Wow. John Paul Stevens could not be more off base.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

Yes. They did. It's called the second amendment and that's exactly what it was intended to do.

You may disagree with the notion now, but let's not try to pretend it wasn't what the framers intended.

I'm torn by this. On one hand I don't want them to take away my guns so that I can protect myself in case Bush tries Marshal Law to stay in office for another term and I have to shoot my way through the lines to get some food and on the other hand it can get pretty scary going out to dinner in some of these cities.

The idea of that people have the right to firearms for defense is mainly believed to be for the people to protect themselves not only from criminals, but from an oppressive state.

This, my friend, is good. This is an area where we lefties have dropped the ball in a most spectacular fashion. Gun bans such as the DC only affect those actually willing to obey the law. That's not a tagline, that's a fact. We need to crack down on the illegal gun trade, NOT on law abiding citizens.

Dennis @ 9:

This, my friend, is good. This is an area where we lefties have dropped the ball in a most spectacular fashion. Gun bans such as the DC only affect those actually willing to obey the law. That's not a tagline, that's a fact. We need to crack down on the illegal gun trade, NOT on law abiding citizens.

I agree. Lets settle neighborhood disputes the Baghdad way. And in many urban areas cover fire will be the new way to get the mail. EEEHHAAA!

DC's gun ban obviously has done nothing since it still has the highest murder rate in the country. So I don't see how it can be supported.

moondancer @ 11:

Dennis @ 9:

This, my friend, is good. This is an area where we lefties have dropped the ball in a most spectacular fashion. Gun bans such as the DC only affect those actually willing to obey the law. That's not a tagline, that's a fact. We need to crack down on the illegal gun trade, NOT on law abiding citizens.

I agree. Lets settle neighborhood disputes the Baghdad way. And in many urban areas cover fire will be the new way to get the mail. EEEHHAAA!

Yep, because that's EXACTLY what has happened in every state with concealed carry, right? Oh, wait........

moondancer @ 11:

I agree. Lets settle neighborhood disputes the Baghdad way. And in many urban areas cover fire will be the new way to get the mail. EEEHHAAA!

Don't be ridiculous- here in NYC, the gun control laws are very strict and you won't be able to get one for years. But guess what? If you're in a bad neighborhood like a lot of people- everyone who's up to no good has a gun, and there's nothing you can do to protect yourself other than try to call other people with guns(Cops), who either don't show up or try to put charges on you for something stupid- meaning, I could get shot by someone but if during the struggle I scratched him and he bled a little I'd be thrown in jail for assault as well.

Johnny2Bad @ 6:

JCinDE @ 2:

Wow. John Paul Stevens could not be more off base.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

Yes. They did. It's called the second amendment and that's exactly what it was intended to do.

You may disagree with the notion now, but let's not try to pretend it wasn't what the framers intended.

Then why are the words "well regulated militia" in there at all?

"Well regulated". Explain that part.

The "militia" was the armed public, not a branch of the armed services we have today. In order for a free society to defend itself (from criminals, invaders, or from a corrupt government) its citizens must be allowed to keep and bear arms. The opening phrase is not setting conditions on the right to bear arms, it's explaining why the right is so vitally necessary.

I'm not particularly happy about this ruling. On the bright side, politically speaking, it means the NRA won't be able to as easily whip up a gun-owner's frenzy against the Dems this year.

Then why are the words “well regulated militia” in there at all?

“Well regulated”. Explain that part.

This is simple.

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 Milita was/is made up of comon citizens being called to duty to defend the country (the constitution). The framers considered these citizen soliders a necessity to maintaining a free stete against tyranny.

Since there was a distrust of maintaining a standing army (and rightfully so) Militas needed citizen who had their own weapons, hence...

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

The wording, context, and intent of the 2nd amendment is very clear and simple. Especially if people take the time to study other documents, speeches, customs, and definitions of the time period.

The only recourse to the clear meaning the the amendment is to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.

But, of course, no one would allow that sort of radical change to our heritage so people are either grossly misinformed or purposely creating confusion concerning the 2nd amendment.

Simply, VICTORY.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

And when I feel my finger on your trigger
I know nobody can do me no harm
Because happiness is a warm gun, momma
(Bang Bang Shoot Shoot)

(Lennon/McCartney)

Dire Lobo @ 26:

budda @ 16:

Dennis @ 9:

This, my friend, is good. This is an area where we lefties have dropped the ball in a most spectacular fashion. Gun bans such as the DC only affect those actually willing to obey the law. That's not a tagline, that's a fact. We need to crack down on the illegal gun trade, NOT on law abiding citizens.

i agree liberals have it wrong on this issue and it is because of this one issue that we loose a lot of votes - people want their goddamn guns and we gotta let go of this issue and start showing that we too support the rights of gun owners to protect themselves from criminals

i love three things in life - weed, women and my guns

Sad, that you would elevate guns above Rock And Roll, Food and the pleasure of a good sunset and a pristine beach.

Guns protect you from criminals? Everyone who can read knows that in most cases gun owners who are confronted by a violent criminal lose their guns to the criminals.

Actually, everyone who can read knows that "fact" is more of an urban legend than anything else. Try doing a little of that reading yourself.

budda @ 4:

great decision (correct)

this supreme court session has had many great decisions that are supported by the Constitution ( um really? such as?)

whether you like it or not we all have the right to have a handgun ( damn right! and rifles)

yay for pro second amendment democrats

(now...if only BushCo's appointed cronies gave a damn about the REST of the Bill of Rights!)

