Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Amanda Carpenter :: Townhall.com Columnist
DC Gun Ban Overturned By Supreme Court
by Amanda Carpenter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


A narrowly divided U.S. Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia’s longstanding ban on gun ownership marking a huge victory for 2nd Amendment rights Thursday.

The decision also highlights a marked difference between the Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

In a landmark 5-4 decision the Supreme Court declared it is “unconstitutional” to ban gun ownership, thereby making such laws illegal. The justices disputed whether or not the 2nd amendment protects each individual the right to own a gun, or whether the 2nd amendment should be interpreted to only giving rights related to service, or state militias.

Before the ruling DC had one of the most stringent bans in the nation, forbidding anyone to own a handgun who did not own one before the law was originally enacted in 1976. The historic suit was brought to the Supreme Court by DC residents who desired gun ownership rights. In their ruling, the Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling by an appellate court that the DC gun ban was constitutional.

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 157-page majority opinion He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion. He wrote 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 was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Repercussions of this ruling will likely play out on the presidential campaign trail in coming weeks.

A bipartisan majority of Capitol Hill urged the court to overturn the ban, which excluded Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. 55 senators, including GOP presidential candidate John McCain and 250 House members joined Vice President Dick Cheney in signing an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn the ban last February.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not one of the signers. His voting record is decidedly anti-gun, but he sought to soften his stance on gun rights in the run-up to the Supreme Court decision Thursday.

Last November Obama’s aides told the Chicago Tribune Obama believed the DC gun ban was “unconstitutional.” Obama spokesman Bill Burton told ABC News Thursday morning, before the ruling was released, that statement was “inartful.”

“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Burton said.

ABC anchor Charlie Gibson asked Obama directly if he believed the DC gun ban was constitutional in a Democratic primary debate earlier this year. Obama dodged the question by replying, “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.”

Shortly after the decision was announced the McCain campaign held a conference call to call attention to Obama's reluctance to speak frankly about the DC gun ban.

He "seems to be sidestepping the issue," Republican Sen. Brownback (Kans.) told reporters on the call. Brownback added that "given the narrowness of the decision" the candidate's stance on gun rights and the judges he may appoint as president has "is significant."

McCain senior policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said Obama "has a clear and consistent record of opposing second amendment rights, but we expect he'll try to have it both ways."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Amanda Carpenter is the author of “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton,” published in October 2006.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Amanda Carpernter. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Good but mostly bad
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07- 290.pdf

I am somewhat disaapointed with the ruling because it has been limited in scope AND it upheld a lot of restrictions that relied on past interpreations.

First off the good news: The DC law is unconstituitonal because the 2nd Amendment DOES apply to an individual right unrelated to mebership in a militia. Also, the gun can not be made to be disassembled or locked with a trigger lock. The gun must be capable of being used for home defense.

The 2nd amendment only applies to "commonly used and held" guns, eg can't have machine guns and sawed off shotguns.

The "licensing requirement" in DC was not addressed, therefore Heller will have to "register" his firearm.

Other State laws such as carrying prohibiting "concealed weapons" and prohibitting weapons in certain locations are also ok.

In these you can see the work of Sandra Day O'Kennedy. You can't rule that the 2nd applies to individuals and turn around and say that all these prohibitions are ok because they fly directly in the face of "may not be abridged".

I guess that this is more "evolving standards".

Uhhh..."Justice" Stevens...
"Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion. He wrote 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.'"

They did...it's called the CONSTITUTION. Say it with me, CON-STI-TU-TION. Try reading it sometime. Might want to get Kennedy in their with you, he forgets what it says quite often.

Note that the liberals
in their normal mess said that it ONLY applied to people in a militia.

Let freedom reign!
Keep fighting the good fight.

A Breath of Fresh Air
I'm pleasantly surprised at the decision, although it should have been 9-0 in favor of freedom. But I'll take what good we can get!

It has been so long since we've had good news from the Supreme Court and their abandoning of the English language, the Founder's intent, and American historical tradition of freedom:

Campaign Finance against 1st Amendment.
KELO Decision against fundamental property rights.
A Surveillance Society making the 4th Amendment obsolete...

and the bad list goes on.

But today is a day to celebrate. A breath of fresh air can still surprise us.

Excellent.
I was worried about how they would rule.
On a side issue:
Consider this parody: Sen. Clinton may still have a chance.
Senator McCain in a Time Rift!
Is John McCain Really Harry Potter?
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/mccain-harr y-potter-lord-voldemort-obama-dark-magic-in-time-rift/

SCOTUS and the 2nd Amendment
Now the liberals can only argue over the word "infringed".

