getting shot.

Personally, I laugh at businesses that have that big ol' "GUN FREE ZONE" sticker on the frot door... nothing like telling the criminal wackjob, that he will be able to kill everyone inside with no resistance.

""Charlston Heston said it best "From my cold dead hands""

Charlston Heston said it best
"It's a Mad House"

Guns are the last arbiter of our freedom. No, they will not take them.

I never seen so many crackers in one place. I must be in the Nabisco factory. You crazy crackers and your guns!

to: Jonathan Rees

The gun issue has nothing to do with needs but everything to do with rights. Further, properly secured house???? You believe that if you secure your house properly you have no security risk? I can't believe you have lived in the US and ask that question. Have you been on another planet. Frankly the closest thing we have to a secure home is an armed on. Thanks for opening the door for this point.......stevereenie

Where's Ted Nugent when you need him.

At this critical time in America, If the Liberal side of the court wins the argument. Americans may have to put our hands up as we atr led at the point of someone else's soliders gun soon to concentration camps.

(If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?

Posted by: Jonathan Rees | June 25, 2008 2:09 PM )

Nothing is secure in this world if anyone wants to get in they can but in my case they wont be walking out the way they walked in.
I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6. Just my two cents worth..

DC Native fails to mention that:
- current murder rates are similar to those in 1987
- the increase in murders was largely gang-related in specific neighborhoods rather than city-wide
- Operation Ceasefire in 1995 helped curtail this
- Baltimore has become more violent due to increased drug trafficking.

I am 62 years old, retired, live in rurual Tennessee, and I was renewing my concealed weapon permit just today. I appreciate the right to be able to have and carry a gun. I have one by the front and back door, just in case I need it. I sincerely hope the court does not take that right away from us. If they do, to the people that think only criminals will have guns, just go out and get one now while it is still legal.

It's so paranoid to think the only reason the government isn't rounding you up in camps is because you own a gun. Please. As if your wimpy gun made a damn lick of difference compared to the government's arsenal. Might as well open the door with just your pecker in your hand. Your gun ownership doesn't protect us from tyranny. What are you protecting? Do you think government agents are outside your home just waiting to come in, so they can watch your satellite TV, break your Elvis dishes, and defile your bumper pool table? Come on. You own guns because they make you feel strong. Gun owners are creepy.

So, 9 of the 10 bill of rights protect the people from the government, and 1(the 2nd)Protects the gov from the people?

I hope it will never come to the point where we have to live the "cold dead hands" life. We who support the individuals right to keep and bear arms need to send a thank you letter with a check to the NRA and other groups who have stood in the gap and organized and paid lawyers, and have taken care of our responsibility to "speak up" about this.
We have heard "freedom is not free" as it relates to our men and women in the military and how we should support them, well many people have been responsible citizens and have paid with their time and fortunes to keep this freedom for us.
We who oppose tyranny realize the cost of an unarmed populace, and an increase in crime is just the first visible result.
Our first fight will be a the ballot box.
Know what your elected officials believe about your freedoms and vote accordingly.

GOVERMENT CALLS CONSTITUTION UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

The 2nd Amendment states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Thats right! The founders didnt know we'd have uzis, but we should be able to keep them! I mean, should we only be able to have the muskets they used in the revoloutionary war? I think not! Give the citizens all ARMS! Tomahawk Missles, 50cal Barrett Sniper Rifles, Thermonuclear devices! I wont feel safe in my trailer until I have a SCUD MISSLE mounted on the top!

You looser liberals sound so stupid! Dont you know we are trying to fight for your right to own an AIRCRAFT CARRIER TOO??!?!

everybody better get ready because i think the five libs on this court are feeling very brave right now since they see the radical left getting ready to take over this country. the reason they didn't release it today is because they wanted to get a good nights sleep before they hear the cllective rebel yell of 200000000 americans when they come down 5-4 to take our guns.

You idiot crackas. I just upped the ante. I have purchased a crate of surplus WWII grenades and will use one of those before I rob your house. Your guns are useless, ha ha ha ha ha

Gun control is not about guns. It's about control.

My penis is large.

Freedom has always been won and secured with a bullet!

I wonder whether the judicial dictatorship that we call the Supreme Court will let us keep our guns or do what they do so often and come up with some contorted explanation for how "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means something other than that we have a right to keep and bear arms that cannot be infringed.

Really, since the ban of hand guns in DC has there been no gun related crimes?

The 2nd amendment.. Always read the bill of rights by using the first 3 words of the constitution.. WE THE PEOPLE... We the people say that.....

A well regulated Militia,
(does not say State Militia. This is the same as saying " a well organized group of armed citizens)

being necessary to the security of a free State,
(as in the state of being free. This is the freedom of the people from tyrany)

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun control is not about gun control. It is about the first draft choice pick!

Please of please rule in favor of the gun ban. It violates my civil rights to be shot when I break into a house I thought was unarmed. It will surely disenfranchise me. I'll sue dammit!

Right smack in an election year.

I love you SCOTUS.

WOLVERINES!!! (red dawn quote)

look. . . Gun laws = more crime. Lack of gun restrictions = less crime. This has been proven time and time and time again. . . Those who put restrictions on our rights to bear arms, are not worthy of the freedoms this country offers and should be treated exactly in the same manner our forefathers treated those who restricted their freedoms.

If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?

Posted by: Jonathan Rees | June 25, 2008 2:09 PM

WOW!!! Hey Jonathan, Americans do not need a reason to own a gun...what,where,when and how did you come about?

I recommend the following dangerous items be banned:

1. Guns (real or toy)
2. Knives (real or toy)
3. Stones (real0
4. Rope and Wire
5. Box Cutters for sure
6. Pitch Forks
7. Carving Forks
8. Bows and Arrows
9. Anything heavy
10.Anything with Sharp Corners
11.Tree branches and 2x4's
12.Plastic Bags
13.Plastic Ties
14.Glass
15.Liberal Democrats

" They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin 1755

I have seen too many liberties taken away in the guise of our safety. To this one I say NO MORE!

next thing our freedom

TOO LATE!!!
hopefully not

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." (Thomas Jefferson)

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson)

"before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe....The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787.)

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." (Adolf Hitler, Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, p. 483.)

"There is not a moment to lose; you must act resolutely, with massive reprisals [against peasants resisting Communist rule]. Immediate execution for anyone caught with a firearm." (Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in a telegram to Communist Party officials in Nizhni Novgorod August 9, 1918.)

2nd Amendment Quotes

Who put that 2nd Amendment on my tuna fish samich!

Our government was designed to protect our rights not to give us rights. I shiver when I hear people talk about rights vs. privileges. They have it backwards, just like Europe has had it backwards for some time now.

The very word 'constitution' itself implies strict construction. Why Liberals and Libertarians insist on legislating from the bench is beyond me. The ruling on Guantanamo highlights this. The justices even said "we will have to appoint federal judges to write the rules about how to go forward." Writing rules = legislation. What about this do you insane people not understand?

If you want a law or amendment changed, do it through your representatives, not through your judges.

If you don't want guns then move to a country that dosen't allow them. This one does!

Hey, SCROTUS rules!

It's a known fact, that white people, will always cling, to their religion and to their guns. So let me propose, that we let them, the white people, keep their guns as long as we can have, fiancial reparations for the slavery of our ancestors.

Really, "properly secure" from trespassers... like bank computers, retail computers... that kind of properly secure?

You're kidding, right?

This BLOG needs to have the Posts highest number of entries record set to help send a messege.

DC,
Ya may or may not get me, but if you don't frag me you better have the balls to stay in the fight, cause I'm coming HOT and HEAVY!

If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?

Posted by: Jonathan Rees | June 25, 2008 2:09 PM

*******************************************
No home is totally secure. What happened in New Orleans after Katrina is a PERFECT example of why honest, law abiding citizens need to be armed. If you don't want a gun...don't have one! That is your choice. Not mine!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rights are rights. If there was an Amendment (properly voted in) that protected gay marriage, you libs would be defending it to the fullest. Its about protecting the citizens of the US from all enemies "foreign and domestic". If you want to live in a country without guns, I suggest you find another one. As for me, I will proudly display my Conceal Carry Patch to prove that I have fought for this country's rights and gladly exercise them.

Hey, B. Obama, you gonna get your reparations from your African brothers and sisters who sold you into slavery in the first place?

You take away the guns, your just making it even easier for criminals....We should be forming militias and auxillaries to augment our local sheriff departments in the event of a major catastrophy, like no food deliveries due to lack of oil. The choas and rioting in the cities will be tremendous without oil. Those 35 millions illegal invaders will not all of a sudden become law abiding when they can't work and send the peso home to Mexico. They are going to come into your house, take what they want, as well as anyone else looking for food.

One thing to note is that the second amendment allows us to keep AND bear arms.. Guns, swords, knives, etc.... This scares the hell out to the libs....(and some republicans)

Gun restrictions do not work. Ask us, UK and Australia. As said before, criminals don't worry about bans, if they did we wouldn't have crime at all.

I want to make a call, and tell the SCROTUS what they are: Fabulous! (except for their decision in KSR v. Teleflex)

Molan Labe /\ /\ /\

the real blogging should start AFTER the supreme court rulesTHAT is when the fireworks really start.. The conservatives (pro-gun in this case) should be happy with the decision as they are overrepresented on the Court at the moment, the liberals will be estatic if the critical question goes in their favor.

But for sake of ego, I will state my position that the fact that the 2nd amend specifically links guns to raising a militia: the strongest consitutional argument is that this article is not intended as an individual right to bear arms, however the indirect right to do so, via the militia item, raises the possibility of granting some rights that cannot be abridged by the States (though the militias are state (today's "national guard:), they can be federalized).

The challenge to conservatives is that on the one hand they claim the courts are illegitimate and that decisions should be left to the states (abortion, prayer in school) but in this case, when the local governments go firmly against them, they want the same courts to overrule elected officials. Also that the talk of individual rights which do not work very well when talking about a 1 month old fetus trumping a US citizen-mother but then try to play the 2nd amendment as if it was written purely as an individual right with no mention of the militia.

Liberals similarly have issues as they have grown lazy after the Brennan era to believe that the Supreme Court as a policy-making body is unrestrained by the genuine intent and language of the Consitution (nobody can really say Roe v. Wade is anything but a policy judgment in the face of competing rights, good or bad). For liberals, the interpretation that gets them their result is glossed over and all other interpretations are deemed ignorant.

For both sides, the Court is most likely to write opinions (I am certain there will be several) that may throw some fresh meat to the NRA and gun control advocates, but will be grounded in a very different process of genuine constitutional interpretation. It is in many ways a wonderful test of the Justices doing what they have been hired to do, balancing the language of the constitution, states rights (though this is a DC law), individual rights...NOT balancing the threat of the NRA lobby or public opinion, or fundraising considerations.....I say....it about time!

A compromise. A handgun permit can be written out on a doctor's prescription pad. Diagnosis: small penis with associated feelings of powerlessness.

While not saying I'm for, or against, gun rights for the little people, on a more personal note, let me say this... If I should choose, a certain woman, as my running mate, I would be favorable to restricting gun ownership by this person, until after my 8 year term, is up.

We have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution did not grant it, but recognized it and forbade any government or any individual from infringing that right.

Too bad power hungry politicians and frightened people do not grasp human rights and infringement thereof.

It's quite clear that his Summer stints in Europe have turned Anthony Kennedy into an anti-rights crusader.

No longer will the people of the various states be allowed to make law through their state representatives and state courts. Justice Kennedy will strike them all down via the federal supremacy power grab, with Kennedy garnering Leftist accolades for slapping down the Founding Fathers. His latest "evolving standards" rationale ... Sheesh!

I can envision Kennedy siding with the Court's Left cadre and declaring that individual citizens never had the right to keep and bear arms, without a single reference by any of the Founders to support his position.

Just think, for over 200 years individuals have kept and borne arms in America, and today --- because corrupt urban governments allow criminals to run amok --- the Court is poised to void an inalienable, God-given right! We'll know tomorrow if we're still the United States of America or if we're now the vassal state of the US Supreme Court.

that's all right.. the low lifes who prey on society will still be armed..maybe they will knock off the libs including those on the court..we can HOPE FOR CHANGE right????

I only discharge my concealed weapon in dark, seedy places, is that a crime in America?

...what? Bloody Bastard Americans want to jack my weapon?! Bloody... what? Oh, I didn't hear the "off" part. never mind

From my cold dead hands.....

To Tired Critique..
Hummm.. I thought..

1. The constitution was a people's document limiting the power of the goverment.

2. The bill of rights are the peoples god given rights.. not government given rights..

Thats why it starts ..WE THE PEOPLE.. NOT
We The Government...

It's interesting to note that most rampage killings are by regular citizens who purchased their guns lawfully and then snapped, taking several lives including their own in the process. America is a country built on war and arms the issue can be debated till the cows are shot dead you just have to live with the consequences of a constitution that is outdated in the modern world.

" I have purchased a crate of surplus WWII grenades"

Posted by: DC Old Timer | June 25, 2008 9:53 PM

With the proper paperwork and the payment of taxes:

You must be at least 21
Call your local CLEO and ask what his procedure is for signing Form 4
passport photographs
two FBI FD-258 fingerprint cards
blah blah

D.C. old timer you can do that.....I bet you didn't know that....you can do that!

They aren't illegal, go through the procedure pay the taxes and they are yours!

You can even get new ones!

Yea baby. Its got that thing going, if you know what I mean!

Freedom isn't free. No it isn't. While the brave troops are overseas fighting people who have no capacity whatsoever to reduce your actual freedom (your property and your safety yes, but not your freedom), your good conservative government is recording your phone calls, reading your emails, and building prisons that do not have a jury of your peers between you and your disappearance forever. Move along, move along. Nobody in there but terrorists. Too risky to even tell you why they're in there. You just trust the government enough to give away those freedoms out of fear. Then your vigilance is misdirected toward liberals, who these days are actually the only ones trying to preserve your freedom from the assault of the neocons who really do threaten it. It will be most likely be a Blackwater contractor prying your gun from your cold, dead hands.

It is worth noting that within a decade of DC's handgun ban the city had become the murder capital of the nation. I lived there then and learned what the sound of automatic gunfire sounds like by having my windows open on a summer night in the 80's.

Having said that, personally I think guns (owned legally or not) are for those who lack a more basic courage. An armed citizenry may or may not be able to fight off criminals or overthrow a repressive government. But then when the repressive government is armed the way the US military is, any overthrow would require the support of the military to succeed, rendering gun rights for that purpose moot. As for using a gun to stop a criminal, I am sure one could find stats for or against the idea. The goal is to minimize criminality and to walk tall so people do not see you as a target.

As for the second amendment, I agree that it specifies the right to bear arms, but maybe those "arms" should be limited to what was available at the time the amendment was written. You can have all the flint-locks and muskets and cannons you want. As for automatic weapons and Glocks and .38 Specials, is a limit of one a month that unrealistic? No one is going to overthrow the US government with rifles and pistols anyway.