Everyone who can read knows that in most cases gun owners who are confronted by a violent criminal lose their guns to the criminalsblockquote>

Everyone? I don't know that. I fact we can reasonably assume you just made that universal statistic up. In any event, even if that was true it's irrelevant.

This bears repeating over and over again.

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.

This is simple…pay attention now folks.

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

More deaths as a result of accidental and intentional use of firearms in the industrial world. Way to go. Anyone that believes in these "rights" is playing with semantics and applying arcane laws to modern society.

It's amazing to me that countries such as the Ireland (Republic) and GB banned handguns and rifles during the '69 to ' 98 "Troubles" , yet there was no spike in innocents that did not have guns anymore being killed. In fact, the number of deaths attributable to violence by firearm fell.

When you read stories like the one that occurred on Monday in Kentucky one feels that this country has an archaic and irrational obsession with guns. That is sad.

Dennis @ 24:

tribute @ 20:

I believe it's good for bad reasons. I agree with Stevens wholeheartedly - the Framers did not (in my opinion) foresee AK-47's and if they were writing the Constitution now they'd probably write the Second Amendment differently, but at the same time the dissenting opinion is giving up individuality for community. It's all well and good until the justices come to a pet issue that they champion that is floating the other way (see every other Amendment other than the Second).

However, the schizophrenic way Scalia frames his argument is mind boggling. It just shows you no matter who you are, a justice or an immigrant, they will shape their argument wherever their ideology lies. Strict Constitutionalist my butt.

Honestly, I DON'T think they would of wrote the Second Amendment differently, and you know why? Canons. Private citizens could own canons back then. Slow to fire yes, but capable of destruction on a large scale.

Do some research on how often so-called "assault weapons" are actually used in crimes. I think you'll be shocked on how low the number is.

That's just the problem. Everything these day's allow for fast killing. Normal hand guns included. Back then you had to waste time loading any weapon. They'd have to weigh people being able to kill or maim quickly. I'm not saying it'd be easy, but they might re-think it.

But Justice Scalia, I thought the court wasn't supposed to be activist! Or is it only when right wingnut issues come up that it is okay?

Johnny2Bad @ 6:

JCinDE @ 2:

Wow. John Paul Stevens could not be more off base.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

Yes. They did. It's called the second amendment and that's exactly what it was intended to do.

You may disagree with the notion now, but let's not try to pretend it wasn't what the framers intended.

Then why are the words "well regulated militia" in there at all?

"Well regulated". Explain that part.

It's my understanding that the Second Amendment was an amalgam of New Englanders remembering their experiences of the Minute Men Militias warring with the British and the Southern Colonies fearing a revolt from the large population of slaves now that the British weren't in charge anymore. Also, all the framers of the constitution were concerned with the possibility of the President turning into an dictator. The amendment was sold to the general population for their general concern of Native American attacks whose land was in dispute.

Reading history this way, you can see that nobody fully trusted anybody in those early days of American History.

As far a the Supremes go, these boys don't get out much. Nobody takes gun control seriously until they're shot at or someone they know gets shot with a gun. Some sort of gun control is one of many attempts to address violence in the good old peace loving USA. The only violence these clowns have ever experienced is when they step in the each others way during a turkey shoot.

Hey, look out! Motherf*?*#$$##!!!!!

So would Scalia be for or against allowing hard line muslim citizens of the US owning AK47's? Just curious.

LMFAO!

Dennis @ 12:

Johnny2Bad @ 6:

JCinDE @ 2:

Wow. John Paul Stevens could not be more off base.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

Yes. They did. It's called the second amendment and that's exactly what it was intended to do.

You may disagree with the notion now, but let's not try to pretend it wasn't what the framers intended.

Then why are the words "well regulated militia" in there at all?

"Well regulated". Explain that part.

Well regulated = well equipped, hence the need for people to keep and bear their own arms. And there is NO doubt that the framers were protecting a PERSONS right, not the right of a militia. Ever right in the bill of rights speaks directly to personal rights, why on earth anybody would try and argue that this one amendment didn't, even taking into consideration the first part of the amendment, is beyond me.

Oh come on, man. That dog don't hunt.

Regulated equals "equipped" Here's the word regulated in the dictionary.

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

Where do you see the word "equipped" anywhere? At least admit it means that while in can't "ban" firearms....the govt can "control or direct" them.

From my understanding, the "well-regulated militia" is in there because of a debate among the Founding Fathers about the necessity of a standing army. Jefferson (again, to my understanding) regarded the existence of a standing federal army as a threat to liberty. We were supposed to be like the Greeks, where every citizen was a soldier in time of need.

A "well-regulated militia" is NOT synonymous with the Army. Look up the meaning of "militia" - it refers to a body of citizen-soldiers, as distinct from a professional military class. The National Guard is closer to the conception of what we're supposed to have. But not really, as the Guard has slowly become merely an extension of the kind of big, centralized standing army that is exactly what Jefferson & Madison, etc., were worried about.

Barry @ 35:

More deaths as a result of accidental and intentional use of firearms in the industrial world. Way to go. Anyone that believes in these "rights" is playing with semantics and applying arcane laws to modern society.

It's amazing to me that countries such as the Ireland (Republic) and GB banned handguns and rifles during the '69 to ' 98 "Troubles" , yet there was no spike in innocents that did not have guns anymore being killed. In fact, the number of deaths attributable to violence by firearm fell.

When you read stories like the one that occurred on Monday in Kentucky one feels that this country has an archaic and irrational obsession with guns. That is sad.

Actually, the number of deaths attributable to violence by firearm did NOT fall. Another one of those urban legends that some people like to carry about. In fact, there's much evidence to the contrary.