Since 1627

Far From Encouraging
While it's a grand thing that at least 5 of the current Supreme Court Justices can understand basic English, it is very discouraging that 4 of them can't. Clearly the lifetime tenure did not take into account octogenerians in Pampers holding on to the bench well into their senility. Maybe it's time the Constitution "evolved" again to set a time limit for these people so that the damage they can inflict is limited.

Weighing in...
I'm OK with this ruling.

If any of you bigoted conservative posters come around my part of town talking your homophobic trash and acting in a threatening manner, I want to be packing heat.

Yes. The times are a-changing. We have gay marriage in California, AND the Supreme Court says we gays can have our handguns. Watch out. I see equality coming.

Bravo!!
This is good news (though, as noted, the opinion could have been unanimous and more sweeping). Does this mean that Justice Kennedy is no longer an eeeeevil liberal plotting to usurp the Constitution?

Rejoice Americans!
This decision comes in time for Independence Day.

They have made their decision...
now let them enforce it.

Is that how the saying goes?

I remember John Roberts saying,
once confirmed as Chief Justice, that one primary goal of his was to bring consensus (the SCOTUS was seeing too many 6-3, 5-4 decisions) to the Court.

Yet, all we've been seeing is a string of 5-4 decisions. There are 4 an one side, 4 on another, and Kennedy, one man in the center, basically deciding U.S. federal law by himself.

will
True Americans are perfectly happy with homosexuals' rights to firearm ownership. Disagreeing over some social and political issues does not equate to wishing you danger. These matters must be resolved through debate, not violence.

You have as much reason as anyone to celebrate this momentous decision.


RW
I suppose I'll find it in my heart to forgive Kennedy just this once.

For Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer all bets are off.

Finally Got One Right
I'm not surprised it was so close though. Not with the liberals on the bench. It never should have gotten to the SC to begin with as the Second Amendment was written so even an imbecile can understand it.

In regards to the militia side of things each state constitution outlines its rules for who is in the militia (not the the national guard). I checked Ohio's Constitution and it is pretty easy to understand. Looks like I'm a member until I'm 65 (too young). So by state law you are a member of its Militia (which almost everyone is from 18 to 60, 65, or 70) so you better have a firearm in your possession and know how to use it, because if you were ever called up in a time of invasion you would be totally unprepared. It's the supreme law of each state.

Also your choice of weapon as a Militia member should not be limited in anyway. If I want a fully automatic machine gun to help defend our Country and State I should be able to own one. But that's another debate for another time....right now I'm savoring this punch in the face to every anti-gun puke in the USA!


Good Decision
I have argued for years that the inartful militia clause made the second amendment ambiguous, at least. That is inescapable. But, in an ambiguous situation, the default interpretation should be the one which affords the most indiviual liberty.

So I consider this a good decision. (I may even go out and buy some stock in a gun manufacturer.)

I just wonder whether any conservatives will be brave enough to suggest this is an activist court decision usurping the rights of states to arrange their own affairs. SOmehow I doubt it.

What I Say
This is a sad day for the socialists. Tread lightly around them because they're on edge. Their scowls will be much angrier and they'll lash out until they have had a chance to attend many therapy sessions with their grief counselors.

Although this is an important victory, Stretch Face Pelosi and her communist allies will no doubt continue their efforts to disarm us starting next year.

Everyone should go out today and buy a military style assault weapon with at least 6 high capacity magazines and lots of ammunition. These will be targeted soon in 2009.

Get a .308. DS Arms has an excellent FAL and DPMS makes a good .308 carbine. The .308 has the knockdown capability you'll need when the Eco police come after you for using plastic bags in the grocery store and for using incandescent light bulbs. The .308 will actually pull a bullet proof vest through a human body.

Then get good tactical training. There are many fine schools that will offer training far superior to even the military and SWAT. Get prepared. Get armed. Be ready for the next revolution. I don't know if it will be televised.

It's a good ruling, maybe even great

I don't know what people are squawking about. I just read the ruling. You can, too, here's the link: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html

Scroll down to and click on Heller, and it opens in PDF.

Scalia wrote the ruling. It's broad, definitive, and incorporated. He parsed and defined the Second Amendment (esential for the future). He addressed precedent, such as Miller and Cruikshank.

As to registration, I've never cared about registration per se other than as a precursor to confiscation. This ruling precludes that possibility.

As to the 5-4 nature of the opinion.... who cares? It's now THE definition of the Amendment, and it doesn't matter a hoot whether it was 5-4 or 9-0. Some people are never happy, I guess.