Claus Barbee, thanks for the information!

I hope they make the right decision. DC is very pretty this time of year when itz not a pile of exploded rubble and dead bodies of lawmakers.

U.S. CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

The way this court is, tomorrow we may see another God-given right go down the drain...

The liberals (which includes Bushfans and neocons) are not our people. We are in disunion. The liberals (which includes Bushfans, neocons, and Christian-Zionists) represent a different ideology; such that they have become a different ethnicity, something unamerican, that is written on in their blood. I can identify a liberal (which includes Bushfans, neocons, and Israel-firsters) by the way they talk, the words they use, the clothes they wear, an almost racial characteristic of themselves and of the company they keep. Bottom line the liberal / neocon is of a swarthier southern European and southward still towards the African Savanna, stock, also in concord with blood and ideology of that of the East: the Ashkenazi and Orientalid. That is Liberalism, Neoconservatism is not of Northern Europeanhood, Northern European thought and Northern European people, the things that built this nation.

"At this critical time in America, If the Liberal side of the court wins the argument. Americans may have to put our hands up as we atr led at the point of someone else's soliders gun soon to concentration camps."

Only a neocon (liberal) clown could think up such crazy scaremonger nonsense. Someone else's soldiers have already "invaded", dummy, the liberal is not our people, falure to realize this puts you in their camp.

Okay Trax. Thanks for that clarification. So there are limits on which types of arms you can carry? Some arms are okay but not others? But I thought it was a right to bear arms? Are you suggesting that there need to be some sensible limitations? Go figure. Hand guns are okay. Rocket launchers too I guess, because they are not WMD (unless of course you have a heap of them). Say, 52? Is that too many? AK47 is presumably okay? Your further assistance is required to clarify my profound misunserstanding. I know, I know, never argue with a fool, people cant tell the difference.

Here in Texas Gun ownership is encouraged
anti-gun sentiment is a one way ticket to
being ousted.If the ban is upheld then
owning a gun will depend on where you live.
I hope its defeated but I predict
5-4 upholds it with justice Kennedy
being the tie breaker.That would be really sad.Revolution time folks..

Gun laws = more crime. More crime = More government programs to control crime. More government programs = less liberty for us all.
The dolt above that said that the reason the founding fathers put the second ammendment into the constitution was to prevent a slave rebellion or to hold down minorities is obviously a victim of the government school system. He will probably be a victim of a government sanctioned gun control law. He was probably a victim of the "suck off the government" mentality.
Speaking of useless leaches, where are all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods?
Where is all the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved the problem? Asking where the FEMA trucks (and trailers) are?
Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago?
When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines?
Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks?
Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets?
When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a "vanilla" Iowa, because that's the way God wants it?
Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of cannibalism?
Where are the people declaring that George Bush hates white, rural people?
How come in 2 weeks, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again?
Ok I will get off my soap box now. It was just a few questions. I think I will go down to Gruene Hall and have a beer, while it is still legal.
Dave

As Justice Scalia succinctly phrased it during the Heller oral arguments, "The Founders spoke of THE right of free speech and THE right to keep and bear arms".

Both rights an individual right as are all the enumerated Bill of Rights.

I'm just waiting for the government to make it illegal to be mean, then we'll all live in harmony!

Bart...

It is important to note that when the constitution was ratified there was no standing army or US Code title 10....

"If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?

Posted by: Jonathan Rees"

I live in a home that meets the fire code, but I still have a fire extinguisher.

A compromise. A handgun permit can be written out on a doctor's prescription pad. Diagnosis: small penis with associated feelings of powerlessness.

Posted by: Solution | June 25, 2008 10:04 PM

Some of us with big penises have guns too. We use them to make sure you guys with no penises behave.

357 has a point! but I have a bad feeling about this honorable liberal court.

The founding fathers did not trust the federal govenment... and did not setup a standing army...

Try to find it in the constitution...

Read this carefully. The 2nd amendment refers to " a well armed militia" as being necessary. Then it goes on to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The people - individuals - are allowed to keep weapons in case the well armed militia attempts to forcefully impose an unconstitutional rule.

Why do we need any regulation at all? If I want to walk around carrying my automatic rifle and hand grenades for protection we should be allowed. I am a law abiding citizen and have that right. After all, it's not the grenade that kills, it's the person throwing it. Heck, why stop there. If we really want to defend ourselves, we need some RPG's (rocket propelled grenades), otherwise we would not be able to stand up against a truly tyrannical government.

Court will not rule on this one.

The only gun control I've ever gone on record as favoring is the restriction of weapons in the hands of primates.

Damn Dirty Apes!

I have no faith in the court after today. I have never owned a weapon. I ,now see a need for one. And it has nothing to do with my penis. I could not even finish reading the Kennedy position. I have never aligned myself with a party. But, if that is the offer, no thanks.

Ban guns all you want government! Im not getting rid of mine so you can waste your time, paper and our tax payer dollars all you want voting for or against guns!!! Makes do difference to me what you do. Break into my house in the middle of the night and you'll get a surprise. The last surprise of your life! And if you try to go house to house and collect guns I'll be perched on my roof waiting patiently to end your career. I wish they would ban guns so i could go mercenary. Go ahead feds, make my day......

"...maybe those "arms" should be limited to what was available at the time the amendment was written."

Right. And maybe "freedom of the press" should be limited to the product of hand-operated printing presses.

For those anti-gun types out there - just post a big sign in front of your home that says "We do not believe in guns, therefore ther are no guns in this house." Leave it up for awhile. Good luck.

Who needs guns. These idiots need to be hung. From a tree.

Any rational person knows that the men of the 18th Century, after carving their fortunes out of the wilderness fighting wild animals and indians, and after fighting tyranny, really did not want the people to keep and bear arms as they wrote. We know that what they really meant was that two men had the right to get married.

Freedom's just another word for I want an Italian submarine sandwich, with the good imported prosciutto, spicy soprasata, real Genoa salami and real Italian provolone!

Bart,
Check the meaning of militia back in 1789 when the Bill of Rights were written!

To ALL Liberals expressing anger at being labeled as "Anti-Gun", or claiming this issue is not about "Liberal vs. Conservative": The reality is that Every Liberal politician/candidate IS Anti-Gun, including your beloved Obama. So, if you support an Anti-Gun candidate...you, yourself ARE, by proxy, Anti-Gun. I'm sorry...but, you can't have your cake, and eat it too!

Claus Barbee, thanks for the information!

Posted by: DC Old Timer | June 25, 2008 10:09 PM

I see that you are either educated or truly an Old Timer.

"...whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms..."

No, no, no.

Your reporters and editors really need to learn to understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Nothing is "granted."

http://www.gunsmagazine.com/Rights0208.html

Good grief.

I have to admit, the stupid fluke five doing the last couple of outrageous anti-American decisions has me scared... This court seems to be the best advertisement for getting RID of the democrats once and for all.... what will they do to us tomorrow?

If Mr. Rees feel so strongly against our Constitutional right to own a gun I have a challenge for you. Put a BIG, EASY to READ SIGN in your front yard and on your back fence that reads I DON'T OWN A GUN WHICH MIGHT BE USEFUL IN PROTECTING MYSELF OR MY FAMILY FROM CRIMINALS. You can edit a bit but DON'T ALTER the message. Let's see how that works out. It's people like you that BENEFIT from your neighbors RIGHT TO ARM THEMSELVES. The average criminal doesn't like to GUESS if a potential VICTIM might be ARMED. Doubt is good and you are leeching off a legally armed society.

I want my tomotes back. We can not even control our FDA much less rogue Supreme Courts.

As a physician, the correct diagnosis would be a well regulated and functioning pair.

Those lacking the same are certainly free to do as they wish.

"It is important to note that when the constitution was ratified there was no standing army or US Code title 10...."

Russ... There is now.

Disgusting. Not a single thought given to the children massacred in our schools, the innocent people gunned down in their work place or while standing in line at some McDonald's, or those poor people the DC snipper killed while he and his protege were at large. Newsflash: The gun in the drawer by your bedside won't save you or your children from that fate, but getting guns off the street just might. As long as crazy people can buy guns, not a single one of us is safe. And if you think your primitive little guns will save you from some dictator with an arsenal of modern weaponry, you're an even bigger fool than senile old Mr. Heston was.

"Okay Trax..."

My community standards are simple to understand.

When are all the 50cal owners in Texas going to start blasting everything and everyone?

First off I'm mostly impressed by the quality of the comments on both sides here. Guns may have had utility for the common citizen in the 1790's but today they certainly do not. Society is absolutely made worse by the gun "rights" set not better. It's time we all lay our weapons down and frickin' learn something useful. We are a society of useless consumers and we are going to get our economic clocks cleaned by the developing world if we don't start focusing on competitiveness, instead of crap.

The first thing the Nazis did after invading country -- even before taking away the Jews -- was taking away the guns.

I once read about a study that said if an authoritarian regime took over America, there's a 99% chance it would come from the right.

People on the left should be the biggest proponents of gun rights.

Posted by: info | June 25, 2008 2:58 PM

INFO, you are a liar. The Nazi's wanted the people to keep their guns to fight any rear guard action that might come along. They only took the guns from the commie jews, for good reason. The only books the Nazi's burned were jew books like the kind that permiate any book store today that spew the anti-White crap they did back then.

You piss off now little hebe. You're not wanted here.

I have several military assault weapons and I have considerable professional training and experience in using them. No one will take them from me. I don't care what is written on some piece of paper tomorrow, and I don't care what the sociaist government tries to do after the Nov elections. I will not give them up. And if I have to go down to protect them, I will not go alone.

Bart...

Now if they can only take our guns away....

I'm a left winger from way back. I guess I'll spend tomorrow cleaning my AR15 and listening to Jerry Garcia bluegrass albums. Maybe I'll get on line and exercise one of my other rights, Free Speech. Oh, and of course I'll be sure to thank God for putting me here in this weird and wonderful nation of free men.

It's about the Constitution, guys. This is bigger than politics.

From my cold, dead hands...

DC has the tightest gun control laws in the country. They have a population of roughly 600,000 and the number of murders per year is 250+. I live right next door in Fairfax Co Virginia where anyone thats sane can carry a gun. We have a million people. Murders per year 15-20. I think its pretty obvious gun laws are not the answer. Lets keep the second amendment intact as intended and let the individual protect himself. If a some egg sucking liberal doesn't want a gun he doesnt have to buy one.

Quote: If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home? Posted by Jonathan Rees | June 25, 2008 2:09 PM. Why do we need them to protect us from people like you who think we r safe in our homes... You want my gun come and get it! I beg you to try..........................

I bet Reginald Denny would have liked to have a gun.

We don't need guns to protect ourselves. The ACLU and Johnny Cochran will sue the SOB criminals into submission!

Oh wait, Johnny Cochran is dead. Now what?

Introduced my 15-yr-old-daughter to both pistols and rifles this weekend - and more importantly, to gun safety. Went to an outdoor range with my Marine brother-in-law, Vietnam vet, and national marksman competitor. She gained much confidence and familiarity as she exercised her God given and constitutional right. Equally importantly, she nailed a half-dollar sized target consistently from 50 yards (scoped .22 rifle). Finally, we let her shoot a Beretta and a .357 Magnum. A wonderful, law-abiding day. Maybe if some of the justices or a guy like Obama had spent the day with us, instead of trapped in their interior worlds, they'd get it.

I am so sad, I cry, I cry!

This is not fair for MY city, MY CITY. SCROTUS, you will pay dearly for this!

Some say that the "right to bare arms" are for only the militia. How is it then, in over 200 years that isn't the case!!?? The reason is that it was MEANT for us to have that right individually!! Without that right we are wards of the state. I choose freedom and liberty... if you choose the militia mentality you deserve neither!

Echo you typed: "As for the second amendment, I agree that it specifies the right to bear arms, but maybe those "arms" should be limited to what was available at the time the amendment was written."

I think so too. I also think the freedom of religion should also be limited to the religions available to follow while in the US at the time of signing the US Constitution. I also believe that freedom of speech and press should also be limted to just the forms of media that were available at that time. Television and internet communication all should be governmentally controlled. Also Cruel and unusual punishment for crimes should also be limited to that understanding in the 1780's. Let's bring back the hangings!!!!!!

You have no concept of what rights are, right are not privileges. Go back to school.

The point is not to uphold 200 years of case law. Case law is inferior to the constitution. The judiciary does not make laws. Just because 200 other judges failed to follow the constitution doesn't mean these judges should jump off the bridge also.

DISTRICT...DISTRICT...DISTRICT
Washington D.C is:Washington "District" of Columbia...it is not a state, a State or a STATE. The U.S. Contsitutuin does not apply to a "district", a territory or a zone with the same intensitity that it does to one of the 50 states.
I predict that tommorow the United States Supreme Court will rule in favor of the D.C. Gun Ban....and will do so in a correct, Constitutional manner-(although I hope I'm wrong).
vinnier@earthlink.net

PS Right now in Iraq, our National Guard troups are being taught how to go house to house to confiscate guns...Curious

you silly americans, all you do is whine about how you need guns. how many of you have actually defended your own life from a criminal because you had your gun handy? you just enjoy the power of having a weapon, stop dressing it up as something else, you don't need a gun. and stop being such rednecks all the time. the world already thinks you are a jerk country, see if you can turn that around.

From "My Cold Dead Hands" - CH

Some folks have asked why I carry a gun. My reply, simply, is that a cop is too heavy.

The neocon and liberal to me represent Yankees, and I am a anti-zionist Confederate.
It feels like 1861. This is how serious I feel this is.

The Southrons had no trouble breaking their brotherhood between the supporters of tyranny up north. If you support tyranny, you are my brother no longer, you are even of a different ethnicity; I'll view you as a FauxNews addict views Iranians.

Soon in the American fields shall gather zionist and anti-zionist: liberal-neocon and patriot: Yankee and Confederate: British Gold-Hunter and Boer Farmer. Civil war once again. It's inevitable. The zionist (every single last neocon and every single last liberal on the fate of Israel you shall join) is not my brother.

Mastricht

What don't you get... a right is a right.. These are god given rights.. not government given rights.. its up to the individual to give up his/her guns, not the governments...

Maybe we don't need to right to free speech any more... words cause trouble too. Opps.. that's right Political Correctness is starting to take that away also..Thanks liberals...

"Bart, Check the meaning of militia back in 1789 when the Bill of Rights were written!"

What's your point? From everything I've read, "all able-bodied males" is pretty close to the 1789 meaning.

I had my hands blown off in a hunting accident. So, you will have to pry it from my cold dead feet!

"If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders..."

Just exactly what would that be, pray tell?

There is no such home. If an intruder is determined to get in, he will.

My gun is the last line of defense for me and my family.

Truth occurs when what you believe matches reality. Where I live, and I dare say where many Americans live, the truths is that you need to be able to protect yourself. That is the simple reality of the world we live in.

The second amendment was written and passed to protect the citizen from the standing army.ie: a well regulated militia

In the words of King Leonidas, "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ"

happyimnotayank

Bet you live in one of those countries that have cameras everywhere, allows you no privacy and a government who believes you are just their property...