Dennis @ 42:

fastfeat @ 34:

eag @ 10:

background checks, waiting periods, proper enforcement.
I, for one, am a fervent advocate of IQ tests for matters such as this, and the ability to procreate.
If you don't have the brains, then you get no guns, and no kids. Period.

I'm ready to start a new country with this as part of the Constitution.

Yeah, you two have fun with that, because draconian practices like that have ALWAYS worked well in the past....

Looks like we'll be able to exclude Dennis! Now who's with me?

Six Dead in Kentucky Factory Shooting
Indiana Grand Jury to Hear Road Rage Shooting case
Kentucky High School on Lock Down on report of person with a gun

These are just reports from around where I live. How about you?

eag @ 51:

Dennis @ 42:

fastfeat @ 34:

eag @ 10:

I'm ready to start a new country with this as part of the Constitution.

Yeah, you two have fun with that, because draconian practices like that have ALWAYS worked well in the past....

Looks like we'll be able to exclude Dennis! Now who's with me?

Will there be beer?

John @ 53:

Six Dead in Kentucky Factory Shooting
Indiana Grand Jury to Hear Road Rage Shooting case
Kentucky High School on Lock Down on report of person with a gun

These are just reports from around where I live. How about you?

Yep, and not one of those crimes would have been prevented by gun legislation. Next please.

Dennis @ 54:

Johnny2Bad @ 45:

Dennis @ 12:

Johnny2Bad @ 6:

Well regulated = well equipped, hence the need for people to keep and bear their own arms. And there is NO doubt that the framers were protecting a PERSONS right, not the right of a militia. Ever right in the bill of rights speaks directly to personal rights, why on earth anybody would try and argue that this one amendment didn't, even taking into consideration the first part of the amendment, is beyond me.

Oh come on, man. That dog don't hunt.

Regulated equals "equipped" Here's the word regulated in the dictionary.

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

Where do you see the word "equipped" anywhere? At least admit it means that while in can't "ban" firearms....the govt can "control or direct" them.

Unless you have a dictionary from over 200 years ago, you can go spit. Anybody who's stupid enough to think that only the "modern" definition of a word can count needs to be locked into a small room where they can't hurt anybody else.

So you're saying that in the 1770's the word "Regulate" meant "Equip"?

An armed society is a polite society.
- Robert Heinlein

Good. The country is finished when they come for American's guns. Choosing not to bear Arms is also one's right. Don't tread on me.

liberalDAPofJUSTICEmoderation @ 55:

eag @ 51:

Dennis @ 42:

fastfeat @ 34:

Yeah, you two have fun with that, because draconian practices like that have ALWAYS worked well in the past....

Looks like we'll be able to exclude Dennis! Now who's with me?

Will there be beer?

At LEAST 500 different kinds. And there will be a fresh made bed for you, wherever you are, if you happen to drink too much.

JCinDE @ 2:

Wow. John Paul Stevens could not be more off base.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

Yes. They did. It's called the second amendment and that's exactly what it was intended to do.

You may disagree with the notion now, but let's not try to pretend it wasn't what the framers intended.

Oh please... are you trying to tell us that the framers predicted automatic weapons and bullets designed to shatter inside the body? Those were the days of innacurrate muskets that took 2 minutes to load one round and fire.

The only winners here are criminals, paranoids and gun nuts.

The Spaniard @ 33:

Everyone who can read knows that in most cases gun owners who are confronted by a violent criminal lose their guns to the criminalsblockquote>

Everyone? I don't know that. I fact we can reasonably assume you just made that universal statistic up. In any event, even if that was true it's irrelevant.

This bears repeating over and over again.

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.

This is simple…pay attention now folks.

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

You're ignoring the first half, like the Fundies ignore the first half of the Establishment Clause.

The Founding Fathers were trying to avoid a permanent standing army, and especially the professional ones, hence citizen soldiers. In England, under primogeniture, the eldest son inhererited everything and the other sons would enter the military or the the Anglican church as clergy. Girls were dependent on their brother's largesse until they married and became dependent on their husband's largesse.

US Constituition Article I Section 8 clauses 13-14, 16
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;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

US Constitution Article II, Sectiion II, clause I

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...

Funny thing is I have such a largesse they can run my underwear up a pole to serve as a flag for some smaller nations.

Dennis @ 54:

Johnny2Bad @ 45:

Dennis @ 12:

Johnny2Bad @ 6:

Well regulated = well equipped, hence the need for people to keep and bear their own arms. And there is NO doubt that the framers were protecting a PERSONS right, not the right of a militia. Ever right in the bill of rights speaks directly to personal rights, why on earth anybody would try and argue that this one amendment didn't, even taking into consideration the first part of the amendment, is beyond me.

Oh come on, man. That dog don't hunt.

Regulated equals "equipped" Here's the word regulated in the dictionary.

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

Where do you see the word "equipped" anywhere? At least admit it means that while in can't "ban" firearms....the govt can "control or direct" them.

Unless you have a dictionary from over 200 years ago, you can go spit. Anybody who's stupid enough to think that only the "modern" definition of a word can count needs to be locked into a small room where they can't hurt anybody else.

Typical wingnut response... when cornered by fact and logic... attack.

lemme get this right.....I can still go to jail for growing an herb (that God himself invented) in my backyard for my own personal consumption, and they can hover a helicopter 30 feet above my property in search of this herb....

but it's OK for me to purchase a semi-automatic handgun with armor piercing bullets?

Judical activism at its finest ... but, IOKIYAR.

eag @ 10:

background checks, waiting periods, proper enforcement.
I, for one, am a fervent advocate of IQ tests for matters such as this, and the ability to procreate.
If you don't have the brains, then you get no guns, and no kids. Period.

