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?