Read it for yourself; it's a really excellent ruling, and it leaves the door open for even further broadening.

Sure you can
"You can't rule that the 2nd applies to individuals and turn around and say that all these prohibitions are ok because they fly directly in the face of "may not be abridged".

Rights aren't absolute--time, place and activity. You can't for example use speech to threaten--those aren't not protected, nor use words that would cause an immediate breach of the peace (the so-called fighting words doctrine). Slander and malice aren't protected and the list goes on and on. And to be picky the phrase used was "shall not be infringed."




To Jack
They didn't infringe on States' rights as this was an issue dealing with the District of Columbia and is therefore under federal rules. The SC is the correct jurisdiction.

Therefore this can not be considered and "activist" decision since they did not trample states' rights nor did they "create" new law out of thin air. They simply upheld (as all 9 should have) the long standing right (not privilege) of the individual to own a firearm. No activism here.

As I said earlier each of the states has written into their constitutions weapons ownership rights and militia definitions and none of these are affected by the decision, in fact they are reinforced.


Jack, nonsense

The states don't have intertpretive nor preemptive powers on ANY of the Bill of Rights amendments.

Do the states define "freedom of speech", or "assembly", or "petition for redress", or get to make their own interpretations of the Fifth Amendment, or any of the others?

Hell no.

That was an inane comment, and reflected the EXACT position taken by Fenty, DC, and the usual gun-banning lot.

4 Dissenters
Focus on the minority opinion by the 4 Stalinists on the court: "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."

If they were truly interested in the Constitution, they would already know that a main purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit elected officials in their infringement upon liberty. Consider the 2nd Amendment the check and balance of last resort that ensures that an oppressive government can't suppress the will of the governed limitlessly without repercussions. However, the Stalinists on the court and in the American Leftist movement want to remove that balancing factor to continue their drive towards unabated power.

Jack, good analysis
I've long been critical of the disproportionate emphasis on state's rights from the libertarian wing of the conservative movement.

In the end, the Bill of Rights cannot be overridden by the states (and certainly not by a District).

This ruling is good for everyone whether or not they acknowledge so.

Gun Control
Thank God for at least 5 judges in this country with common sense! Those of you who detest guns are now free to march on to the nearest housing project or other "inner city" neighborhood and demand that the Bloods,Crips,Latin Kings,MS 13,etc. turn their weapons over to you for "the sake of the children". I think your best bet to find them would be around 2 or 3 AM. So load up your SUV with like minded friends and have at it.

One step at a time
Some have expressed disappointment that the ruling was not more expansive in scope, while also lamenting the narrow 5-4 decision.

It is important to note that the attorney who designed this case deliberately phrased it to take only a couple small steps....because he calculated that a more extensive case could create more reasons for some justices to object to a pro-freedom decision.

It appears that Mr. Levy was right. If this fresh case had required the justices to take a giant leap forward, it is likely that the swing vote (Kennedy) would not have been willing to take that giant step. The case would have failed 4-5 instead of winning 5-4.

HOWEVER, now that the foundational concept of Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an established fact, it will not be a novel concept to be feared and avoided.

In the future, we can take one more step toward the original understanding of the 2nd Amendment. Then another. And another.

Too slow for you? It is the technique with the best chance of success....and that is the same sort of piecemeal approach that the other side has usually taken to strip away or limit our rights.

It works. Use it. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Not a good ruling - only tolerable
No it is not a “good” ruling and you can blame Kennedy for all those “infringements” that are in the decision. There is really only two questions that this case needed to solve. First was whether of not “incorporation” picked up the 2nd Amendment, or was a valid theory at all. The second issue was this “militia” argument that the liberals picked up on falling out of Miller.

Well, the “militia” argument was pretty much killed with a stake through the heart, at least until Kennedy flip-flops again. The “incorporation” argument was settled by taking the case and actually making a ruling rather than returning it to the Dc court and saying it only applied to the federal government. Of course, if they had done that the previous ruling on the death penalty and all the rest of those rulings in which State laws were overturned using the bill of rights would have been invalidated.

So if you throw out the militia argument and concede that the 2nd amendment is incorporated what are you left with?

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Ok, how does that agree with it is OK to force registration, limit the types of arms, prohibit “bearing” arms concealed and in certain places etc?

It DOESN’T agree with it. It is more liberal stretch that most certainly came from that idiot Kennedy.

BrianR
I AGREE with you.

My point is that when the SCOTUS makes a judgement on that exact same basis which conservatives do not like, then conservatives whine about judicial activism and the right of the states to make their own decisions.