Dude,
This isn't the fifth grade OK? The Second Amendment is a serious issue in this Nation effecting Americans differently depending upon where they live. Here in Chicago we've had over thirty innocent teenagers killed in the last school year many caught up in gang cross fire. We also have a major problem with really bad people obtaining guns from gun runners(mainly ex-cops). All they need to have to get a gun is the money....or a gun. Stop with the "just say no bullshit" a lot of good law abiding citizens(and children) are dying out here.

Zenrage @ 66:

Dennis @ 49:

Barry @ 35:

More deaths as a result of accidental and intentional use of firearms in the industrial world. Way to go. Anyone that believes in these "rights" is playing with semantics and applying arcane laws to modern society.

It's amazing to me that countries such as the Ireland (Republic) and GB banned handguns and rifles during the '69 to ' 98 "Troubles" , yet there was no spike in innocents that did not have guns anymore being killed. In fact, the number of deaths attributable to violence by firearm fell.

When you read stories like the one that occurred on Monday in Kentucky one feels that this country has an archaic and irrational obsession with guns. That is sad.

Actually, the number of deaths attributable to violence by firearm did NOT fall. Another one of those urban legends that some people like to carry about. In fact, there's much evidence to the contrary.

The only reason there is evidence to the contrary is because criminals get their guns from other states with relaxed gun laws and then take them to states with the gun laws - this was seen in Virginia Tech.

Guns neither start nor stop crime. They only delay crime until the criminal can possess a greater advantage.

Wasn't talking about other states, but rather other nations, where your counter stops working completely.

And as to the second part, on average, guns are used to prevent 2,500,000 crimes a year (verify the stat on your own if you're interested, as I don't have time to find the link). So that second part of your statement earns a massive *rolls eyes*.

Oopsie, in case I need to state the obvious, article I is the powers of the Congress, but my quote doesn't include that.

Damn short term memory loss!

I prefer Homer Simpson's NRA, Nachos, Rifles and Alcohol.

Beelzebud @ 59:

Dennis @ 54:

Johnny2Bad @ 45:

Dennis @ 12:

Oh come on, man. That dog don't hunt.

Regulated equals "equipped" Here's the word regulated in the dictionary.

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

Where do you see the word "equipped" anywhere? At least admit it means that while in can't "ban" firearms....the govt can "control or direct" them.

Unless you have a dictionary from over 200 years ago, you can go spit. Anybody who's stupid enough to think that only the "modern" definition of a word can count needs to be locked into a small room where they can't hurt anybody else.

So you're saying that in the 1770's the word "Regulate" meant "Equip"?

Yes, he is.

And Hey, did the word "arms" mean 50 cal. sniper rifle with armor piercing rounds in 1770?

Just askin.

Left&Left @ 75:

eag @ 10:

background checks, waiting periods, proper enforcement.
I, for one, am a fervent advocate of IQ tests for matters such as this, and the ability to procreate.
If you don't have the brains, then you get no guns, and no kids. Period.

Dude,
This isn't the fifth grade OK? The Second Amendment is a serious issue in this Nation effecting Americans differently depending upon where they live. Here in Chicago we've had over thirty innocent teenagers killed in the last school year many caught up in gang cross fire. We also have a major problem with really bad people obtaining guns from gun runners(mainly ex-cops). All they need to have to get a gun is the money....or a gun. Stop with the "just say no bullshit" a lot of good law abiding citizens(and children) are dying out here.

And attacking me for satire is not helping.
I don't own any guns, I don't think most of the people out there with guns should have them.
The ones that use them for killing people usually get them illegally.
The problem here is a lack of accountability.
Don't blame me for trying to be funny.
Don't blame the justices for upholding the constitution (finally).
Donate to your local community centers, and get involved in youth programs.
This country is in bad shape, not because of the leaders, but because of the people, for abandoning their end of the social contract.
so RELAX on the personal attacks. Stick to the issue.

eag @ 63:

liberalDAPofJUSTICEmoderation @ 55:

eag @ 51:

Dennis @ 42:
Looks like we'll be able to exclude Dennis! Now who's with me?

Will there be beer?

At LEAST 500 different kinds. And there will be a fresh made bed for you, wherever you are, if you happen to drink too much.

Sweeeet!

Yellow Elephant Safari @ 80:

Dennis @ 54:

Johnny2Bad @ 45:

Dennis @ 12:

Oh come on, man. That dog don't hunt.

Regulated equals "equipped" Here's the word regulated in the dictionary.

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

Where do you see the word "equipped" anywhere? At least admit it means that while in can't "ban" firearms....the govt can "control or direct" them.

Unless you have a dictionary from over 200 years ago, you can go spit. Anybody who's stupid enough to think that only the "modern" definition of a word can count needs to be locked into a small room where they can't hurt anybody else.

This, is without a doubt, the lamest wingnut response I've ever seen. Is it any wonder that the 29 percenters can look at a buffoon like bush and see a political genius?

it's not a "lame wingnut response" but rather fact. And for your information, I've been against bush from day one. In fact, I'm a liberal, I just also happen to be a gun rights advocate.

Listen, I really should get back to work. This little debate has been fun though. I will say this; the lefts desire to ban firearms is the same as the rights desire to ban gay marriage. The argument is comprised of primarily anecdotal evidence, urban legends and references to research studies that are shoddy at best (and easily countermanded by somebody willing to dig deep enough). Dems, you want to really gain a power base? Then dump the entire AWB deal and move along.