Glad you enjoy that life...

KW- I can't believe you hit it right on the head with RESPONSIBILITY! I would also like to add ACCOUNTABILITY and bring those two wonderful words together like so:

RESPONSIBILITY/ACCOUNTABILITY are terms which our current and past several administrations no absolutely nothing about- apparently they are going to educate us on the new definitions of RESPONSIBILITY/ACCOUNTABILITY right after they collect all of our arms and our right to bear them in the first place!

Who in the hell do they think they are fooling- maybe in another 50 years or so we might have actually forgotten about Hitler- Stalin and Lenin- but now- forget it!

The Bush/Cheney,etcetera elitist cabal can pry my gun from my cold dead hands- they don't have the guts for that so they will send some poor brainwashed duped idiot to do it for them! Or they will wait and see if Obama can talk us all into surrendering them lovingly at some new BS world peace rally at Dupont Circle!

Everyone DOES know that the ban is unconstitutional. Just not everyone likes the constitution... or likes the country they were born in for that matter. We have people facing hell to illegally get into this country; And yet we have a small but vocal few who want to turn it into the next Marxist state.

What will be interesting is not the exact holding but how the USSC will be able to carve out (as they will likely do) exceptions. To say that every individual has the right to own a gun and carry it means that laws banning guns in school zones or federal buildings, or on planes would be unconstitutional.

The USSC wont do that, but I think they may find a blanket ban for an entire city will be. I wonder how they will justify some gun laws and yet strike down others

Let us all bow our heads and pray to the almighty master Ben Hur and thank him for the wherewithal to leave us with POTA and Omega man syndrome.

Pilots are now armed because it deters terrorists. Our schools are dangerous and if some of those massacres had teachers with guns less lives would have been lost.

The absence of guns by the good people is why these attrocities happened in the first place. It is a proven fact that where society "in this day and age" is armed, crime is all but gone.

Although not likely, if there is ever a time when you are a victim and you stand on the otherside of this argument, you'll look back at and say "damn, what was I thinking"

Funny how Liberals will use their "rights" to kill an unborn child but deny an adult human being the right to protect their own life. Talk about a culture of death...

Quote:Jonathan Rees | June 25, 2008 2:09 PM If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home? I and others need guns to protect us from people like you who think we r safe in our homes that's why. You want my gun come and get it i beg you to try......

I can't believe tards are debating wether the 2nd amendment, which is pretty high up there only one more important, is an individual right. Who do you think the bill of rights are for?

Let me ask, do only militias have the right to the 1st amendment? A complete Non issue we all know what the 2nd Amendment is. Get a grip sh!t Eating Libtards!!!!!!!!!

It is unconstitutional. DC is part of the United States, the United States constitution grants citizens the right to bear arms, therefore, the citizens of DC have the rights to bear arms. Seems pretty elementary to me. Funny how the constitution works that way. Also, the day I start seeing houses across America advertising that they are a gun free homes, I will give up all my guns; because I won't have to worry about criminals breaking into my home when they have such easy targets elsewhere!!!

"Jonathan Rees" is as deep a thinker as an 8 year old. That's actually giving him more credit than is due.

It's amazing how these 'hyper-intellects' see the means to give up basic American rights.

"If guns were banned..." and "If houses are 'properly' secure" - whatever, stop right there and get a clue.

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

I properly secure my home with locks and guns. I properly secure my personal safety with guns - in our out of my home.

Trepe

Then let them move to a country that fits their needs...Just leave my country alone...Its worked well for 200 years...

The notion that a dip-sticky, second-rate local governmental unit like D.C. would take it upon itself to excise ten-percent of the Bill of Rights from the Constitution is particularly offensive, when you consider that this miniscule little jurisdiction is honored as the seat of our nation's federal government, charged with protecting and preserving and defending that Constitution, well . . . its really too much to bear.

"D.C." ... get a life... and try and elect a few non-crack-smoking mayors...

Our wonderful government will have absolutely no problem disarming 90% of our population without firing a shot or jackbooting citizens. they are setting up for it right now. It will be a combination of food shortage and a false flag (ala 9/11) attack that will cause the terror level to go red. No movement of anything in the country for a month or so including food. Solution: FEMA camps. Your National Guarge will pick you and your hungry kids up at the end of the driveway and bring you to a "public assistence camp" You'll get three square meals, showers, beds, all the vaccines, retinal scans, finger prints, chip implants and DNA samples you would every want. Oh and while you are out of your homes "vandals" will happen upon your property including your weapons.

Unless you have a couple of months of chow on hand and don't need to leave your condo for two months you'll be going camping.

Look at Zimbabwe. Citizens under the thumb of a hero turned despot. Look at New Orleans. Disaster strikes and the first thing the Gov't does is try to disarm the citizenry.
Imagine a concerted campaign of major terrorist acts in this country...muslim women running into schools blowing themselves up, muslim men blowing themselves up in churches or movie theatres or NFL games. Imagine Mexico being subjegated by drug cartels and then muslim radicals. Imagine rockets flying over the Rio Grande into Texas, or California.
Then imagine a seriously fascist political party coming into power with the vow to stop all attacks on our glorious country. Marshal law comes first, suspension of habeas corpus, terrorists under every rock they say. And then some people start objecting, and they become the radicals to be subdued.
Think it can't happen?
The constitution and bill of rights were were intended to define the limits of government power. The second amendment was intended to give us protection from tyranny. The ultimate right to self defense.
If the Court says "reasonable" restrictions on personal gun ownership is ok, our Country as we know it will begin the slow road to european socialism, and then the dream is over.

Quote:Jonathan Rees | June 25, 2008 2:09 PM If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home? I and others need guns to protect us from people like you who think we r safe in our homes that's why. You want my gun come and get it i beg you to try......

HOW ABOUT THIS.....

Do a search on how many people are killed by guns in the US every year. Then find out how many of the shooters owned the guns.

IDIOTS!

Guns come in from everywhere, just like drugs do. The thugs with the guns shooting people are not gun collectors, they are thugs who get them on the streets. STOP ASSISTING THE GOVERNMENT with your uneducated beliefs. Stop assisting them to systematically take away our freedom!

Stop watching TV and THINK AMERICA!

"Bart... Now if they can only take our guns away...."

Russ- I don't get your point (sarcasm?) I suggest you re-read my posts more carefully if you think I'm arguing against gun rights.

If you come to take away my GUNS be damned sure you bring yours..............

It's easy to tell when a WaPo article gets linked to Drudge - the right-wing crazies come out in full force. See, e.g., Scot Edwards at 10:22: "She gained much confidence and familiarity as she exercised her God given and constitutional right."

So God gave Americans the right to keep and bear arms? WTF?

Gerald "Court will not rule on this one." Obviously an Obama voter. Court IS ruling on it tomorrow. Oh, and Nixon is dead.

I will never give up my guns, regardless of the law. Had to use a handgun once when a guy came at my car with a tire tool, I was stuck in traffic and couldn't move, a round into his car stopped him.

Guns don't kill, people kill, without guns they will find another way. There is no way that I am giving up my guns because a tyrannical government says I have to!
Look out the new revolution is coming....

I don't even own a gun, but you goddamn better not take my rights away to own one.

gromrehsafov LIBTARD fr drfejqr; fjeirjq f LIBTARD EAT IT sdfdak;rjef blah blah rkdlrj

I wouldn't be surprised if Kennedy and the other 4 rule against the right of citizens to own guns. I bet his opinion will have some reference like "well the rest of the world is banning guns." The fact that he's used world views in several of his decisions and opinions indicates to me that he should be disqualified for not doing his job. His job is to see if US laws meet US constitutional requirements, not if they go against what the rest of the world is doing.

When the country was first founded, private citizens who weren't in militias owned guns and there were no calls by government officials to confiscate their guns. In my opinion, this is all the proof needed that private citizens have the right to own guns while not belonging to a militia.

Love Your Country. Fear Your Government. Keep Your Guns! We will need them to shoot out the public cameras someday.

Also, if we just make sure to enforce the existing laws, we will be fine. Too many people wanted new gun laws after the Columbine shootings, not understanding that 25 current laws were broken leading up to the shooting. New laws do nothing. Enforce what is already on the books and we shall be fine. Start taking away liberty and freedom, and we might as well call ourselves Communist. Funny how the liberals of the world are today's facist!!!

To happyimnotayank, you ball less creep foreign ingrate punk. I hope tomorrow some inner city gangsters break into your house and stick a knive in your spine to paralyze you and then let you watch as they gang bang your wife and kids. Then I'd like to ask you if you would have wanted a gun before they broke in. You perfumed foreign female organs. Only Americans have the will to defend themselves and you when you call for our help.

Those of you that are against guns are really afraid of having so many people out there with the ability to kill. You should know, you have probably stood beside me or someone like me thousands of times and under that suit or in my belt was a gun. I've carried for 30 years and the only people who ever knew (2) found out the wrong way. Saved my life and only twice in 30 years is enough for me.

They will have to kill me before they can have my guns.

Shouldn't an individual right to keep and bear include a citizen's right to pack at U.S. Supreme Court hearings?

To the gentlemen that spent quality time with his daughter at the range: Obama gets it alright. He just wants to make certain you don't.

I own 974 guns. I need three more. Don't take my rights away, you LIBTARDS!

I guess the US Constitution doesn't apply to D.C. Maybe the judges will declare "arms" to be your two arms and the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to fire arms.

Final thought before I pet my arms and then go to bed: If SC(R)OTUS criminalizes guns, only criminals will have guns (that includes cops). If the 15% of the population is black (afreekin american) and blacks commit 97% of the violent crimes in America, then MOSTLY THE BLACKS will have guns. If mostly the blacks have guns and Grobama wins, then America is doomed. That is till White mofos like me open up.

Ah, now I can sleep.

Best retorts ever. Solid gold 'cold dead feet' response from 'hands blown off' Stumpy. Didn't you just see that coming?

Funny how Liberals will use their "rights" to kill an unborn child but deny an adult human being the right to protect their own life. Talk about a culture of death...
Posted by: Suck It

HERE HERE!!

Bart..Definitely sarcasm.. and could be a repeat of history as in other countries.. first setup an army large enough to quell dissent.. 2nd disarm the masses.. 3rd _____..

you can fill in the blanks..

The desire for constitutional nullification by the court on the part of those who alledge that the second amendment isn't a right to bear arms is disingenuous. Even the most ardent proponent of bannig private ownership of firearms is a bald faced liar when he claims that all those F-16's, helicopter gunships and Abrams tanks that the National Gaurd is out there tooling around in are the embodiment of our second amendment rights.

What is wrong with you people??? Columbine, VA Tech, Amish schoolchildren, etc., etc., etc. When are you going to wake up and realize that they are more important?

I do not understand. I live in a small Florida city, crime is high, but it would be much higher if homeowners would not be allowed to own firearms.

Not only is this a constitutional right, it is a right to protect our loved ones and our property.

Benjamin Franklin once said that John Adams wife turned him on, big time. He carried too!

im going out and getting a gun right now b/c of this. they can pry it from my cold dead hands

Not that anyone is reading this far, but I was astounded by one of the first poster's comments "Charles":

"The Bill of Rights is NOT about individual rights."

WHAT?!?

This is straight from your government's web site:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/

"In the summer of 1787, delegates from 13 new American states, recently British colonies, met in Philadelphia to write a constitution for a unified nation. By September, they had produced a document that then began to circulate among the state legislatures for ratification. The new constitution provided a blueprint for how the national government would function, but it did not contain a section specifically outlining the rights of individual citizens. A public debate quickly arose. Advocates of the draft constitution argued that guarantees of individual rights were not needed. Others, however, aware of the explicit rights guaranteed in earlier documents such as the British Bill of Rights (1689) and the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, believed that some specific provision stating the rights of individuals was necessary.

At the height of the debate, in December 1787, Thomas Jefferson, then serving as ambassador to France, wrote a letter to his friend James Madison, one of the chief authors of the new constitution. "A bill of rights," Jefferson wrote, "is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

I am confident that if the Supreme Court upholds the ban that all the folks who are killing on the streets of DC will turn in their guns. I mean, they wouldn't want to violate no law now would they!

Thare are quite literally MILLIONS of "unpapered" (legally cash sold - face to face) unregistered guns in this country.

Since they don't "exist", they can't be banned. Any attempt to ban guns is, and always will be, doomed to failure.

Never...never bring a knife to a gun fight!

Well strawman,
With regard to your assertion about domestic tranquility, I guess that's what we've got now with tens of thousands of gun regulations on the books?

I think the domestic security refers more to our autonomy in the world, and much less to the establishment of a police state.

One who would sacrifice liberty for a false sense of security is a fool.

Franklin?

ANGRY

columbine is a result of too much government interferenc.. Take god out of the schools and public and immorality follows...Why wasn't this a problem back before that...Kids are no different today then they were then...

well, people do have the right go guns i guess, the problem is that its a stupid right.

like alot of things that seemed important 200 years ago, its antiquated and has no place in modern society.

as for the criminals all having guns and holding us hostage ect, well, the odds of that happening to any one person are about as good as being struck by lightening. but, the odds morons getting pissed off and shooting people over say, rush hour, or at a political rally, or in a bar, id say are quite good if people all have guns.

I have a hard time understanding why so many people seem to think that believing in gun ownership rights automatically makes you a "Right-Wing Nut". I'm pro gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-torture, anti-Bush/Cheney war mongering, and PRO GUN RIGHTS! Whoever up there wants a Barretta, you'd be better off with a Glock 19 or Steyr M 40 S&W.

If our courts were concerned about the rights of citizens there would be no question. Instead they are concerned about how they will look on the today show or meet the press. They want to go to Europe, that failed conglomerate of countries that my grand and great grand parents fled, and be praised for being so intelligent. Screw them all, I am going to the arms fair this weekend and stocking up. When Bill Clinton passed his gun ban in the ninties I bought three SKS rifles. Saturday I think I will buy a half dozen more with all the fixins.

There is no RIGHT to peace, Joe. Read the Constitution, you won't find it. ANYWHERE...
There is the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness, but even then it's the pursuit, there is no guarantee.

Posted by: PT | June 25, 2008 4:25 PM

If I read about life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness being a part of the constitution again I am going to puke. Go back to 8th grade social studies and you will find that particular statement in the Declaration of Independence (1776), not the U.S. Constitution. I believe in the right to bear arms, even for the ill-informed

In reading some of the comments I must say I do not agree that the most dangerous threat to us today is physical threats from criminals. The most dangerous threat is from the tyrannical government we have put in place. We have become so immune to supporting things that don't effect us "smoking bans", "per drink taxes", luxury taxes, tolls, hotel taxes, etc. That we have given away others freedoms and others have given away ours. Everyone of us has a hideous tax burden (read your pay stub) that we assume we can do nothing about. Well thats what the second ammendment is for - we can do something about it and we can defend ourselves when the government decides that its an insurrection. Make no mistake, its where we are heading. With every new smiling idiot we put in office to "change" things or who "cares about people like us" we get closer. No one takes care of you, except for your parents if you are lucky. You have to take care of yourself.