The process and principles are no different in this decision than in any other decision. It's just that conservatives happen to agree with this decision.


History Buff
The most likely thing that will happen is another liberal will be appointed and it will be reversed. Of course, like the BS decision with Gitmo they will say it wasn't reversed at the same time they reverse it.

Four Communists

Four of our SCOTUS justices just outright admitted they are communists with this ruling.

Marvin
Your post is spot-on; especially if BHO wins POTUS! If he does win,the economy will crash, as will the stock market totally destroying our economy, terrorist attacks will occur with regular frequency because BHO believes we can treat terrorists as "criminals" and anarchy will rule streets. Yep, IF he wins we're all going to need every weapon we can lay our hands on to protect what we have.

And Will, after reading several of your posts on several of the threads here, I really do wonder if you understand such postings actually show the incredible bigotry you posess yourself! But don't worry, cause I have a gay brother who, believe it or not, is actually A CONSERVATIVE, living with his boyfriend in Palm Springs (both are AGAINST gay marriage BTW). I'm sure he'd pity you enough to protect you as well (yes, he owns several guns) in the coming disaster of a BHO presidency!

Sorry, Jack, my bad

I misread the thrust of your comment as that of being your own position.

(Coffee..... more coffee.....)

Kennedy got it right!
Kennedy got it right! I never thought I would use those words together in a sentence.

In other news, David Souter continues his efforts to be popular with the cool kids. Don't hold your breath Dave.

Not A Surprise

Four of our SCOTUS justices just outright admitted they would rather the country be like Cuba, rather than be the USA with this ruling.

History Buff
Good points, indeed.

Jack
Of course conservatives agree.

There was no penumbras, no auras, no emanations, no inherent rights, no international laws cited. Merely the plain English of the Constitution was upheld.

Thats all we want and pretty much all we have ever wanted.


Celebratory gunfire
It's appropriate that this ruling comes on the eve of the Fourth of July, which celebrates our independence with fireworks simulating gunfire.

This decision finally kills the left's absurd assertion that "the right of the people" is not an individual right. The Second Amendment haters have argued that "the people" does not mean individual people, but only some amorphous glob of humanity, or as they prefer, the "collective." That argument has always been Orwellian with just a dash of Stalinist language thrown in for emphasis. Finally the argument is settled.

This Fourth of July is one we should especially celebrate.

Vic
I have read a bit of the language, and reversing the key component of decision, i.e. the gun ownership is an individual right, would be very, very difficult. SCOTUS does not readily reverse major decisions like that, partly because once a point is decided, it's hard to get a new case in front of the court.

You can relax on that score.

Stevens
"Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion. He wrote 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." "

Did this guy stop reading after the 8th Amendment?

To Jack:
I think you will find "conservatives" agree with this decision because we take the position that Judges should interpret the Constitution(s) as it was written. In principle we do not agree with the notion that it is a "living" document.

Conversely you will find that "liberals" believe it is very flexible and open to all kinds of interpretations. The "living" document description. "Conservatives" tend to believe that this equates to what we call judicial activism.

In theory any decision by any court that upholds a strict interpretation of the law as written you will find "conservatives" siding with. This one is a classic decision by the Court to view the Second Amendment as it was written so you can't equate this to judicial activism.

I would like to know of a SCOUS decision that was made recently where the liberal majority went with a strict interpretation of the Constitution that "conservatives" did not support. It would be interesting if you could provide one.

Crime in DC!
You can now expect the crime rate to drop in DC although I don't expect the news media to report it!

WHOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
This really made my day.

At last, at last, the argument regarding "individual" rights can be put to rest!

The only thing I guess they didn't tell us (and I don't know if it was appropriate for this case) is what standard of review gun laws will have in the future: strict, intermediate, or minimal (is that the right word for that one?). That's what I would like to know and don't ya think the lower Courts would like to know?

I appreciate the conservative judges not being too broad as to risk an overturning later (which I doubt will come anyway; if SCOTUS hasn't overturned Roe V. Wade in 35 years, then I doubt this one will be.), but some guidance I think is necessary.

And I do agree with HISTORYBUFF that it is a step in the right direction and slowly is the way to go to ensure that this sticks forever ever.

At any rate, now we can stick it to the gun-control nuts. Their argument was always bupkis and now we have the absolute proof that it was.

WHOO HOOO!

God Bless America! Praise God and pass the ammunition, boys and girls!

Cheers.

No Surprise
D.C. V Heller was no surprise to me at all. I knew that individual rights would be upheld, that the ban would be found to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and that not every pro-gunner would be happy.