Jason @ 68:

So let me get this straight. Does this ruling include ownership for retards? If not, why not? It should mean blanket protection for gun rights for ALL. Including mentals, retarded, muslims, gang members and anti-US militias. I'm all for it!

Grouping muslims with gang members and the mentally retarded? You know we're humans too right?

Just because you believe that people shouldn't have guns doesn't mean you have the right to take it away from someone. You want to be an anti-gun activist, then go out and convince people that they'd be safer without one- don't use the government's power of violence to steal it from them. First it starts here that you don't believe people should have guns, then eventually you start to take away more things that you believe are "unnecessary"- that's where Tyranny begins.

The government shouldn't have the right to ban ANYTHING- whether its guns, drugs, prostitution, or gambling.(Of course if someone is FORCED into prostitution- that's obviously coercive and a different situation than a mutal agreement.) Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you need to force your belief system on other people oppressively.

Having a gun has saved the lives of my friends and family more than once- of course when you live in a nice area its easy to say "no one should have guns!!"- but the reality in a crime-ridden neighborhood is very grim and not so simple.

Problem with American's and guns stems from their demanding Rights with NO responsibilities. i.e. gun shows

Theguy @ 91:

Jason @ 68:

So let me get this straight. Does this ruling include ownership for retards? If not, why not? It should mean blanket protection for gun rights for ALL. Including mentals, retarded, muslims, gang members and anti-US militias. I'm all for it!

Grouping muslims with gang members and the mentally retarded? You know we're humans too right?

Just because you believe that people shouldn't have guns doesn't mean you have the right to take it away from someone. You want to be an anti-gun activist, then go out and convince people that they'd be safer without one- don't use the government's power of violence to steal it from them. First it starts here that you don't believe people should have guns, then eventually you start to take away more things that you believe are "unnecessary"- that's where Tyranny begins.

The government shouldn't have the right to ban ANYTHING- whether its guns, drugs, prostitution, or gambling.(Of course if someone is FORCED into prostitution- that's obviously coercive and a different situation than a mutal agreement.) Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you need to force your belief system on other people oppressively.

Having a gun has saved the lives of my friends and family more than once- of course when you live in a nice area its easy to say "no one should have guns!!"- but the reality in a crime-ridden neighborhood is very grim and not so simple.

Well put sir! And for those who were wondering, I HAVE been a victim of gun violence, and I still think the entire argument for this ban is a load of you know what. Ok, now I'm REALLY going :P

eag @ 76:

WRG @ 72:

JCinDE @ 2:

Wow. John Paul Stevens could not be more off base.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”

Yes. They did. It's called the second amendment and that's exactly what it was intended to do.

You may disagree with the notion now, but let's not try to pretend it wasn't what the framers intended.

I don't think the Framers had any idea what the streets of DC would be like in the 21st century. There intention was to allow for a "well regulated militia" to protect the states in case the British or other group threatened the newly formed United States. This is after all how they were able to defeat the British during the Revolutionary War. For those of you that think that any yahoo should be able to own a gun, I suggest you spend a few hot summer days living in inner city DC (or any other major metropolitan area) - perhaps experience a drive by or two, witness the shooting of a child for no other reason than their being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or have someone put a bullet in your head just because they wanted the few bucks you have in your wallet. There needs to be regulations. If you want to own a gun for hunting that’s fine, but this ruling opens the door too far. Why don’t we all go back to the days of the Wild Wild West - strap on a sixgun and go around talking about law and order. If some one looks at you funny just have a shoot out with them in the street. Instead of giving everyone a gun maybe we could level the playing field in other ways - economic, education and social changes. Let’s create a world where people don’t need guns to survive - not one that depends on them. Sounds like a better goal to me.

Yeeeee-Ha!

They will still have those guns, regardless of a ban. A ban just forces people to steal the guns, or get them out of state, and sell them like crack dealers. If they want guns, they'll get guns.

You missed the point. We should be working to create an environment where we don’t need guns. If we create a situation where people don’t need guns to level the play field – they won’t want guns. Let’s face it if you have a good job and a shot at a good future for you and your family, you won’t feel like taking a shot at someone else to get something they have that you need. Fix the problems; don’t create more.

This is excellent news. We need our guns now more than ever given everything the government is doing to us.

Captain Obama’s Bitter Half Husein Kangaroo @ 1:

Is this good or bad?

As a gun owner and sportsman, I think it's a great.

If I owned a gun and "accidently" shot Dick Cheney in the face.....would I just be able to just walk away and not have to talk with the police or anything?? Does my 2nd Ammendment right allow me to get away with this??....or do I have to be a Republican?

Just wonderin'..........

Claire @ 100:

Why does the anti-gun crowd think we'd be safer if only cops, the military, and criminals have guns?

Exactly- I mean, personally I think it'd be great if somehow all weapons and violence was eliminated from the world- but a law banning guns isn't going to do it. If you don't want guns in people's homes- then work to convince them they shouldn't have it! Don't steal it from them because you think you know better than anyone else.

eag @ 10:

background checks, waiting periods, proper enforcement.
I, for one, am a fervent advocate of IQ tests for matters such as this, and the ability to procreate.
If you don't have the brains, then you get no guns, and no kids. Period.

After reading some of the replys on this site, you may want to add "commenting on a blog".

I just read an article where this ruling could allow the challenging of laws concerning automatic weapons, felons, the mentally ill, background checks, etc, and even some in the Bush administration are uneasy about the ruling.

Dennis @ 92:

mayhempix @ 88:

Zenrage @ 66:

Dennis @ 49:

The only reason there is evidence to the contrary is because criminals get their guns from other states with relaxed gun laws and then take them to states with the gun laws - this was seen in Virginia Tech.