I support gun rights because most of the time it is the people that own the guns that get shot and killed! Even in robbery attempts. In time, they will all just go away and we won't need guns anymore. You have more of a chance of being shot by owning a gun than not. I think its real smart to pull a gun on someone that is already deranged enough to pull a gun on you to begin with. Nice methodology.

Peace

It's high time to be fully stocked with ammo folks. If the so-called "micro stamping" of ammo laws are passed...that will effectively BE gun control. No ammo ... No BANG.

I tell you what:

I will legally own my firearm and use it to protect my family. You go ahead and argue against legal citizens owning guns. I will go ahead and put a big neon sign out front of your house stating that you fervently believe in gun bans. At least it will tell the criminals which houses to rob and attack......

Don't worry though, i'm sure if you call 911, the cops will be there in plenty of time to protect you...................

All these comments are boring. The bottom line in this case--as with most others of national interest these days-- is that since the Court has moved so far from originalism, the law is what the swing voter (these days it's Kennedy) thinks it ought to be. It's a political decision. It shouldn't be but it is. The Constitution set up the legislative branch with oversight from the President (vetos) to make political decisions. The Court was merely to make sure the laws didn't vary from the text (like that "demon" Scalia keeps saying). It's all so screwed up now that I doubt it will ever work as intended. So with respect to D.C. v. Heller, the answer to whether we have an individual right depends on whether Kennedy thinks we should. This is sad, undemocratic, and wrong. If you made all Americans go to law school to learn how it's gotten so messed up I'm relatively certain we'd have a Constitutional amendment directing an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution. That would be about the only way to take back the political power appropriated by the Court. So quit squabbling; it's a waste of time. Kennedy doesn't care what you think.

The issue at hand is not whether the second amendment exists, as most of the comments imply. Right to bear arms is not absolute. Individuals cannot have nuclear or biological weapons. Where do we draw the line? That should be largely up to local goverments who have to deal with the problems that people with guns cause

Funny how Liberals will use their "rights" to kill an unborn child but deny an adult human being the right to protect their own life. Talk about a culture of death...
Posted by: Suck It

I concur!

What is wrong with you people??? Columbine, VA Tech, Amish schoolchildren, etc., etc., etc. When are you going to wake up and realize that they are more important?

You Forgot one. UT tower where the police broke into guns shops, call on citizens to get the same firepower as the killer. Citizens will always have better firepower then the police.

It doesn't really matter since D.C. is mostly black. The Democrats will look out for the blacks and protect them. The D.C. government is black, so of course they'll protect the safety of the "brothers and sisters"

So has anyone set up a system for those trying to claim the reward when they turn in the faces carved off the traitor pig democrats?

Claus Barbee, thanks for the information!

Posted by: DC Old Timer | June 25, 2008 10:09 PM

I see that you are either educated or truly an Old Timer.

DK..

I could make the same speech about the freedom of religion and free speech.. after all in the modern world the government is your god and they will tell you what to say.. you do not even have to think for yourself...

"Bart..Definitely sarcasm.. and could be a repeat of history as in other countries.. first setup an army large enough to quell dissent.. 2nd disarm the masses.. 3rd _____.. you can fill in the blanks.."

Russ, I still don't understand your issue with my Title 10 post. It basically confirms that the militia is "all able-bodied males" even under today's law. Were you disagreeing with me?

I can't wait for the time when I get to take up arms against our liberal marxist totalitarian government.

and like, will a schumer bring in more of a reward than a little neighbor who is lifelong dem?

Hey Russ, what GOD should we put back in School? Yours or Mine?

George Washington once said Dolly Madison had guns sewn into her large gowns to ward of the lecherous mobs. The worst was Franklin and John Jay, who would follow her home on several occasions.

wikipedia has a pretty balanced discussion on this. If anything, it reinforces the notion that the second amendment is broad and plain as written.
worth reading.

A Little Gun Control History Lesson

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- -------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------ --------- ---------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------ --------- ---------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------ --------- --------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------ --------- ---------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that, too!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns........ ...We Are "Citizens".
Without Them........ We Are "Subjects".

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Peal Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & wasNaval Attach� to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends!

(Even if one is not pro-gun, This is worth a your consideration.)

I will say that I am very pleased that there are a lot of like minded freedom loving individuals out there!! I solute you all! Sempur fidelis!

If they outlaw hand guns then Obama won't be able to bring that gun to the kinfe fight...

The fact our Supream Court is ruling on this now becomes a dangerous consideration and a threat to our way of life. If the SC rules the liberal way, you can become alarmed that the right will become angry and rally behind Senator John McCain in a way that will make the left quiver with fear.

We need good ideas to stop crime.

Bart ... not a all ... I was embellishing on your point about how it wasn't too long after the government was established they set up a standing army...

Hear hear! govnndotcom!

The lawmen of the zionists can rule however they want. I don't care. I don't get angry over it like some Neocon Limbag. America is in chaos. Any decree is meaningless.

The white citizens targeted in this law will keep their guns and so will the criminal underclass. Your government is powerless and anarchy rules the night. It is just that whitey on his own and in his own community imposes his particular anarchy as order against the wishes of government. Being a law-abiding citizen is against the government, and reflects badly upon the disadvantaged and disordered "minorities", making it "racist"; so again the government feels the need to step in. To the government white order is lawless anarchy.

The Texas Constitutional Militia is made up of all able bodied males between the age of 16 and 65 whether you join or not you are a member. I would recommend that you are armed. If not I am pretty sure we can find arms for you. Of course we could start by cutting off the oil to Washington.

Who would've thought so many right wingers read the supposely liberal Post? Leave it to f***ing Drudge to pipe his reprobate, low-thinking troglodytes here. Your love of guns is idolatry -- and doesn't your Bible call that a sin?

Over the last 50 years I have found that: The far left equates to more gun control (Kennedy, Shumer, Clinton, etc) Gun control laws punish law abiding citizens and are an infringment. Meth/crack/heroin users/pushers, thieves, rapists, murders, car jackers, gang bangers, multi-ton drug importers can carry any time, any where 24/7 particularly in DC. Law-abiding, hard working, honest, tax-paying citizens cannot legally. What kind of lunatics run DC government?

Angry

How old was Billy "The Kid" when he killed his first man? Cain killed Able didn't he? What, you think this will all go away when no one has guns? I guess everyone was nice to each other before we had guns. Oh' and before swords, knives, spears, arrows and rocks.

God Love You Sharyn! Very Nice! Only Democrat's Want To Disarm American's! Think hard on election day!

I fear for my country when only the police and the criminal class are armed.

Rich.. No, actually guns aren't mentioned in the Bible. It was written a long time ago. Even before the "sixties".

Rich,
We don't love guns. We don't trust government. Apparently the bill of rights is just a bill of suggestions for you.

I wonder if any pro-gun advocates can tell me what they think the "well regulated" phrase in the second amendment means.

Any thoughts?

Stock up on the guns and ammo this week end, before the new nazis try and make slaves us us all. Remember the purpose of guns is to protect the citizens from the government.

Mikey

"god" as in the idea that we hold to a higher idea that forces us to be moral..

If you want to wrangle a bit, try this.. a lot of those who formed the country were Masons who believe in a Creator....Maybe we should use that god.. seems to be inclusive of a lot of cultures...

Only a liberal could interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall shall not be infringed" to not protect the right of people to keep arms in their homes.

In other words, a "right" means something the government can take away.

Individuals are not "people".

"Keep" does not mean to have.

"Arms" does not include guns.

and "shall not be infringed" means "can be prohibited"

On Planes you can not get a knife any more.

First guns then knives, o yea try to get mace lately.

The govt will NOT take my guns! If I have to go down in a fight I will! You libtards that think banning guns is the right thing to do you are wrong! You are wrong by history and what has happened to people where their states banned guns! MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED BECAUSE OF THOSE IDEAS!!! Unless you promote that wake up! Read history and maybe we will not repeat it!!

The notion that legislation can prevent tragedies like Virginia Tech (my alma matta by the by) is absurd. The only way to keep deeply disturbed people from carrying out horrific acts is prevention. The funny thing to me is that the anti-gun argument is similar to the Bush/Cheney argument about defeating terrorism. There is no military tactic that can prevent someone from going into a crowded market and blowing themselves up. You have to change minds and hearts to prevent insane acts of violence. No forced disarmament can cure the sickness that motivated those boys at Columbine anymore than force can convince a fanatic Islamic terrorist that he/she is wrong.

>>.What is wrong with you people??? Columbine, VA Tech, Amish schoolchildren, etc., etc., etc. When are you going to wake up and realize that they are more important?

Posted by: ANGRY | June 25, 2008 10:34 PM

-------

Hey, Angry Dodo-brain,
Why do you dolts believe so ferverently that taking away the guns of law-abiding citizens will result in no access to guns by NON-law-abiding citizens?????

When you can answer that one, get back to us....

In the meanntime... STFU!!!!

to d: a good idea to stop crime is execute criminals. But that may be mean, so I suggest that when arrested, prosecuted, and jailed or put into prison, then announce that if anhyone cares whether the criminal is FED, by all means bing the food to feed them. A week of that and even the lowliest of the lazy will say, damn, they should not have been criminals... There is nothing wrong with the USA that cannot be cured by simply getting rid of the criminals and democrats. Here is an idea that can cure a few other maladies: Boil demcorats for oil. render them like they used to do with whales. Then one day I could thank god for showing me that democrats had SOME value after all....

Dear happyimnotayank,

Stay wherever you are if you like it better there. If you're not an American, and especially if you don't want to be an American, sucks for you. Just shut up.

The dc law is toast. Scalia will write the majority opinion. 7-2 in favor of individual over collective. Only Stevens and Ginsburg will vote to uphold the dc law. The opinion will be issued @10a.m.

you have more of a chance of being shot by owning a gun than not. I think its real smart to pull a gun on someone that is already deranged enough to pull a gun on you to begin with. Nice methodology.

Posted by: Paul B | June 25, 2008 10:39 PM

I know right. I would much rather just get on my knees and take a bullet in the head then at least try to blow him away and live.

Once the goverments of the world gives up their WMD's, the criminals are executed on the spot and we are all feminized maybe we can then consider giving up our pea shooters...

I am glad I live in Virginia where the individual right to Bear Arms is guaranteed in our state Constitution. Remember-an armed society is a polite society and I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

Hey Free Man
King Leonidas...WHAT?

jh,
Read the Federalist Papers. It means well trained and prepared in the use of a weapon. It did not mean controlled or licensed by a governmental body.

This is truly a scary moment. If this court comes down 5/4 against an individual's right to own firearms then it will make millions of citizens criminals and I can assure you when the police come to confiscate firearms there will be bloodshed at at least one house. I know you all think this is bs, but I'm old, ill, and standing as a free man in my doorway for a few seconds is preferable to wasting away in a drug induced haze for a year or two.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do these idiots banning the guns not understand? I'm sick of these politicians putting their own unfounded opinions over the supreme law of the land.

Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

The notion of the militia being the National Guard is complete crap. Recently law was enacted which expressly removes the governors of the Several States from their former posts as acting-Commanders-in-Chief of their respective Nat'l. Guard elements. Not to mention the fact that the Guard can be federalized at any moment as the President--who ultimately has jurisdiction over them--sees fit.

I may not count among the "able-bodied", but I'll damned sure give any gun confiscating, jack-booted thug a run for his money when he comes on my hill looking for a fight.

Honestly, I doubt that any law which mandated confiscation would be enforceable; the members of the military and law enforcement would likely defect in such numbers that the civil war which would ensue would be over in a matter of weeks if not days. When top commanders in the field refused to follow the order to seize guns and turned on the government, it would be over. A coup would be the most likely scenario in that case.

That's my opinion, anyhow.
God save the Republic!

"Who would've thought so many right wingers read the supposely liberal Post? Leave it to f***ing Drudge to pipe his reprobate, low-thinking troglodytes here. Your love of guns is idolatry -- and doesn't your Bible call that a sin?"

I read it because I'm a diehard Redskin
fan, otherwise, it's just the Washington
Compost where the editorial commentary continues to seep into the hard news.

The real reactionary knuckledraggers are those "progressives" who follow the teachings of a 19th century librarian.

why do you wear your seatbelt, you may never have been in an accident, but it can save your life if you are, why do you keep fire extinguishers in your home or smoke detectors, you probably wont need them but just in case....why give away another tool/opportunity to protect you and your family? i am not advocating a gun aisle at safeway, but if you are not smart enough to be trained on how to safely use and store a firearm, you probably shouldnt be voting......maybe we should look at minimum voter intlligence levels....slippery slope, where does the removal of rights stop?

Bushmaster- You're still forgetting the "well regulated" phrase in the second amendment. What part of that don't YOU understand?

?I wonder if any pro-gun advocates can tell me what they think the "well regulated" phrase in the second amendment means.

Any thoughts?"
Posted by: jh | June 25, 2008 10:48 PM

At the time it was written, well equipped

Moronpolitic:

I was talking about idolatry, which is forbidden in the Bible, not guns. Use a little thought, huh?

to jh: well regulated means made similar. regular is the root word. So, really everyone was to have the most modern and similar arm available to serve their country. You lazy fool liberals are derelict in your duty as a citizen, and therefor subject to arrest and containment by the forces of the angry armed americans. Triple A baby.

Elect Muslim Obama and he WILL appoint Liberal Supreme Court Judges that WILL take your Right to Bear Arms AWAY- WAKE UP AMERICANS GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT THIS MUSLIM OBAMA

JH

Whats the comma for just after the well regulated militia statement?

Oh and I was in first class amonth ago on Alaska airlines and when they brought me my meal they gave me a knife. A real metal knife.

Our security laws really work, uh? I'm with the guy on the last jet, "let's roll!"

to the person requesting a definition of "well regulated": well regulated means you understand what a democratic Republic means, and when a politician trys to usurp power he is then becomes a "target". We then say: Well lets regulate him!

Mike P,
Maybe you are maiking long distance calls to the taliban and that is why you think the president is a tyrant or you could explain another reason for your thought, but you are correct that it is a check point against a bad government and that could come real soon with a huusain in office and the courts packed with libs that wanna take away guns and free speach

jh

It does not say well regulated state or well regulated federal...

Nor does it say a well state regulated or well federal regulated...

Let's all work this out, how about we let all you liberals have gay marriage and you let us have our guns?

Washington D.C. isn't included in the Bill of Rights. States and the People in States are. D.C. is Federal by definition, just like Gitmo. Therefore the "rights" of the States and the People thereof are immaterial. The problem will come when there is conflict between state law preserving the means of force to remain independent, and federal law prohibiting said means. Basically, it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says tomorrow, does not apply to citizens of states.

I lost my entire torso in WWII in an accident at an airfield in Italy. Since that time, I have used guns to support my legs and arms, and to connect my head to them! Please SCROTUS, rule in my favor tomorrow.