Now we have to start challenging other current gun control laws that we know are unconstitutional as well.

But we cannot do this if only 4 of every 100 American gun owners is going to join the National Rifle Association.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com
NRA Membership Recruiter

A 21st Century Civil War...
averted.

Jack
As to your last post to VIC:

You are absolutely right, which is why Roe v. Wade has not been overturned yet either.

It's a scare tactic that both sides will use, but I doubt will come to pass.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with "Constant vigilance!"

And, of course, like my post said, I don't think we were given a standard of review for present and future gun laws, which may be a problem later.

There's no point in having a right if it will be widdled away down to nothing.

One victory for the people
with this SCOTUS ruling. It's about time the court sided with the Constitution. Except for the 4 socialist judges that we all know don't want to rule by the Constitution but do their own interpretation.

The hell with them. It's a done deal now until like some other poster noted that if BO is elected and appoints another liberal judge this will be reversed.

Hopefully that won't happen.

This case is a first step
D.C. v Heller is merely a first step in a very long road. That's it! Sure freedom loving Americans can smile today. But tomorrow, we go back into the trenches and try to preserve our rights from the ever-increasing monster of creeping Socialism.

This case takes bans off the table at least. It might even take bans of semi-automatic rifles off the table after reading some of Scalia's opinion.

But alas, with only a small handful of pro gunners doing anything more than complaining about gun control over a cup of coffee at the gun club or complaining about gun control laws here at TH, this long road will be an uphill climb.

NRA membership needs to soar to unprecedented levels to win the war. D.C. v Heller was only a skirmish that we've won and that's it.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com
NRA Membership Recruiter

will
"If any of you bigoted conservative posters come around my part of town talking your homophobic trash and acting in a threatening manner, I want to be packing heat."

Wow. You are a seriously bigoted idiot, dude.

Every ounce of the imagined "oppression" you claim to suffer you bring upon yourself. You do not help your cause. Quite the reverse. Is your mind so diseased you are unaware of this?

The D.C. v Heller Opinion
In case anyone wants to read the opinion released today, I have posted it on my Web site in a .pdf file for your downloading convenience.

http://www.savetheguns.com/PDF_Files/DCvHeller07-290.pdf

Marc

Uh, DUH!
It took all the way down to Buzzard's posting before somebody stated the obvious --
CRIME WILL NOW DROP IN DC, at least, certain kinds of it will, now that the bad guys know there's a greater chance of coming across an ARMED victim. YIKES!!!

Townhall censorship
I posted my comment much earlier in the day, but I guess the Republican elites at Townhall didn't like it and took it down.

Needless to say, this ruling was a phony one by every standard, mostly because it still accepts the premise that the government can tell us what guns we can own.

My first comment was much stronger in language, but freedom of speech is also limited by the government. What a crock!

DC HAND GUNS
Five to Four decision? This is a real eye-opener. To think that there are so many Supremes that would take our right to bear arms away. This was way too close. What scares me more than the closeness of this vote is the fact that the Supreme Court can actually overturn our Constitution via the bench. If we had lost this decision, things would be entirely different in this country today. When will we put a stop to the Judicial Branch legislating from the bench?

Ignorance of so many Supremes and the media is going to cost us our liberties. Wake up folks!

LOL, ex-Wyo

Dude! Age discrimination! I'm 59!

Hahahaha.

Yep, I totally agree.


Jack and others
Actually what happens is the liberals overturn precedent frequently and then lie about it. For example in Boumediene Et Al. V. Bush, President Of The United States, Et Al. (the recent GITMO case) the liberals joined by flip-flop overturned the existing precedent Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950) simply by redefining what the meaning of “foreign soil” is.

In addition, you can look at EVERY major liberal decision that was controversial because it flew in the face of the text of the Constitution and you will find that it reversed an existing precedent.

Y'know, ex-Wyo

Some people would complain about winning the lottery if they had to split the prize.


Gunny
I agree!

I think it's outrageous that the opinion went 5-4. I was sincerely hoping for just Stevens, Bryer and Ginsburg to try to wipe their butts with the Bill of Rights. Souter joining them was a disappointment.

If we had lost D.C. v Heller, there would have been outrage from gun owners of every stripe and political persuasion.

A D.C. v Heller opinion that went the other way might have actually woken up the vast majority as sleeping gun owners who refuse to fight.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

If only the Fourth...
Amendment had a lobbying group as effective as the NRA.