Guns neither start nor stop crime. They only delay crime until the criminal can possess a greater advantage.

That must expalin why over half of all murders are crimes of passion amongst family or friends, and usually against women, where the killer has immediate access to a handgun or rifle.

The Swiss have a problem on their hands with former servicemen who are required to keep their guns. This has produced a documented epidemic of spouse killings and sucides, usually by depressed individuals, who would never have committed the killings if the guns weren't immediately at hand. The Swiss are exploring changing the law, which I believe is constitutional, in order to prevent these unnecessary tragedies.

Interesting that I can find no actual evidence to validate your claim, but rather nothing but evidence to the contrary....

Ok, now I'm gone for real. Laterz!

Uh Huh... he left because he doesn't want be embarrassed by the facts:

"Switzerland has one of the highest rates of suicide in the world and a high rate of family killings."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5355582.stm

"Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordinance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordinance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

A new law prohibiting storage of military ammunition at home was adopted by the Swiss parliament on 27 September 2007.

Switzerland's biggest women's magazine is leading a campaign to tighten what they see as the country's archaic gun laws. They want lawmakers to create a national gun register and ban loaded weapons being kept in the home.

A petition to the Swiss parliament contained the signatures of 17,400 Swiss women who support the reform campaign.

"There are more and more homicides in the home and more and more of the victims are women," says Lisa Feldmann, editor-in-chief of Annabelle. As well as having one of the highest gun-suicide rates in Europe, Switzerland has more women shot dead than almost anywhere in the Western world, many of them after arguments with men."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/skiers-murder-prompts-swi...

eag @ 83:

Left&Left @ 75:

eag @ 10:

background checks, waiting periods, proper enforcement.
I, for one, am a fervent advocate of IQ tests for matters such as this, and the ability to procreate.
If you don't have the brains, then you get no guns, and no kids. Period.

Dude,
This isn't the fifth grade OK? The Second Amendment is a serious issue in this Nation effecting Americans differently depending upon where they live. Here in Chicago we've had over thirty innocent teenagers killed in the last school year many caught up in gang cross fire. We also have a major problem with really bad people obtaining guns from gun runners(mainly ex-cops). All they need to have to get a gun is the money....or a gun. Stop with the "just say no bullshit" a lot of good law abiding citizens(and children) are dying out here.

And attacking me for satire is not helping.
I don't own any guns, I don't think most of the people out there with guns should have them.
The ones that use them for killing people usually get them illegally.
The problem here is a lack of accountability.
Don't blame me for trying to be funny.
Don't blame the justices for upholding the constitution (finally).
Donate to your local community centers, and get involved in youth programs.
This country is in bad shape, not because of the leaders, but because of the people, for abandoning their end of the social contract.
so RELAX on the personal attacks. Stick to the issue.

No problem man, you're right...my bad. Believe me though this is a court decision that affects people differently depending on their region. A lot of gun violence in my area.

I grew up in DC in the 1970's and I can tell you first hand everyone was proud of the new city government for passing the restrictions on hand guns. This was the day of the "Saturday Night Special" snub nose revolvers and it seemed everyone had one.

It made a huge difference in perception and practice for most people.

If the surrounding states of Maryland and Virginia had followed with their own bans it would have kept more guns out of the city but as it was the ban in DC helped.

With gas and heating oil becoming unaffordable, and with our poisonous food supply, and with people losing their homes and jobs, and with no health care for millions, we're going to need guns. The Republicans are turning life in America into a fight for survival. And don't count on eating much fish in the future. It costs a piddly 500 mil per oil disaster, so why take precautions. They're killing us, but as long as the people vote for jeebus instead of their own interests, we're doomed.

WRG @ 97:

eag @ 76:

WRG @ 72:

JCinDE @ 2:

I don't think the Framers had any idea what the streets of DC would be like in the 21st century. There intention was to allow for a "well regulated militia" to protect the states in case the British or other group threatened the newly formed United States. This is after all how they were able to defeat the British during the Revolutionary War. For those of you that think that any yahoo should be able to own a gun, I suggest you spend a few hot summer days living in inner city DC (or any other major metropolitan area) - perhaps experience a drive by or two, witness the shooting of a child for no other reason than their being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or have someone put a bullet in your head just because they wanted the few bucks you have in your wallet. There needs to be regulations. If you want to own a gun for hunting that’s fine, but this ruling opens the door too far. Why don’t we all go back to the days of the Wild Wild West - strap on a sixgun and go around talking about law and order. If some one looks at you funny just have a shoot out with them in the street. Instead of giving everyone a gun maybe we could level the playing field in other ways - economic, education and social changes. Let’s create a world where people don’t need guns to survive - not one that depends on them. Sounds like a better goal to me.

Yeeeee-Ha!

They will still have those guns, regardless of a ban. A ban just forces people to steal the guns, or get them out of state, and sell them like crack dealers. If they want guns, they'll get guns.

You missed the point. We should be working to create an environment where we don’t need guns. If we create a situation where people don’t need guns to level the play field – they won’t want guns. Let’s face it if you have a good job and a shot at a good future for you and your family, you won’t feel like taking a shot at someone else to get something they have that you need. Fix the problems; don’t create more.

I'm all for an environment where guns aren't needed...
Just watch Lord of War with nick cage.

Is it just me, does anyone find it "odd" that THIS particular 32-year-old ban has been lifted in DC during an election that could give us our first African-American president (who would of course be spending lots of time in DC).

What is Fat Tony up to...?

lucid fiction @ 113:

"Shall not be infringed"

Pretty self explanatory if you ask me.