IF the supreme court votes in favor of the "militia" over the "individual" I will say that we (liberty loving) people need to get together and do something about it!!!!!!!!!!!

The comma indicates a separation between the statement of cause and the actual right.

woof
You foolish individual. The VT incident happened in a "gun free" zone. Just because one may have a weapon, doesn't mean everyone does. But maniacs like the guy who shot up VT might think twice about it if he thought he might meet deadly force. If that wasn't enough deterrent, at least someone could have possibly brought the carnage to an end.

I "no guns" sign means absolutely nothing to someone bent on mayhem. Aren't you perplexed that the law didn't prevent his actions? Do you think drug laws prevent heroin from the streets? Are you smoking crack?

I agree, however, nobody needs to carry, unless nobody can carry. But do you want to live in a free society, and if not, there are plenty to move to that aren't.

The first person I ever heard say that the 2nd ammendment was a collective right was attorney General Nicholus Katzenbach [sp]. he happened to be Richard Nixons attorney general. I hope all of my liberal friends think about that for a moment or two and then consider if you really want to follow down a road started by nixon. Bless you all, remember we are all americans and that it is the politicians that have us at each others throats

As Larry The Cable Guy says-
"Guns don't kill- husbands who come
home early do".

I'm a law abiding gun owner and let me speak for those of us who own guns. I have the right to keep and bear arms regardless of what the supreme court says. It is my constitutional right. The only way you get my gun is if you pry it from my dead grip. There are those of you out there who say, "I don't understand why you need to own a gun if your home is properly secured." There are hundreds of thousands like me. We have the right to keep and bear arms; we will not reason nor negotiate this right WITH ANYONE. I care not about your reasoning...I will not give up my guns. The government doesn't grant my rights...God does.

RM |

The 2nd amendment is not a state right.. its an individual right.. If you are an american ...its your right..

red neck jane, are you married? hahahaha Yehaaa!
news time.. I look forward to some good reading shortly....

Liberals are not for what is best for the country or what is best for the individual. All they care about is what is best for the government and that is not what is best for the country or the individual.

Look at the topic at hand and how their position makes no sense. The Bill of Rights is clear on the topic, but the liberals will try and keep us under the thumb of big government.

Oh well. Liberals are going to be in the minority soon. I mean, you can't keep up your numbers if you are stupid enough to practice abortion. What a horrible waste of all those people who have a totally unique DNA makeup that will never occur again. What if one of them could have developed the cure for cancer? I mean what if one was born with a mind that could think in a different way and could see the solution to the problem. Think of that.

Let's all work this out, how about we let all you liberals have gay marriage and you let us have our guns?

Posted by: lawbiding | June 25, 2008 10:56 PM

--------------

Hey lawbiding, I am as queer as a three dollar bill, and I love my guns too. Your suggested solution would be great!

"I can't wait for the time when I get to take up arms against our liberal marxist totalitarian government.

Posted by: Conservative Patriot | June 25, 2008 10:41 PM"

A little over the top there buddy. C'mon, I know its fun for you uber-conservatives to pick on us "liberals" but there are a few of us who aren't completely brain dead. The 2nd Amendment is as clear as the First! I have every right to stand up and speak my beliefs: that the government has a responsibility to show compassion for the poor, ensure marriage equality before the law, and keep its hands out of a womans uterus...and that I have every right to keep and bear arms (which I do).

Obama/Webb '08

No need for guns, get Brinks security or call 911. Ha ha ha ha ho ho ho har de har har!

It's real simple. The founding fathers, outside of the Constitution (as if that wasnt enough) stated that the PEOPLE should be all well armed as their government in order to protect themselves against abuse.

It is very true that the "elite" politicians are screwing our system up! It is not us because most of us agree on just about everything but the elite do not speak for the people! There is a couple thousand trying to speak for us!!

May night not descend on the Great Union. Tomorrow the Supreme Court will rule on the Second Amendment. If they rule against the Constitution once again it is my intention to push for secession from the Union by the State of Texas. I do hope it will not come to that but with the lunatics we have on the court I see no other way out. God Bless Texas, God Bless the United States of America. God Bless us all.

What if they rule against the right to bear arms....and they choose not to give them up?....History lesson...the first shoot fired in the war for independence was defending the powder and weapons stores the Brits. wanted.....hmmmm

ac2

I'm with you and I think jh will join too!

comma seperates the militia from the individual. But hey who am I to say. The people who wrote the darm thing were all packing when they wrote it. I'm sure they wanted to make themselves criminals, it was probably a main topic of conversation, I mean all those guns...what if someone went crazy and killed everyone.

Violation of my 2nd Amendment rights. This should be a clean cut decision, but will not be. Leave it to the moronic left wing judges to play partisan politics.

Come and try to take my gun! I'll be at the Bada Bing with Syl, Pauly and Pus.

lawbiding, can't I join in too?

"If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?"

Stupidest thing I have ever heard. What the hell does "properly secure" mean? It HAS NO MEANING.

Next mound of dung: why do you need a gun in the home? so that when the time comes to over throw the government, you have it ready. What the heck do you think the revolution against England was about?

The 2nd Amendment is about much more than protecting the individual against potential criminals. I don't think the the Founders were thinking of personal protection when they inserted this into the Bill of Rights.

The 2nd Amendment has a two-fold purpose: 1) To allow the citizens of this country to enforce the rights promised to them by the government and essentially protect democracy from a government that turns despotic; and 2) It allows the citizens to have the capacity to protect against foreign invaders. I think the second point is unique and telling about the American form of government and spirit. This amendment allows the citizenry to protect their way of life and governance independent of the government or perhaps in the absence of government. I.E. the military and government fails.

The Democrats are again using the politics of fear. Carry out empty shoes to signify a dead body. Have a makeshift casket at the ready to show one more life has been lost. What they dont realize is that people are too smart. Clinton bans the "scary" looking guns even though he doesn't know anything about them. DC bans handguns and they have the highest crime rate in the U.S. Chicago has murder after murder even though handguns have been banned for years. Obama voted to ban all rifle ammunition and all semi-automatic guns. These people are clueless and their scare tactics, they believe, will trick people into siding with them on the issue. Get serious.

The problem that the court will have tomorrow is they will have to rule the gun ban unconstitutional..
Why...?
DC is not a state... Like it or not the State can regulate weapons but not ban them.. so the feds win on some of their points they want.
However since DC is not a state they do not have the state right to regulate as given in the constitution...comments..

Montana's contract with the Federal Government for Statehood will be null and void if the court's ruling is against the individual's rights. Montana has already put the Federal goverment on notice that the will no longer be a state if this occurs. The Federal governments lawyers have confimed the contract will no longer be valid. No need for succession.

Buy land now!!!

Would it be unconstitutional for the state to require / force gun owners to take out liability insurance for their legally owned and registered firearms?

Would it be unconsitutional to allow victims of gun crimes to sue the owners of the gun used in a crime - even if the gun was stolen?

Would it be unconsitutional to hold gun owners to account for the safe storage of their guns, and to hold them liable (financially, civilly) for any dammages that results from the use of their gun should it get stolen?

Would it be unconsitutional to allow gun makers or gun sellers to be held accountable (civilly, financially) for any dammages that results from the use of their products?

Sure, you have a right to own a gun. And maybe you have the right to make and sell guns.

But society should have the right to sue your ass off should that gun be used during the commission of a crime.

So if you want to own a gun, you must be forced to take out insurance (you want to drive a car, you MUST have insurance).

You want to make (or sell) guns, or bullets, then if you can afford the insurance, you'll be fine. If you have to increase the price of your products, well that's the free market for ya.

The solution is simple. Gun owners, makers, and sellers must collectively pay for the dammages caused to society by their product. The market (via the insurance industry) is the most effective way to insure that those costs are born by those most responsible for those dammages to society caused by guns.

If this requires existing laws preventing gun makers from being sued to be struck down, then so be it.

Joeyusa:

You are a liar. You KNOW Christian Obama is not a Muslim. And you know no politician who wants to get elected is going to ulitmately take your guns away. Yet you have to lie and play into the fear of your like-minded cavedwellers. But your scare tactics ain't gonna work this year. Suck it up -- like the rest of us Bush-haters had to do since 2000.

Seriously, I'm not anti-gun, I casually own a couple, and I grew up with them -- in California, no less -- but as a fairly rational moderate, I certainly don't understand you peoples' unhealthy sexual love for them. Caress them, stroke them, make love to them, but jeezus, people, get a grip, no pun intended. The DC ban will most probably be overturned. So you can go back to schtuping your guns (even in DC) for a while longer.

"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."

Many framers argued against a Bill of Rights because it implied that the rights were granted, as from the Crown or government, rather than freedoms and rights being god-given. They were concerned that if individual rights were written down, then they could later be taken away, as from the crown.

Hamilton wrote:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

That is exactly what we face today with the review of the 2nd Amendment. The SCOTUS is considering taking away a right that the founding fathers felt were rights due to all free men. Others, including Thomas Jefferson, argued that the Bill of Rights would secure the rights from a potentially oppressive federal government. Jeffereson Wrote Madison:

""Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."

Looks like those rights are no very secure today, Thomas.

There is no ambiguity to the second amendment, infact none in any of the first ten amendments to the constituion. All men were subject (of their own free will) to be called upon to defend themselves, their property and their STATE in the militia if called upon.

Remember.. the feds can lose on their regulations they have pushed.. all they have to do blackmain and coerced the states to do their bidding..

Take gun rights away from us and I know where I am going! To a place that will be heavily fortified and ready for whatever comes next!

Does not matter what SCOTUS says.

The government no longer obeys the laws and the Supreme court cannot enforce any.

All the world knows know force now. Rule of law is dead.

And I am not giving up any guns. Period.

Anyone says otherwise? Come and take them. I have been training for that day for a long long time.

It's terrible it's coming down to a Civil War in America again, but thats the only thing that will save our country. It's a good thing the majority of our military is anti-liberal...

Liberals if you want the Gov't to run your lives then move to China or Cuba. Unlike those people who have choosen to be opressed. We the true Americans. Who truly believe we are free are going to stand up and fight.

Freedom isn't free

at the laws edge, you bet!

Rich

But you know Christian Obama hangs out with terrorists and people who like to blame whitey for everything...

Aww lawbiding, I thought we had a moment back there. I'll be looking out for you when you are ready to make the jump. Go Scrotus!

guns in the hands of freemmen keep this country free of invaders and keeps the govt in check too. to quote the lil commie jew dictator joe stalin >>>ideas we do not allow our citizens to have guns why should we allow them to have ideas?

So the question is: is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" a right "of the people"?
It takes lawyers and judges to figure that out????

How long til the citizens realize that your personal security is your business..... Your responsibility......

We have two generations now taught that security is dialing 911 then cowering in the classroom until it is your turn to be shot.

I taught my kids both how to use guns and both pack without a permit since the 2nd amendment is the only grant they need.

But I also taught them, that at some point they may face a choice to die for the good of others.

That if they are in a college classroom and a nut job comes through the door with intent on harming many, it may be up to them to knock the bastard down and get the situation under control.

I also told them to shoot the bastard in the head at the end to make sure and help with the prison over crowding.

Personal security is your own responsiblity, police just do the paperwork, and if you practice with your weapon often, there should be only one story getting recorded!

First it's our Gun Rights, and today "Pelosi" decided to say she wants to revive the Fairness Doctrine...People wake up. Prepare. The time to fight is drawing nigh

I doubt very seriously that it was the founding fathers' intention to pass an amendment to make sure that the military would be allowed to possess guns.

You guys are hilarious. I love reading the comments. Seriosuly, this is excellent. From the guy who thinks law-abiding citizens shouldn't shoot un-law abiding criminals, to the people that actually reallr do understand what the Constitution is! I applaud half of you. The other half definitely aren't in Mensa. The Constitution contains government, not US Nationals aka the People. Gun ownership is a Right, not a privilege, because governments need to be overthrown when they grow too large and tyrannical. That's how America was started- or did they stop teaching history too? Wait, they did. Oops! Run Lemmings RuuUUNN!!

Constantly preparing... Any like minded individuals should keep in touch.

@M Lucas

find this notion that gun ownership is somehow a cornerstone of an American's freedom simply baffling. Since us Brits were sent packing there hasn't been a credible threat of invasion by an external agressor. The constitutional right was to bare arms for the purposes of forming militias because of fears that a standing army would be commanded by men with royalist sympathies. The guns don't safeguard you against tyranny, your marvellous system of government does that. They dont protect you from criminals, every statistic on that matter suggests the contrary.
Ilegal guns flood the UK, it's a major problem, but nobody here calls for a right to arms because that simply throws fuel on the fire.

_____________________________________

I sense jealousy.

We aren't the UK.
We are citizens -- not subjects.
We don't want to be the cowering UK.
We are the colony that rejected your tyranny.

I do feel sad for you -- the UK will be an islamist sharia republic within 20 years. Maybe 10.

When the war against the jihadists comes to our doorstep, we will still be ready. All you can do is prostrate to mecca.

A liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been a victim of a serious crime yet. If and when it happens to them, they'll wish they had a gun. See what happens if someone sticks a gun or knife in your face to rob you, and you sing Kumbaya to try and stop them.

If the Supreme Court overturns it, I think DC should tax the hell out of the guns and put as many legal restrictions on it as possible.
You gun enthusiasts crack me up. I'm willing to bet most of you live in the suburbs far away from the crime that plagues the city. If your child got hit by a stray buillet from a gun shootout, you'd change your mind.

Thoreau

Bravo..Thoreau.. Bravo.. Problem is the left runs the schools...Any history the left does not like gets omitted or amended...

the only soulution is a white revolution!
take back our country and get a govt that will abide by and follow the constitutional form of govt that this country was founded upon. get rid of the private federal reserve jew bankers and back our money with gold once again. it is way past time for revolt.....

"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-by to the Bill of Rights." -- H.L. Mencken

Without guns, how will we protect ourselves from the government? I worry more about them than I do common criminals.

The word "arms" encompasses much more than just guns and rifles. It includes things like grenades, tanks, missiles, bombs, etc. When the 2A was written, its drafters never envisioned the broad range of weapons that are available today. If the Supreme Court strikes down DC's law and forbids states from imposing reasonable restrictions like most pro gunners want, our neighborhoods and towns could easily turn into huge arsenals of far more powerful, militarized weapons.

Personally, I don't care if citizens own guns/rifles as long as they aren't mentally ill and receive adequate training. It has gotten pretty old listening to pro-gun whiners. Reality is your precious firearms are pretty useless if you ever had to fight against our fed gov's military. Most of you never served in the armed forces or law enforcement and have no idea what it's like to kill another human. You're far more likely to freeze in fear in situations where your firearm would be needed for self defense.

happyimnotayank : "the world already thinks you are a jerk country, see if you can turn that around."

Yeah. Those dumb yanks, rednecks and jerks that saved your sorry a__ed country and your sorry a__ed life from how many tyrants? Crawl back into your slimy pit you ignorant simpleton. I hope you get what you deserve out of life. By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, only ignorant lib yanks care what the backwards-thinking sycophants of the world think. We are thankful for those who love freedom. Many of you turds have freedom despite your own ignorance, laziness and effeminate attitudes.