Folks
All of ya’ll celebrating this decision need to stop and think. Yes, it is good that the liberals did not get their way totally, but this decision says that it is OK to:

- require registration
- Limit the types of guns you can own
- Limit where and when you can carry a gun

The only thing this decision does is say that the government can not forbid you to have a handgun, general rifle, or shotgun at home.

Gunny
That's kind of what the Supreme Court does - decides what the constitution means.

Shining example: murdering innocent unborn human life came from something as innocuous as the right to privacy. SHEESH! The framers are no doubt still turning in their graves over that little MISINTERPRETATION!

But, the system is what we're stuck with.

Limiting governmental power
"Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion. He wrote 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."

I know this has been touched on already, but I find this quote so disturbing, I think it needs further discussion. OF COURSE the framers made the choice to limit the government's ability to regulate civilian use of weapons. Almost the entire constitution is about putting limits on government. It limits powers to those specifically enumerated. It divides the executive, legislative, and judicial. It limits jurisdiction. The whole point of the bill of rights to limit what the government could do in regulating speech, firearm use, search and seizure, etc. I find it incredibly troubling that Stevens doesn't even recognize that this is the whole idea of the bill of rights.

Ironies:
The constitution was primarily intended to ensure political freedom and preserve the powers of the people to resist tyranny. However, the liberals on the court think simulated child porn is protected speech, while political speech is not (i.e. McCain Feingold). They are willing to create rights not mentioned in the constitution (abortion), but don't think the specifically enumerated right to bear arms was intended by the framers.

How does anybody take these people seriously?

ex_Wyomingite.
I'm 55 and agree with you.

A truthful interpretation of the Constitution prevailed today.

Also, if I am not mistaken, the ten amendments making up the Bill of Rights can not be amended.

Vic
Your are correct of course. The celebration indeed should be downplayed to a certain degree. This case should be chalked up in the win column, but the victory was too narrowly defined as I knew it would be.

Getting Illnois, Wisconsin and Washington D.C. to allow concealed carry in a public place is a long hard road and a very steep climb.

But we now have a good base to work from and I'm ready and willing to accept the coming challenges.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

Incorrect, Vic

Scalia enumerates a wide range of legitimate uses of firearms that take place outside the home, and in outlining *possibly* legitimate restrictions as to where a gun can be carried, names a very limited list.

He also clearly states that some restrictions have been traditional even going back to the Founding Era, and any such modern restrictions must conform -- and cannot exceed -- such.

He does say that licensing can fall within constitutional purview, but also states that subsequent cases may broaden the scope of this ruling.

He states that there's no such thing as an unbridled right, and cites Speech as one that even has restrictions, citing libel actions specifically.

Any "limitations" on type of firearm again conform, in the decision, to Blackthorne and other historic precedent, including Colonial laws upon which the Second A is based.


Quote from today's opinion
I'm posting this quote from today's opinion and I'm asking if this case would also prohibit a ban upon semi-automatic rifles, such as AR-15s and Uzis and such.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

Does this mean that all bans of small arms are now off the table?

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

Matthew and Marc (how biblical!)

Matthew, the dissent is irrelevant. First of all, it's merely a statement by the losing side of why they disagree. Further, Scalia's opinion is so carefully crafted -- including rebuttals to the dissent -- that it provides really no basis for suits seeking new strategies.


Marc, in the opinion, Scalia does nod to some limitations on type, mainly having to do with weapons "not in common usage"; that's a standard he repeats several times. He also refers to weapons that are extraordinary in nature, I'm sure having the "privately-owned bazooka" rhetoric in mind.


Judicial Activism
Jack said:
"My point is that when the SCOTUS makes a judgment on that exact same basis which conservatives do not like, then conservatives whine about judicial activism and the right of the states to make their own decisions."

The difference, Jack, is the basis of the decision. It is not judicial activism to strike down a federal or state law that clearly violates the constitution. In this case, there is the 2nd Amendment, which clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Therefore, striking down laws which violate this constitutional right is clearly within the role of the judiciary.

Conservatives become upset when the Court decides to overturn laws or create based on the personal opinion's of the justices, and then try to cloak this in some newly discovered right. For instance, there is nothing in the constitution regarding abortion. The logical conclusion would therefore be that this is one of those things left to regulation by the states. However, the Court wanted abortion to be legal because they personally thought it was a good idea. So by twisting the constitution sideways, holding it up to the light, turning around three times, and chanting "there's no place like home," they were able to find abortion hiding in the penumbra's of the 4th Amendment. This is judicial activism and goes beyond the authority of the court.