"Well regulated"...Equally clear.

Dennis @ 92:

mayhempix @ 88:

Zenrage @ 66:

Dennis @ 49:

The only reason there is evidence to the contrary is because criminals get their guns from other states with relaxed gun laws and then take them to states with the gun laws - this was seen in Virginia Tech.

Guns neither start nor stop crime. They only delay crime until the criminal can possess a greater advantage.

That must expalin why over half of all murders are crimes of passion amongst family or friends, and usually against women, where the killer has immediate access to a handgun or rifle.

The Swiss have a problem on their hands with former servicemen who are required to keep their guns. This has produced a documented epidemic of spouse killings and sucides, usually by depressed individuals, who would never have committed the killings if the guns weren't immediately at hand. The Swiss are exploring changing the law, which I believe is constitutional, in order to prevent these unnecessary tragedies.

Interesting that I can find no actual evidence to validate your claim, but rather nothing but evidence to the contrary....

Ok, now I'm gone for real. Laterz!

Time to eat his words... I guess he left because he knew what was coming.

"Switzerland has one of the highest rates of suicide in the world and a high rate of family killings."
BBC

"Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordinance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordinance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms."
Wikipedia Gun politics in Switzerland

A new law prohibiting storage of military ammunition at home was adopted by the Swiss parliament on 27 September 2007. A more comprehensive revision of the gun laws has been proposed by an alliance of political parties and campaigners, who are seeking a referendum to change the law. The campaign needs to obtain sufficient signatures on a petition for a referendum to take place.

"Army guns are estimated to be used in 300 murders in Switzerland a year (Keystone)
03.05.2006
Why is Switzerland prone to family killings?
More than 300 people are killed every year by army guns, according to a study led by the Swiss criminologist Martin Killias.
These weapons play a central role in suicides and Switzerland's grim history of family killings, said the research, published on Saturday ahead of a parliamentary debate on the subject.

The study revealed that private guns and army weapons were used in 36 per cent of domestic murders.The majority, 60 per cent, of murders outside the home on the other hand involved illegal weapons. However, army weapons were used in more than two-thirds (68 per cent) of suicides."
-SwissInfo

ysbaddaden @ 108:

It's now easier to buy a gun than to vote.

Mayhap, then we should vote with guns?

Why does the anti-gun crowd think we’d be safer if only cops, the military, and criminals have guns?

Because there has never been a single example in human history where the armed officials of the government have enforced a brute dictatorship on an unarmed populace!

Errrr wait...

What's really amazing is how Scalia keeps contradicting himself with every decision he makes.
Two weeks ago, he used the excuse that "American were going to die" if we upheld Constitutional rights to fair trial and now, he decides up hold the Constitution even though upholding this law will also cause Americas to die.

I'm not saying that I disagree with this decision but why does he choose to ignore First amendment rights for some kid holding up a sign "Bong Hits For Jesus" citing "Safety" and then strike down a law designed for safety based on a Constitutional right that he chose to ignore for the same reason?

Answer: He's a "Activist Judge".

Doug @ 129:

What's really amazing is how Scalia keeps contradicting himself with every decision he makes.
Two weeks ago, he used the excuse that "American were going to die" if we upheld Constitutional rights to fair trial and now, he decides up hold the Constitution even though upholding this law will also cause Americas to die.

I'm not saying that I disagree with this decision but why does he choose to ignore First amendment rights for some kid holding up a sign "Bong Hits For Jesus" citing "Safety" and then strike down a law designed for safety based on a Constitutional right that he chose to ignore for the same reason?

Answer: He's a "Activist Judge".

The vile reich-wing pig Scalia is simply the most partisan and politically motivated Justice in the last 60 years.

Yes, "well-regulated" meant "well-running" in 1787. (My car has a "governor" but it's not in charge of my state!)

And "arms" meant all weapons.

Now, if we don't like the rights the Second Amendment gives, we can amend the Constitution. We shouldn't just get 5 unelected lawyers to change it.

I can't wait until some conservative hack comes up with a clever way of deciding that being locked in jail but not gagged means you still have "free speech" and gets 4 members of SCotUS to agree with him. Will that shock us into realizing that maybe we shouldn't be messing around with the basic rights enumerated in the Constitution?

Nah, it probably won't.

mayhempix @ 123:

Dennis @ 92:

mayhempix @ 88:

Zenrage @ 66:

That must expalin why over half of all murders are crimes of passion amongst family or friends, and usually against women, where the killer has immediate access to a handgun or rifle.

The Swiss have a problem on their hands with former servicemen who are required to keep their guns. This has produced a documented epidemic of spouse killings and sucides, usually by depressed individuals, who would never have committed the killings if the guns weren't immediately at hand. The Swiss are exploring changing the law, which I believe is constitutional, in order to prevent these unnecessary tragedies.

Interesting that I can find no actual evidence to validate your claim, but rather nothing but evidence to the contrary....

Ok, now I'm gone for real. Laterz!

Time to eat his words... I guess he left because he knew what was coming.

"Switzerland has one of the highest rates of suicide in the world and a high rate of family killings."
BBC

"Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordinance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordinance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms."
Wikipedia Gun politics in Switzerland

A new law prohibiting storage of military ammunition at home was adopted by the Swiss parliament on 27 September 2007. A more comprehensive revision of the gun laws has been proposed by an alliance of political parties and campaigners, who are seeking a referendum to change the law. The campaign needs to obtain sufficient signatures on a petition for a referendum to take place.