Chuck, do us all a favor and shut up. Go back to your tv dinner and CNN.

Russ, you and JoeyUSA obviously share the same numbnuts brain power. Think for yourself for once, please, instead of parroting Rush Limbaugh, who actually doesn't give a s*it about you or your simple-minded, inbred hillbilly folk if you're not rich or a corporation.

Hell, I'm white and I blame whitey for everything too!

So let me get this straight:

Automobiles, whose primary function is to transport people and cargo, are occasionally involved in accidents, causing serious bodily harm and even death.

Therefore, states quite reasonably require drivers to be licensed, demonstrating at least a modicum of proficiency in operating a vehicle.

The vehicles themselves have to be registered.

Drivers are also required to carry insurance.

These are all reasonable restrictions. Does anyone feel we should do away with them?

In addition, safety features such as seat belts and air bags have also greatly reduced fatalities and injuries from automobile accidents.

Yet firearms, which are primarily designed to kill or injure, are not subject to these most basic restrictions.

Because gun ownership is a constitutional right and car ownership is not?

If the framers of the Bill of Rights wanted gun ownership to be a completely unrestricted right, why didn't they simply include it in the First Amendment?

It could have read:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to keep and bear arms, or peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Instead, they wrote the 2nd Amendment, including the well-regulated Militia clause.

It seems that reasonable restrictions would be perfectly constitutional, which I believe is what the court will hold in its ruling tomorrow.

The DC gun ban will probably be tossed, because it's too broad, but the court will probably rule that "reasonable restrictions" are allowable (I mean really, what's the alternative? Does every citizen have the right to hand grenades? An M1 Tank? A personal nuke?)

Then, the courts will spend decades trying to define what a "reasonable restriction" is.

RUSS

I think that children are dead because psychotic people can buy guns at Walmart and at gun shows. Because getting a hold of one is a joke, there are so many on the streets. The breakdown of the school system is an entirely separate issue.

But, since you raise it... The failure of our schools is due to underpaid teachers, oversized classrooms, and enormous schools. The consequences: discpline problems because teachers are outnumbered; discipline problems because children act out when they don't get individual attention; discipline problems because the kids get beat up when there are not enough adults to supervise them.

The little schoolhouse is a better model. That's the problem Russ, it's not God.

Bottom Line: You don't want the government to interfere with the right to bear arms. But, you do want the government to make us all Christian.

You can't have it both ways. Government in your business where it suits you and out of your business where it doesn't.

Joe Blough the answer to your questions are:

Yes
Yes
Yes and
Yes

The rights of free men are not to be abridged by law of any kind, whether criminal or civil.

A court of 9 people will NOT tell me if i can have a gun or not. They will have to pry my guns out of my cold dead hands. It is time for a revolution. God save American and defeat the liberals

Chuck

Yeah and if my kid was hit by a car .. I would demand that the government ban all cars too...

mike your wrong most of us gun owners have served in the military and grew up killing animals to eat. look at how the hit and run tactics worked so well against our military in nam and everywhere else when used against conventional forces, small units that hit and run will prevail.

If the USSC rules incorrectly, i.e., against gun ownership, it will likely cost the Democrats the next presidential election. I don't think that the liberal judges want to do that to their Democrat base, so they'll probably go with the Constitution on this decision. In the future, we should require the USSC and all federal judges to make all their rulings based on the Constitution, and not based on foreign law, and not pulled out of the dark caverns of their behinds.

Let's all work this out, how about we let all you liberals have gay marriage and you let us have our guns?

Posted by: lawbiding | June 25, 2008 10:56 PM

--------------

Hey lawbiding, I am as queer as a three dollar bill, and I love my guns too. Your suggested solution would be great!

I think this is a workable solution. But don't wait for me!

You guys are all wrong for the following reasons: The police CAN protect everyone ALL the time and as a result they CAN be held liable if they don't, a good lock WILL not only stop but scare away everyone with wrong intent, and most importantly instruments used to commit crimes ARE just as responsible as the individuals that wield them.

At the core of this issure is the following: Liberals want to limit access to guns, right or wrong, because they want to prevent unneccesary death and injury. Conservatives want to make guns more accesible BECAUSE THEY LIKE GUNS. It's just like taxes. Rich democratic politicians want to raise taxes on the rich, which includes themselves, because they care about the plight of those less fortunate. Rich Republican politicians want to lower taxes because it benefits them and their cronies personally. At least liberals are honest about their motives.

SCOTUS better rule rightly. That's all I've got to say.

A little over the top there buddy. C'mon, I know its fun for you uber-conservatives to pick on us "liberals" but there are a few of us who aren't completely brain dead. The 2nd Amendment is as clear as the First! I have every right to stand up and speak my beliefs: that the government has a responsibility to show compassion for the poor, ensure marriage equality before the law, and keep its hands out of a womans uterus...and that I have every right to keep and bear arms (which I do).

Obama/Webb '08

Posted by: WellArmedLeftist | June 25, 2008 11:02 PM

****************************************

You libs are all alike. You think you can twist and change things around to fit your skewed idea's. The constitution is not interchangable with your screwed up idea's. It is the foundation of our nation. Your right to say what you think ends at my right to be secure and to secure my family. Your liberal idea's will not stand and you can find other's that had your views in the trash bins of history. I love our military, I love my freedom, and I am freakin tired of you libs trying to take them away. GTH all of you.

Quoting: David | June 25, 2008 9:58 PM

"...Why Liberals and Libertarians insist on legislating from the bench is beyond me..."

David, thank you for spelling Libertarians correctly. Please look up the meaning and self-definitions of Liberals and Libertarians. You have two very different philosophies lumped together. In the specific application you made to courtroom legislation, there is a significant difference between Liberals ans Libertarians.

SCROTUS RULES PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

Looney Left:

You're being sarcastic, right? What's wrong with the Fairness Doctrine? Please tell me the downside, especially since we're apparently headed for 4 years of Democractic rule.

The liberal view of gun control: Reckless kids are speeding through town at 60MPH in a 30MPH zone. Liberals would lower the speed limit to 20MPH.

At this point, every decision the Supreme Court makes takes them either one step closer or one step further away from being an irrelevant government institution. lol Imagine trying to take guns away below the Mason Dixon line...haha...that would be the icing on the revolutionary cake.

@John Smallberries

Where have you been? We all miss you on Planet 10.

From ? "Russ, you and JoeyUSA obviously share the same numbnuts brain power. Think for yourself for once, please, instead of parroting Rush Limbaugh, who actually doesn't give a s*it about you or your simple-minded, inbred hillbilly folk if you're not rich or a corporation."

No.. I am a middle class american who is registered Democrat who has gotten tired of liberals (closet Socialists) who think government is the answer for everything . the problem is the government is the blame for our ills ... the more they interfere and bail out crybabies who are too lazy to get off their ass, get an education, and get a real job.. it costs me.. and i do not see anybody reimbursing me...

Allen, your view of reality is skewed. Pinch yourself, wake up.

Natural rights cannot be granted by ANY document. In free societies they are simply implied and many dictators declared a right to "well regulated" free speech. There is no such things as regulating a natural right to protecting one's life; you either protect your life w/a gun or use one inappropriately. The second should be punished harshly. If that were not the position of our founders they would have simply given up since the rights they wanted were not granted by King George. The whole self-evident verbiage of the Declaration of Independence pretty much makes anything said here or in the courts irrelevant as far as the right is actually concerned as NO OTHER EVIDENCE but the right itself is necessary. The only thing determined by the court will be whether or rights are usurped by our elected officials or not. (Boy, talk about regression!)

well armed leftist- you fail to notice that a fetus who is actually a preborn person, has the right to be born and to live- it is not the government in a woman's uterus in question- it is does mom have the right to murder her children? I say no.

OBAMA LIBTARDS FOR SCROTUS RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently we don't have to worry about the state anymore. Well... taxes have increased to the point that it isn't even worth mentioning. Apparently people don't care or are just conforming to the norm. We are being taxed to the limit comparable to the Boston tea party!!!!!!!!!!!! The question is will we do anything about it???

In response to the guy wanting to know what 'well regulated' mean. Let's listen to one of the judges in this case...

JUSTICE SCALIA: It means "well trained,"
doesn't it?
MR. DELLINGER: When you -- when you have one

JUSTICE SCALIA: Doesn't "well regulated" mean "well trained"? It doesn't mean -- it doesn't mean "massively regulated." It means "well trained."

who said the constitution is infalible. It was written over 200 years ago by men that thought it was o.k. to own other men. Its outdated, and confusing in its wording. we need a new constitution that reflects the values of today, and a more modern world. the constituion worked in its time but its time should be over.

Lizardo, I think they are on to us!

It is my understanding that the founding fathers realized that the government that they had just created may one day become just as oppressive to its citizens as the one they had just finished fighting, and for that reason they (the founders) wanted the citizenry to have the ability to protect their liberties if the need arose. Thus, the second amendment. It seems to me that the second amendment is the right that enables the citizenry to keep all of the others. When politicians say that the people don't need an AK-47 to go duck hunting, it means that either the politician is totally ignorant of the second or that they are trying to dumb-down the people regarding its true meaning. Many people (tens of millions) in this country are staunch gun owners and I am made to think that it will be a horrible disaster for the government to attempt to disarm them.

Hello, Obama is coming to take your guns.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, "From my cold dead hands," Alzheimers-addled Chuck Heston, the NRA, liberals=socialists are bad, republicans=patriots are good, blah, blah, blah. We get your dumbed-down viewpoint already!

You people throw words like "freedom," and "patriot" around so much that they've lost all meaning.

Miller

Its outdated, and confusing in its wording. we need a new constitution that reflects the values of today, and a more modern world. the constituion worked in its time but its time should be over.

The constitution has the ability to be amended if the people chose to amend it.. however the inalienable rights dictated by it do not become obsolete..

Liberals attempt to win through judicial activism what they can't win at the ballot box.
The recent Supreme Court rulings regarding the rights of "enemy detainees" and "child rapists" are beyond appalling and are the polar opposite of what most Americans think. The judicial branch is creating it's own "progressive" version of the Constitution. Now we wait and see what their new version of the 2nd Amendment will be...of course we will never know how they determine "constitutionality" because the supremes meet behind closed doors in secrecy. Whatever they decide, we do NOT have the RIGHT to question their decisions. Is that freedom?

I'm for it. I believe we should ban gun bans. Oh wait, we already tried that, and the Supes overturned the Constitution as unconstitutional. Now we have the right to bear pocket knives.

Those founders were pret-tee uppity, telling the supreme court what they can and can't say like that. What's next, a wildly over-protective bill of rights for the masses? Due process for everyone? Where does it end?

The very swine that our right to guns was given to us to protect us from, are the ones making this decision.

The 5 of 9 black robers have already taken away you rights to free speech, religion, private property, etc.
What did you whackjobs say then.....hey better not or we'll.....if they take away gun rights you won't do squat....just like all you ever do is talk tough!!!!!!!!

goto go.. in ending..

Remember..

Law abiding People should not have to fear their government..

But a corrupt government should have to fear its people..

Quote: Car Nut | June 25, 2008 11:17 PM

"The DC gun ban will probably be tossed, because it's too broad, but the court will probably rule that "reasonable restrictions" are allowable (I mean really, what's the alternative? Does every citizen have the right to hand grenades? An M1 Tank? A personal nuke?)"

Does every citizen have the right? The Framer's answer is a loud and clear yes. Consider the purpose of the Bill of Rights, which several people have outlined on this thread. Does the Department of Homeland Security have a vested interest in knowing where the weapons are, and who has access to them? Sure. But if the government, the servant of the people, ever takes it upon itself to disarm the citizenry in any way, it ceases to be the American experiment, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and becomes a military dictatorship.

Disgusting. Not a single thought given to the children massacred in our schools, the innocent people gunned down in their work place or while standing in line at some McDonald's, or those poor people the DC snipper killed while he and his protege were at large. Newsflash: The gun in the drawer by your bedside won't save you or your children from that fate, but getting guns off the street just might. As long as crazy people can buy guns, not a single one of us is safe. And if you think your primitive little guns will save you from some dictator with an arsenal of modern weaponry, you're an even bigger fool than senile old Mr. Heston was.

Posted by: | June 25, 2008 10:18 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would much rather die an armed patriot than live or die as an unarmed victim... either of the government or some doped up idiot who just wants another fix.....

freedom for all... discretion for some..

Anyone interested in forming a group supporting FREEDOM can contact me at...

conaarl@hotmail.com

If the founders wanted to take away our guns they would have done it at the time. The gun is the ultimate vote.

The abortion issue is unrelated to the gun rights issue, which is one of our inalienable rights. Moreover, aborting a liberal fetus and a conservative fetus are too different things. During embryogenesis, the liberal brain does not fully develop until she is age 65 and gets her first Medicare check.

Joe Blough -

You have to be kidding. Liable for acts committed with property stolen from you? So we need to have liability insurance for basebell bats, kitchen knives? come on! How about suing auto makers for their products becoming killing machines in the hands of Drunks?

It's about time that people like you quit trying to punish the innocent and pardon the guilty.

Liberty or Death you f***** commie stooge!!!!!!!!!

The only thing that keeps a thug from kicking down your front door and taking what he want from you and your family is not knowing what's on the other side of that door.

Quote:
``````````````````````````````````````````
If you live in a home that is properly secure from intruders then why do you need a gun in the home?

Posted by: Jonathan Rees | June 25, 2008 2:09 PM
``````````````````````````````````````````
Post your address and the location of your valuables and find out pronto, nitwit.

If they officially endorse gun bans get ready for a civil war. I'm moving to montana and will shoot any gun grabber in the heart if he threatens my gun rights. Just like I would shoot any crook (because that is what a gun grabber is anyway) who would threaten my family.

Joe Blough -

You have to be kidding. Liable for acts committed with property stolen from you? So we need to have liability insurance for basebell bats, kitchen knives? come on! How about suing auto makers for their products becoming killing machines in the hands of Drunks?

It's about time that people like you quit trying to punish the innocent and pardon the guilty.

Liberty or Death you f***** commie stooge!!!!!!!!!

This is OUR liberty that these idiots are talking about!!

Gosh...it's pretty simple in my book...you'll die trying to take my guns! I just hope it's a stinking liberal that tries it.

Civil War anyone!

Mary -- you truly don't know your facts, do you? Scalia, the right wing originalist, wrote the opinion for the majority that overturned the death penalty for child rapists law in Louisiana. Try blaming that one on the liberals, please.

We can eliminate all this silliness over gun rights by making it a law that all homes must possess a gun. In today's terrorist environment and indiscriminate criminal activity the fact that an intruder knows there is a gun behind the door would deter crime. It is the citizen who choses to be a victim, buries his/her head in the sand, saying I'm a good person no one will bother me who keep this debate going. The reality of life is the world is a mean, cruel, and violent place to live. We, as a society have an unrealistic expectation of security and do not want to be participants in eliminating the problem. It's easier to try to eliminate guns, disarm the citizens, and let the criminal element rule.