BrianR
Yes, I know that the dissent is irrelevant in this opinion. Unfortunately, they will carry that mindset to future opinions where they will continue to wreck havoc on the constitution.

BrianR
I can see that once again we will have to diasagree. At the time the Consitution was written and ratifies private individauls owned EVERY type of firearm and weapon that the government had, including cannon. Indeed, in most cases the private individuals had better arms than the feds.

In this one we have a "break even" and a "little bit ahead" on the laws in places like Boston and NYC.

What is ironic is that if the feds and the SCROTUS had left the so-called "incorporation" alone I would have been happy with places like NYC, Boston, and DC virtually outlawing guns. I am for the people getting what they want and what they deserve.

I am however in favor of interpreting the Consitution EXACTLY like it is written. If the liberals do not like it then they shopuld used the "approved" method of changing it.

No argument, there, Matthew

But that's why Scalia's opinion's so terrific; it doesn't leave any wriggle room or cracks in the door.

All it seems to do, based on my reading, is leave the possibility open for even broader future opinions.


Savetheguns
The way it was worded it left the door open to what those "common" guns were and what could be prohibited. it would not surprise me that the so-called assault weapons could be banned, especially if another flip-flopper is appointed.

I think that's why Scalia

wrote it the way he did. He probably realized this would be his legacy ruling, THE one he'll be remembered for.


Subject: ex_Wyomingite
We live in a republic vice a democracy. That is a very important point. The reason the Founders didn't wan't a true democracy was to avoid catering to factions to essentially gain mob rule (Read the Federalist Papers). The direct election of senators and essentially universal suffrage has eroded that carefully thought out balance provided within a republic. The recent decisions by a far left activist court are proof in the pudding that we are edging dangerously away from being a republic. The 4 lefties would never had been confirmed by a consitutionally oriented Senate in a true republican construct.

Gotta disagree again, Vic
From the decision:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

In other words, because (in this example) M-16s are the type of weapon effective for "militia" purposes, they may be owned even if they're "unusual in society at large".

Makes it pretty hard to ban semi-autos based on some "sporting purposes" BS criterion.


What is scarey
Is we have 4 people on the Supreme Court who reject the rights explicitly named as God given but can find a right for enemy combatants to civil courts that is not in the Constitution or History of the world in any nations laws.

They are either insane or they are dedicated enemies of the American system of Government under the Constitution.




ex_Wyo wrote:
"Subject: BrianR
Is IS an excellent ruling and I join you in crossing my eyes at the petulance of those who are still ready to pick up their firebrands and pitchforks and storm the Supreme Court building because the decision isn't 9-0.

You can tell, not by intelligence or vocabulary, but by reference to personal experience, that most of these complainers are at least 45 years old. You would think that by now they have grasped some sense of reality and come to understand that they live in a multifaceted democracy with a range of opinion across all spectra. I don't know how they can b1tch endlessly that they have not acieved unanimity and still call themselves patriots and loves of American democracy."

Well, iffen you two (brian and ex) werent' so busy conducting a meeting of the mutual admiration society you might've heard Rush this A.M. state (to paraphrase): "it bugs the heck out of me to think that a Constitutional right hinges on how Kennedy feels when he gets up in the morning."

You may now resume your love-fest.


I think the important
thing about the new court ruling today is not so much what we conservatives won but what we did not lose, yet! Four justices said that the bill of rights is theirs to revise or even completely overturn; like this decision was just like some case on maritime law or Internet gambling... That sort of arrogance is liberal/socialist based.

"We know better than the constitutional framers." These four elitists said.

With a presidential win for Obama and a packed dem senate, look forward to lower courts as well as the supreme court being impacted adversely with more such self-centered politically oriented hacks.

Gun Rights
It's been a good day,but we can never put our guard down. The gun grabers will never give up.

Talent Scout
Good point!

How five Associate Justices, including Justice Kennedy found constitutional rights for foreign-born terrorists who are not U.S. citizens, is beyond me.

I suppose it's for the same reason that the SCROTUS :-) found abortion rights in our Constitution.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

Hey Vic
at 11:49 you said
"The 'incorporation' argument was settled by taking the case and actually making a ruling rather than returning it to the Dc court and saying it only applied to the federal government."

I'm not convinced that the incorporation argument is settled. I'm only half way through the decision, so maybe there's something in there.

I fully expect a challenge to this by a state, and challenging whether the 2nd has been incorporated or not.

As shown by cse45 @ 11:24 and BrianR @ 11:37 many still don't understand incorporation at all. This ruling can stand with out incorporating the 2nd Amendment because it was about a law in D.C and not a state.