"Army guns are estimated to be used in 300 murders in Switzerland a year (Keystone)
03.05.2006
Why is Switzerland prone to family killings?
More than 300 people are killed every year by army guns, according to a study led by the Swiss criminologist Martin Killias.
These weapons play a central role in suicides and Switzerland's grim history of family killings, said the research, published on Saturday ahead of a parliamentary debate on the subject.

The study revealed that private guns and army weapons were used in 36 per cent of domestic murders.The majority, 60 per cent, of murders outside the home on the other hand involved illegal weapons. However, army weapons were used in more than two-thirds (68 per cent) of suicides."
-SwissInfo

Ahh the fallacy that the instrument of the crime is the cause of the crime. That pops its ugly head in a fairly regular basis.

113 lucid fiction

That just means you can't add any fringes

Or pastel decorator colors to your guns.

During M-16 training they taught us:

"This is your weapon

And this is your gun

One is for killing

The other's for fun."

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.

Then why are the words “well regulated militia” in there at all?

“Well regulated”. Explain that part.

This is simple.

A Milita was/is made up of comon citizens being called to duty to defend the country (the constitution). The framers considered these citizen soliders a necessity to maintaining a free stete against tyranny.

A "Well regulated" refers to the milita and NOT any laws meant to prohibit the ownership of guns. You know how you can infer that piece of wisdom? LOOK AT THE TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT AS IT WAS PASSED.

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.

Those commas mean a whole hell of a lot.

Since there was a distrust of maintaining a standing army (and rightfully so) Militas needed citizens who had their own weapons, hence…

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

The wording, context, and intent of the 2nd amendment is very clear and simple. Especially if people take the time to study other documents, speeches, customs, and definitions of the time period.

The only recourse to the clear meaning the the amendment is to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.

But, of course, no one would allow that sort of radical change to our heritage so people are either grossly misinformed or purposely creating confusion concerning the 2nd amendment.

You are welcome.

Doug @ 129:

What's really amazing is how Scalia keeps contradicting himself with every decision he makes.
Two weeks ago, he used the excuse that "American were going to die" if we upheld Constitutional rights to fair trial and now, he decides up hold the Constitution even though upholding this law will also cause Americas to die.

I'm not saying that I disagree with this decision but why does he choose to ignore First amendment rights for some kid holding up a sign "Bong Hits For Jesus" citing "Safety" and then strike down a law designed for safety based on a Constitutional right that he chose to ignore for the same reason?

Answer: He's a "Activist Judge".

On Charlie Rose Scalia actually said that the they had to rule on the 2000 election and stop the ongoing legal processes in Florida because the world was laughing at us.

This is from same guy who claims international law should not be considered as a reference in any US rulings.

Scalia should be impeached. In my opinion this is much more important than impeaching Bush and Cheney because he stays when they leave.

ysbaddaden @ 137:

113 lucid fiction

That just means you can't add any fringes

Or pastel decorator colors to your guns.

During M-16 training they taught us:

"This is your weapon

And this is your gun

One is for killing

The other's for fun."

Yeah, but I think both are pretty fun.

Backin' up the bus.....

Barack Obama, The 'Inartful' Dodger'

Obama Camp Disavows Last Year's 'Inartful' Statement on D.C. Gun Law

'Cause I'm a flipper, I'm a flopper, I'm a smoker, and I'm a joker
I sure don't to hurt no one'.

Dennis @ 135:

mayhempix @ 123:

Dennis @ 92:

mayhempix @ 88:

Interesting that I can find no actual evidence to validate your claim, but rather nothing but evidence to the contrary....

Ok, now I'm gone for real. Laterz!

Time to eat his words... I guess he left because he knew what was coming.

"Switzerland has one of the highest rates of suicide in the world and a high rate of family killings."
BBC

"Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordinance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordinance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms."
Wikipedia Gun politics in Switzerland

A new law prohibiting storage of military ammunition at home was adopted by the Swiss parliament on 27 September 2007. A more comprehensive revision of the gun laws has been proposed by an alliance of political parties and campaigners, who are seeking a referendum to change the law. The campaign needs to obtain sufficient signatures on a petition for a referendum to take place.

"Army guns are estimated to be used in 300 murders in Switzerland a year (Keystone)
03.05.2006
Why is Switzerland prone to family killings?
More than 300 people are killed every year by army guns, according to a study led by the Swiss criminologist Martin Killias.
These weapons play a central role in suicides and Switzerland's grim history of family killings, said the research, published on Saturday ahead of a parliamentary debate on the subject.

The study revealed that private guns and army weapons were used in 36 per cent of domestic murders.The majority, 60 per cent, of murders outside the home on the other hand involved illegal weapons. However, army weapons were used in more than two-thirds (68 per cent) of suicides."
-SwissInfo

Ahh the fallacy that the instrument of the crime is the cause of the crime. That pops its ugly head in a fairly regular basis.

Posting without documentation... wasn't that your last complaint?

You cannot refute the clear evidence in Switzerland. The fact is that depressed men with quick access to household guns commit more murders and suicides.

Please show us documented proof of the "fallacy" of these documented facts.

Good luck with that one.

Johnny2Bad @ 130:

Dr. (Fast Eddie Hussein) Matt @ 122:

Johnny2Bad @ 121:

lucid fiction @ 113:

"Well regulated"...Equally clear.

and,

"Mission Accomplished"...even more clear.

And the clearest of all:

"Ladies and gentleman, take my advice...Pull down your pants, and slide on the ice."

Can't forget this little gem either...
"Put your hands on your hips! And do the pelvic thruuuuust!" "leeeeeet's doooo the tiiiiime waaaarp agaaaaaain!"