I think the Second Amendment was written to guarantee to the States that their militias could not be indirectly disarmed by banning guns (because no guns, no militia). Remember, the States were (and still are) sovereign entities and were very suspicious of the new federal government. I believe they would not ratify the Constitution unless the ability of the States to maintain their own individual militias was clearly agreed to by the federal government in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was a "guarantee" of sorts that the States would be able to maintain their own fighting forces to repel the army of the new central government if it sought to become too powerful. And the guarantee included the individual right to bear arms so the federal government could not pass a law banning guns. The Framers were very clever. They realized that if the Second Amendment only guaranteed the ability of the States to maintain militias, the federal government could use the loophole of banning guns to make maintaining militias impossible. The Framers recognized that loophole and wrote the Second Amendment to close it. The right to bear arms is therefore an unqualified individual right that was "part of the deal" between the States and the federal government when the Constituion was amended by the Bill of Rights.

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country from his government.

Thomas Jefferson help write the 2nd amendment. he also founded "The Sons of Liberty". google them and you will understand its meaning. like someone else said its to protect our rights not giving them. its about defending yourself from your government.

"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."

Amazing how so few words can be so easily misconstrued, and mean something other than the English language. With the key operative words, "shall not be infringed." It's going to be interesting to see, and read how many SCOTUS pages will be dedicated to interpretation.

Canada has gun control laws..
And the vast majority of Canadians leave their houses unlocked all the time.

Anyone who is a anti gun control type in the US believes they have the right to own firearms to protect themselves from the Government.... That's the key to this entire debate. Does an American Citizen have the right to bear arms against the American Government?

Don't believe me? then move down here to Texas. Talk to my neighbors. It's not criminals they're scared of.

Jonathan Rees...no such thing as a house thats "secure." A firearm is that best, last line of defense for people. The constituion says we have the right to form armed militia.....a militia, by defanition, cannot be armed by a govt. Its armed at its formation. And the formation does not include the govt, b/c its a militia. Its armed by the militia memebers. Thats you and me. Like it or not, we have the right to guns.

Laws only apply to people who obey the law. Nuff said

You owning a gun infringes on MY right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
How many more kids need to die?
I don't want my son over at someone's house where I know they own a gun.

And those people killed at VT, McDonalds, etc, were all killed because no one could stop the shooter. Instead they all were sitting ducks just waiting for their turn to be shot. And yes, the gun in my bedstand will certainly save my life. If it won't, what will? If you don't believe it, try breaking into my house sometim if you are so confident.

The illusion of safefy because you think criminal will give up guns simply because you pass a law banning them is beyond naive.

Guns were banned at VT. Guns were banned at Columbine. Guns were banned and the mall shootings. Open your eyes - the only places these shooting DON'T happen are the places were guns are prolific?

If too many guns are the problem, then why don't shootings ever happen at gun shows, shooting competitions or NRA conventions where guns are everywhere? I know that is a logical question that confuses liberals but try to come up with a good answer.

hey freddy. ill stand beside you.

Hey Mike! Just try breaking into my house and see what flavor lead you eat!
It won't be from a tank,RPG, or machine gun. Just something big enough to make you aware you've made a FATAL mistake!
BTW- one day in the future those HUGE ARSENALS may become de rigeur!

I'm back again and I can't believe the posts here. There are some really crazy white crackers in this country!

Darrell,

In 2000 a terrorists was caught coming into Washington State with a trunk full of explosives. He was on the "Balck Ball express" ferry from Victoria Canada.

Yeah, Canada dosen't have any criminals. I don't know why they bother to have the Mounted Police.

Say HELLO to my little friend !

So . . . what kind of gun did Jesus own?

They better get this one right or get ready for a civil war. No one is taking away my means of self-defense. Anyone that tries better be prepared to die.

Samuel, I'm whole wheat!

@ Anybody want to join a militia?

The actual wording of the 2nd amendment makes it quite clear that when the constitution was written it was not intended for every tom, dick and harry to have guns just for the sake of personal defense.

"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."

Ergo, if you want to have a gun you have to be part of a militia or a strictly controlled association dedicated to the defense of the state. The amendment is not about protecting the people from the state. It's also quite clear from the context in which this document was written that a militia was needed to defend the country from foreign aggression. That's no longer the case. And, please don't give me some contrived story about how you need to defend against terrorists. If they were going to attack (big if in my opinion) you wouldn't even know about it and then you certainly wouldn't need to shoot them, they'd already be in little bits.

The problem with everyone having guns is that we are often affected by something called emotions. Some people can't control their emotions and so they buy a gun and settle the problem with it. Knives are too messy and visceral so most people even when angry won't use one. The other big cause of death from guns is accidents.

Simply put, criminals will always have guns, but you having a gun probably won't help you in many cases because they are likely to surprise you or shoot you first.

_______________________________________

What an interesting opinion you have. Thank you for sharing it with us. HOWEVER, based on the multitude of quotes that numerous patriots have posted here reflecting the actual intentions of the Founding Fathers, your comments make your citizen disarmament concepts look pretty week.

The government does not rule the people -- the people rule the government. When the government exceeds the Bill of Rights (outlining the rights of the govt. - not the people), then the people have the right to bring that govt. into line.

When the govt. begins to trample your rights, how will you defend yourself? Your Macbook and latte cup? A protest match?

Ever lived anywhere there actually is a tyrannical nanny state? I have multiple places in Europe. It is a sobering experience to be a subject and not a citizen.

No matter how the Supremes rule, no one is coming to take your guns away, you scared little boys.

I love all this talk about secession and Civil War (the last one worked out SO WELL for you guys!)

And all the "pry it from my cold, dead hand" macho BS.

Well, they did exactly that at Waco and Ruby Ridge, now didn't they?

To Mike in MD: You said it! I live in communist NYC and agree with you all the way. If you run for office- you got my vote.

"You owning a gun infringes on MY right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
How many more kids need to die?
I don't want my son over at someone's house where I know they own a gun."

No - you are trying to infringe on my rights. My owning a gun does NOTHING to infringe on your rights.

I don't want my son at someone's house who can't protect him if needed. If you don't have a gun in your house, I don't want my son there.

If you are robber/rapist and you know my house is armed and I'm ready to use and your house is gun free - which house do you think he's going to hit?

Gee, I feel safer already.

Gun Control Works.

Every time the tyrants try it.

Proof:
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

Isn't it funny how all the Supreme Justices for the past 200+ years somehow were "total ignoramuses"? And only the newest group is enlightened enough to "really know" what the original intent was? Kind of like telling Jefferson or Adams that they were stupid for owning firearms and not understanding that the 2nd amendment prohibited him from owning one, and that they should be arrested for illegal possession, and their guns confiscated. And can you imagine that so many of the law-abiding citizens of 200 years ago (including the founding fathers) would knowingly own firearms in violation of the 2nd amendment? Essentially, everyone owned a firearm, and obviously most of them were not a member of a "well regulated" militia.

Is anyone else concerned about the SCOTUS's encroachment on liberty? In the recent past, land ownership is at the whim of the government. Now, to have a gun ban EVEN CONSIDERED is more than threatening. Also, consider the total disregard CA citizen's vote by the CA Supreme Court. The precedence has been set.

In 1993 operation SHOWTIME failed miserably. Our gov ended up using tanks to gass 26 children to death knowing these children didn't have masks that would fit them... Reason why? ... Because they thought their parents were bad people with guns. That sure is a funny way of protecting those children!

This nasty piece of history taught Texans a valuable lesson.

Guess what that lesson is?

Rust,
If the Constitution's langauge is too difficult for you, I suggest you educate yourself a little more rather than suggest that we all throw it to the wind in favor of something brand new.

The Constitution we have works perfectly well. It's who interprets it and how that matters.

I'd like to see them try and declare the ban constitutional. Not only would they disarm innocent civilians but they would leave American citizens in the hands of those who never cared about government laws in the first place.

Individual citizens have the right to bear arms. Whether they follow that choice is up to them, not the government.

How bout some actual knowledge about what the framers had in mind, rather than speculation:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=REKSXeOSdt0

This is not about preventing the government from disarming the National Guard (which they have complete control over btw)

"15 in the clip and one in the chamber"

Here's the problem: most of you are just itching to use that gun. You're looking for a problem, for a situation to escalate, so you can pull that out and feel like an action hero. Then, in the heat of the moment, not thinking clearly, you pull that trigger on an unarmed man, not necessarily an innocent man, but a man who nevertheless didn't deserve to die. And you either get off, and have nightmares, or go to jail. All because you owned a gun. Guns make us all talk tough, act like tough guys, lets go lets go I dare you to f*** with me. Gone are the days when you didn't have to be afraid to stand up for your girlfriend or wife for fear that the a**hole in question will just pull out a gun. They're for cowards. I ask, how many of you have ever had to use your gun or brandish it to repel or discourage an attack? Seems like you're all just waiting for a home invasion so you can finally get that opportunity to be a hero. Not for me, thanks.

When D.C. Mayor Fenty appears at his news conference Thursday, I hope he brings that list of NRA members that have committed murder in his city in the last 10 years. I believe the back of a business card ought to do it. Prove me wrong, your honor.

Canadians are subjects of the Crown and your rights are "granted". The founders of the United States believed that rights were natural rights -- god-given rights of free men.

Mayor Daley in Chicago says that he will defy the Supreme Court if it rules in favor of the Constitution.

What happens next?

Someone above said:
"Mary -- you truly don't know your facts, do you? Scalia, the right wing originalist, wrote the opinion for the majority that overturned the death penalty for child rapists law in Louisiana. Try blaming that one on the liberals, please.
Posted by: | June 25, 2008 11:34 PM

The majority opinion was written by Anthony Kennedy. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Voting with Anthony Kennedy were John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

Ya, it's worked out really great having guns all over the place.

Nothing sets the tone for a day at school like a stroll through a metal dectector followed by a good pat down from the security guards. I also really enjoy sitting on the subway at 10 pm, pondering whether my fellow passenger just might be packing. Also, my neighborhood is a more exciting place to live because stray bullets fly around sometimes.

Cheap, easy to buy, poorly regulated firearms have definitely made my quality of life better. How about you?

to j. rees:
have you ever heard of a home invasion...do you realize they happen much more frequently in cities, such as D.C., or countries such as Australia, that have gun bans in homes.
armed citizens protect not just themselves, but their neighbors, too, because the criminals don't know which of you has a gun in your home, unless, of course, you live in D.C., in which case the criminal knows you are unarmed and an easy victim.

Good Lord. What naivete. The libs will restrict gun ownership on the basis of personal preference. While legal opinions can't ultimately be anything but personal I think the conservatives at least try to follow God's Law, the Constitution and the body of law generally, while the libs consider themselves autonomous lawmakers, which indeed they are as long as people are dumb enough to put up with it.

Isn't it funny how all the Supreme Justices for the past 200+ years somehow were "total ignoramuses"? And only the newest group is enlightened enough to "really know" what the original intent was? Kind of like telling Jefferson or Adams that they were stupid for owning firearms and not understanding that the 2nd amendment prohibited him from owning one, and that they should be arrested for illegal possession, and their guns confiscated. And can you imagine that so many of the law-abiding citizens of 200 years ago (including the founding fathers) would knowingly own firearms in violation of the 2nd amendment? Essentially, everyone owned a firearm, and obviously most of them were not a member of a "well regulated" militia.

You people who want guns banned are morons. The people who shoot up schools and the like dont get their guns legally. By banning guns you only give criminals an extra advantage...they get guns and they know you dont have them...I mean really how stupid do you have to be to see that. Educate your kids about guns. You might have to spend a couple of weekends away from you focus group but if you spend the time with your kids and teach them it can be quality time together and also a learning experience. Get your head out of your asses people. Criminals dont obey the law. Create as many as you want. I cant believe this is even an issue.

Don't tread on me!

Our liberties are being taken everyday by every little regulation and well intended plan and thought. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past. I would pray for our future but I am sure that is against some ordinance. I am sure Messiah Obama will save us from our sins.

My advice, buy guns, stock up and wait for the revolution. Trust me, it is coming.

I have actually had otherwise intelligent people tell me how a gun in your house only increases the chance of you dying by a gun, and if/when they're house is broken into, they will simply call the police.

They the stare at me like they put forth a great revelation; I stand in complete awe of their ignorance.

Anyone interested in forming a group supporting OUR FREEDOM can contact me at...

conaarl@hotmail.com

Quote, "So . . . what kind of gun did Jesus own?

Posted by: JC | June 25, 2008 11:40 PM

Guns did not exist then, Jesus didn't carry a weapon, but Peter had a sword (The primative equivalent of a gun).

I own seven firearms. One of them fully automatic. Not a damm one of them is registered nor will they ever be. The State and Federal Govt have no damm business whatsoever telling me what type of gun I can and cannot own or conceal or operate if my life and property is threatened. If they and the police don't like it then they can go to hell on a fast train.

So . . . what kind of gun did Jesus own?
Posted by: JC | June 25, 2008 11:40 PM

We don't know. But from all accounts, if he had had one, he'd be alive today. Or are you talking about Jesus, the illegal alien from Mexico?

If they vote to take away our guns, I vote we in DC riot. Rally at the steps of the Supreme Court...or we can just wait until the big one comes and then it'll be apparent why we need our guns. Not to protect us from the hoodlums, but to protect us from the police and national guardsmen who will want what we have to protect our families once their supplies run out. They'll have guns...we won't, because the Supreme Court said we're children and can't be trusted the same as other citizens of this country. I'll say this much for myself and my family: if the Supreme Court upholds the ban, we're moving to Virginia!

"Citizens are armed; subjects are not. We
shall remain armed."

I LOVE IT - its not about protection against "criminals", its about protection from Uncle Sam - thats what the Founders built it the document!

The anonymous poster with the left leaning snot in his or her braincase bashing the omega man ( Heston)above is a perfect example of an english major; Clever twittisisms with out a shred of logic.

A sound arguement requires fundemental facts, link by logic, eschewing all fallacy. Of course, the aforementioned poster boy for dick breath is probably more into the homofone of Fallacy.

Suck on this you communist rump ranger!!!

Don't Tread On Me!!!!!

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Look for yourself and see how effective the DC Gun Ban has been.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,Q,543308,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C,.asp

Chicago has a handgun ban and let me tell you that are some very safe inner city neighborhoods.

http://chicago.everyblock.com/crime/by-primary-type/

Gun Control is hitting your target...

To hell with the ruling.

I can read the Constitution.

I say molon labe.

Come and get them.

this government is so evil it makes me sick

My SON....owns 5 firearms...he is 14. He is an excellent shot. He has been with me hunting as well as target shooting...he has seen the damage a gun can do and is fully aware the consequences of mishandling a gun. I might also add that he was voted best all around student of his class, play guitar very well, is well adjusted and is quite the pleasure to be around. Spend time with you kids. Love them. Teach them values and responsibility. Get off you high horses and quit begging for laws to make up for your flaws. BE RIGHT.

D.C. gun ban will be shot down, following Chicago, NYC...and so on.

I can't wait for Chicago to be next. Mayor Daley is a sack of sh*t.

Funny arguments, especially from crypto-Bolshevik lackies hoping to curry favor with the coming authoritarian Obamanation.

Funny too all the pornographic head-shrinking by the same, attempting to depict the desire to defend oneself with lethal force as irrational or evidence of a tiny dick.

I don't care.

If SCOTUS pretends to disarm me tomorrow (or any day), I will pretend to be a law abiding citizen. Any law enFORCEment officer attemptign to make good on the will of 5 perverted layers in black robes had best do so under cover of darkness with the flashbang and breaching entry.

Why? Because I don't give a damn to live in my own country as a cowering slave. But as Patton the great said, "The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other poor bastard die for his."

Same works with federales that attempt to take my God-given and blood-consecrated rights (and property) from me.

Long live the Republic.
The Spirit of '76

Bear arms! If a bear comes anywhere near me Im shoot'n it.

From my cold dead hands! You break into my house and try to harm me and mine, and you will NOT get out alive! Guns in the hands of Free Citizens mean FREEDOM!

I'm from West Virginia and guns are a way of life for us. We don't have the crime but it slowing finding it way here. We teach our kids how to handle guns. If you say we had to give up our guns then they would have to come and take them. I feel it would be the start of a civil war if they try.

Frimpy and Mary, I stand corrected (so many opinions came out today I got them mixed up):

It was Scalia who wrote the 6-3 majority opinion that overturned the murder conviction of a man who allegedly killed his wife because it was based on a statement she gave to the police before she was killed. This now makes it more difficult for prosecutors to use victims' previous statements to police in murder cases, thus protecting the suspect.

While it's a different factual case, I make the same point. How can you blame that on the liberals?

An armed society is a polite society.

Oh what a mistake it would be for the Supreme Court to attempt to effect any infringement on my law-abiding brethren's right to keep and bear arms.

We who believe in the true premise of freedom would band together like nobody's business to defend our precious rights, make no mistake about it.

We will forever be free Americans, and I know I'm not alone in my conviction to this sacred right.

The Second Amendment was created to safeguard the first.

Who's with me?

After tomorrow all registered democrats, liberals,progressives and other collectivist vermin scum should be rounded up and put into camps. Before they are shot, the males should be evaluated and any healthy organs harvested. The females, because of their superior upper body strength vis a vis the males,should be kept to carry heavy objects and to toil in munitions plants. The children should be converted to Christianity and made to join the NRA.

I say this in peace and with love for all the citizens of the world.

Just imagine this: an unarmed populace and Obama and the Democrats in control. I hope all of you 2nd Amendment advocates have a lot of ammo on hand.

Actually the US Supreme Court has NEVER directly addressed whether the 2nd Amendment is individual citizen's right or the right of the National Guard (current defined "organized militia") to be armed. Which is honestly ludicrous think that the Founding Fathers had to put into the Bill of Rights the right of the Government to arm its army! LMAO! Most don't seem to really think of just how ridiculous that assertion is.

In fact in the past 200 years the US Supreme Court dicta has CONSTANTLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY equated the 2nd Amendment rights of "the people" to be the same "the people" as listed in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments. That means the same rights you have to free speech and free religion and privacy as "the people" are the same as to keep and bear arms by "the people." Also, it has been duly noted by legal scholars without a political agenda that NOWHERE in the Constitution are there ANY "rights" of the State to ANYTHING. Per the Constitution's wording, the States have defined "powers" and "authority" but there are NO "rights" of the State. The term "rights" was reserved to referring to those protections enjoyed by the individual citizen.

But let me just humor the pro-Milita argument crowd for just a moment. They still LOSE. Per the Militia Acts of 1792 (written to define Militia in the 2nd Amendment) and 1903 (created the National Guard) that remain in full force of law, ALL able-bodied males age 17 to 45 comprise the reserve (un-organized) Militia of the United States. Thus all of them qualifies for 2nd Amendment protection to keep and bear arms EVEN IF one were willing to accept their argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Militia.

To make matters more interesting, the 2nd Amendment arguably DOESN'T apply to the National Guard because it is now a fully Federalized entity (paid, equippedby and under the full authority of the Federal Government) and utilized similar to the standing army. Constitutionally the Militias are for DEFENSE of the territorial US only. Their deployment overseas in OFFENSIVE actions outside of the US negates the National Guard as being a constitutionally defined Militia.

Article 1, Section 8 of US Constitution:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Note that NOWHERE does it state that the duties of the Constitutionally defined Militia is to invade foreign countries alongside the standing army nor execute the Laws of a foreign nation nor put down Insurrections of a foreign nation. It's officers are even subject to the orders of the officers in the standing army thus subverting even the appointment of officers. As such, the National Guard is no longer a Militia as defined by the Constitution. It now fits the same Constitutional definitions as a standing army.

It's interesting how if I were to agree with the pro-Militia argument for the 2nd Amendment it leaves every MAN age 17 to 45 legally able to be armed but every woman and older American unarmed. Is that what you really want?

WOW, I'm privilaged to read & hear so many patriots of american freedoms still believe and know the truth and real meaning of our American History. Thank You
Annie Oakley, Brian, Charles, Chad, DC Guy, F.Jackson, I Live2Ride, Klaatu, Lone Ranger, Mike, Mark and Yankee Dave to name but a few. I'm sure there are many more Patriots out there to.
Please make your voices heard & your pen mighty in your hand.
Your All True American Patriots

Evidence of an Individual Right
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right - Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
"Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)
(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.)
Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.
(In 1791 William

Remember the Alamo.

"A compromise. A handgun permit can be written out on a doctor's prescription pad. Diagnosis: small penis with associated feelings of powerlessness."

Still yet a better compromise! Fear of guns? See a shrink. Diagnosis latent homosexual urges and an inherent fear of anything masculine.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."...Sigmund Freud

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge(!!!!) washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

Dang. The commiepinko pravadapost will allow that?

I...I don't know what to say.
I'm awed.

Um, just my opinion, but isn't "Thunder God" just as anonymous?

Lack of protection = Peace???

There are times in life when "Peace" is only achievable through the deaths of your enemies.

We all want "peace". That's why I want to be well armed.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

Anyone who calls themselves thunder god has some issues to work out. You are exactly the kind of person who should not own a gun.

Get some help. And lay off the roids.

As to your stupid arguments about needing a gun to protect yourself, since when does a criminal let you go get your gun before he attacks? Do you sit in front of your tv all night with a shotgun pointed at the door? No. So your stupid freakin gun isn't going to protect you. But when you lose track of the damn thing because it gets stolen, or you forget where you put it, whatever, it ends up in someone's hands who is going to blow some kid's brain's out with it.

This is the most important supreme court decision of this nations history. This will decide if America is still America. The people have a right to own guns, whether the government grants the right or not. This is really about whether the government believes they should have a total monopoly on firearms. I have a sneaky suspicion they will uphold the ban and then many cities will begin pushing and passing similar laws. The first 10 amendments are all individual rights. No one has any argument against anyone owning a gun. It is a right and always has been.

Isn't it great reading all the liberals whining in the comments here?

It's hilarious to me that liberals, who constantly preach about how important our liberties are, are against this particular liberty.

Hypocrisy at its worst. Tomorrow should be a great day.

JDL and Deuce,
Yes, i wish Obama was more pro 2A, but on my checklist of all the issues that i care about , he is a helluva closer to me than the other guy.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The second Amendment is very clear, It is an inalienable right period! It had nothing to do with crime or hunting, it had everything to do with defend from government Tyranny! This is horrific that it is even in the courts. Take back your country now! join us www.infowars.com

There has been a nearly complete ban on all guns in Britain for years, yet people are still being shot and killed by criminals on the streets of London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, York, etc.

I have also read about increasing cases of attacks with swords, knives and hammers across the pond.

Guns = deterrent
People = murderes

Follow the law

If the elites outlaw guns, let them first be striped of their weapons and tax financed armed guards and limousines. Let them walk the Earth like the rest of us and live in the world they created.

No more closing major portions of town when Ted Kennedy and that stretched out crone Pelosi stop in. If they tell us not to fear our neighbors, then they shouldn't fear them either.

At the core of this issure is the following: Liberals want to limit access to guns, right or wrong, because they want to prevent unneccesary death and injury. Conservatives want to make guns more accesible BECAUSE THEY LIKE GUNS. It's just like taxes. Rich democratic politicians want to raise taxes on the rich, which includes themselves, because they care about the plight of those less fortunate. Rich Republican politicians want to lower taxes because it benefits them and their cronies personally. At least liberals are honest about their motives.

Posted by: Brett | June 25, 2008 11:20 PM

_____________________________________

Wow. And you are allowed to vote. Well, that's our system, even for koolaid drinkers.

The libs don't care about crime.
The libs want to disarm citizens in the tradition of:

Hitler
Stalin
Mao

Its just a means to an ends for them to give platitudes about "crime".

Think about once 2A is gone, when you won't be permitted to post on blogs with your precious Macbook. Like in Clinton's favorite country....China.

The Bill of Rights both restricts the government AND enumerates (i.e. acknowledges) rights retained by the people. Readers suggesting that it does all of one or the other are mistaken.

The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments prohibit certain actions by the government. The 7th, 9th, and 10th enumerate certain rights.

The fact is that the 2nd amendment, rightly or wrongly, clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." It's part of the Constitution and we either respect it or not. If you don't like it, try to get the amendment appealed. But you can't just pretend it doesn't exist or that it means something other than what it says without dilluting every other word in the Constitution.

It's not enough that my rights are restored. I want sweet vengeance for not having a gun for over 30 years. It is payback time! We are all going down, I tell you, DOWN, BIGTIME! Stay clear of the USA whilt this is occurring. It will be ugly. LIBTARDS beware. The Constitutional has spoken, and SCROTUS is his name.

Yeah..half these knuckle heads have never had a crime committed against them. I wonder what the people in Africa who have been killed by the thousands would say about gun ownership or maybe the Jews and the Poles or maybe all those people who fell victim to armed people who wished them harm over the last 200 years. They get my gun when they pry it from my hand if... they can get that close. America is still the land of the few who are brave enough to say NO WAY to what ever idiot makes a law.

IMHO

Constitution says a "right to bear arms". Does "arms" mean any "arms"? How about a neighbor armed with a nuclear bomb? How about a neighbor armed with a machine gun? I would think many would feel these "arms" should be illegal. If this is the case then we are admitting that some "arms" should be illegal. Handguns are certainly not as serious as nuclear bombs are machine guns but the ability to conceal them makes them very dangerous. More dangerous to the public than a .22 rifle or a shotgun since these are more difficult to conceal. The court is not deciding to ban all "arms", just those that are more dangerous to the public. Any homeowner armed with a .22 or shotgun should be able to protect their home against any intruder. Handguns should be illegal. Hunting guns should be legal. It is not an "all guns should be banned" or "all guns should be legal" argument. There is a middle road that should be taken.

I can't wait for the ruling tomorrow. Next stop: DC Open Carry Law so I can visit The District with my friends Smith & Wesson and publicly rub the social elite-ist's plastic surgery noses in my Second Amendment rights.

Well if you live in the Glassell neighborhood these days you probably would like a gun or several. The gangs run the place. I personally own a few and my uncle own a few, and for all of you repugs out there I probably fit your def. of a funking liberal. All of the pigeonholes not enough repugs or libs. to fillem. Sick of all the know-it-all crap on these bloggs.

"Here's the problem: most of you are just itching to use that gun. You're looking for a problem, for a situation to escalate, so you can pull that out and feel like an action hero. Then, in the heat of the moment, not thinking clearly, you pull that trigger on an unarmed man, not necessarily an innocent man, but a man who nevertheless didn't deserve to die. And you either get off, and have nightmares, or go to jail. All because you owned a gun. Guns make us all talk tough, act like tough guys, lets go lets go I dare you to f*** with me."
_________________________________________

Couldn't agree with you more, Marc.

I remember after my freshman year of college, I was driving cross country and was going to visit my uncle, who lived in Florida. From the road (these were the days before cell phones), I called him to let him know that I'd be arriving very late at night. No problem, he'd leave the porch light on. I arrived at midnight, no porch light. House is locked. Ring the bell several times, no answer. Finally go around back and attempt to peer in a window. Suddenly my uncle emerges from the darkness, gun in hand, shouting that he nearly just shot me. "But Max, I TOLD you I was arriving late tonight!" He sheepishly told me he forgot.

Every time a Virginia Tech happens, the NRA argues that if only EVERYONE were armed ALL THE TIME, then the shooter would be taken down before all the carnage breaks loose.

Yeah, that's what we want. College kids and old geezers armed to the teeth ALL THE TIME.

I feel safer already.

Like so many who posted here have already noted, my right of self-defense comes from God - not the constitution, not the bill of rights, not my neighbor, not my state or local government, and especially not 9 black robed minions of hell. It's nice that the founders of this nation spelled out that my right shall not be infringed. But it wasn't necessary. That means I can have any gun, loaded or not, that I choose. I don't need a permit, I don't need permission, I don't need a background check. And I never will, even if evil corrupt government like that in DC or the supreme court says otherwise. A law against criminals is one thing. But there is no law that trumps my natural rights as a free citizen.

Any justice that even thinks he can rule on this matter needs to become a hanging judge - literally. I will write to my congressmen and ask that they sponsor a bill to execute any judge or government official that tries to take away my freedom including my right to self-defense.

Mene, mene, tekel, U-Pharsin.

Long live the Republic!

I still cant believe that you weirdos think that banning guns will make you safer or save lives....how many times do I have to tell you that laws only apply to people who obey laws...its a corny movie but maybe you should go watch "demo man". The people who dont obey the law will always find a way to get guns...you are left defensless. How many times do I have to tell you people that if YOU spend time with your kids and make them feel good about themselves that they wont kill people. I should run for President. Apparently only myself and a few other people have a sense of responsibility and the common sense to run a country. To all those who share my view....thank you...to all those who are to lazy to think for themselves and wish for more laws to make up for their shortcomings..go vote for obama. Wait..am I mistaken or does Washington D.C. have like the highest crime rate in the country.

I still cant believe that you weirdos think that banning guns will make you safer or save lives....how many times do I have to tell you that laws only apply to people who obey laws...its a corny movie but maybe you should go watch "demo man". The people who dont obey the law will always find a way to get guns...you are left defensless. How many times do I have to tell you people that if YOU spend time with your kids and make them feel good about themselves that they wont kill people. I should run for President. Apparently only myself and a few other people have a sense of responsibility and the common sense to run a country. To all those who share my view....thank you...to all those who are to lazy to think for themselves and wish for more laws to make up for their shortcomings..go vote for obama. Wait..am I mistaken or does Washington D.C. have like the highest crime rate in the country.

You guys are missing the typical