Will
I agree. One of the prices we pay for our freedom is the exhausting effort of having to constantly defend it.

The Founding Fathers constantly warned us in their speeches and letters about domestic enemies of freedom.

But without any domestic enemies of freedom, it would be pretty boring wouldn't it? If it wasn't for having to defend the Constitution from domestic enemies, I would probably be splitting and stacking firewood for this coming winter...in the rain.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

To Duck46
Sounds to me as if what we have now is "mob rule". During the recent Democratic primary, the political majority in the Appalachian states was composed of uneducated, low-income, low-achieving people (and who in recent years have voted Republican anyway). These are the same folks who are usually gun-happy, prejudiced against minorities, and who disdain education and are not even careful of their own safety and health---just yesterday the news came out that Type II Diabetes is highest among this population that eats anything it wants, loves to smoke, refuses to wear motorcycle helments, resents traffic speed limits, detests government, and drives gas-guzzling pickup trucks. They equate "freedom" with lack of personal discipline. These are the people who should choose our government? Whose social opinion should control the rest of us? To the extent such people are in charge, we already have mob rule.

TESTING
TESTING

Robear

Why the hell should I care what Limbaugh says?

God gave me a brain, in the hopes I'd use it to make my own decisions; I took Him up on the deal.


Further, Limbaugh's just another GOP shill who's going to vote for RINO McCain. I'm underwhelmed.


BrianR - Read carefully
You are quoting part of the ruling as to why it is not limited to a militia. In fact, the way you are quoting it is turning the logic used by the SCROTUS on it’s head. Their logic was “just because you ban M-16’s doesn’t mean that the right is limited to a militia”.

This is what they said in the syllabus regarding the guns:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

STDog, FYI

In the opinion, Scalia outlines all the criteria to be used in adjudicating like cases, which serves as instructions to lower courts.

Further, in many places in the case, the opinion clearly and unequivically states that the right is inherent to "the People" of the country, and the 14th Amendment is referenced.

Lastly, the decision does not limit itself just to the specific DC law.

That, my friend, is what "incorporatiuon" means. If you're looking for the word "incorporate", you won't find it anywhere, nor does it have to be there. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure it's even ever been used in any decision.

It's a de facto incorporation.



Vic,

You're making MY point. I referenced the "unusual weapons" phrase in my earlier post, and the section I quoted makes clear that M-16s are NOT unusual weapons in that category, as they're part of the normal military arsenal.

Again: " It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large."

In other words, even if an M-16 isn't owned by every Joe Sixpack, it certainly should be available to him if the unorganized militia is to have any possible effectiveness as a citizen force.


BrianR
Sez, "God gave me a brain, in the hopes I'd use it to make my own decisions; I took Him up on the deal."

Your evidence?

And, "I'm underwhelmed"

Likewise.

Lilly
Are you the original Lilly? if so, long time no here from you. Where have you been?

To STDog
I'm not really sure why you're bringing me into the whole incorporation issue. I most certainly understand that this was a case about the DC (not a state) denying individuals their 2d Amendment Right. And that the ruling applies to the District. It needed reinforced most certainly.

As I said the other 50 states already have their own versions of the 2nd Amendment written in their constitutions so it really isn't an issue that affects the states rights. Either way I agree with the court's decision 100%.

I do think that a state would be hard pressed to challenge the decision because in every state's constitution it also guarantees the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms as well. It would have to make it past the individual state's supreme court before ever getting the the SCOUS for this type of case to be revisited.

I believe this ruling will make it even harder for any state to try and deny this right even if the state were to amend it's own constitution. But I could be wrong. Who knows what lawyers are capable of now a days.

Does not bode well
I must say, I am at a loss.

The 4 justices who could not find the 2nd amendment were completely different from the 4 justices who could not find a writ of habeas corpus or its suspenstion clause requirements.

8 of the 9 justices simply toted a political party line rather than properly analyzing constitutional requirements.

That does not bode well.

BrianR
As I said, I haven't finished the read. I hope you are correct, at least for now.

I am personally hate that incorporation (ie the 14th amendment) as been used to apply the document that was to control the federal government to control the state.

I'd much prefer the limited federal government the founders had in mind with the individual states having much more latitude (and restricted by their constitutions). As it stands today, most state constitutions are null and void.

lilly
Ronald Reagan used to say, "Liberals will defend to the death your right to agree with them." Thanks for proving him correct.

BrianR
What part of this do you not understand?

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose +

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Miller specifically banned M-16s and the like.

common use
Just curious, how is a weapon to become "common use" if the government can restrict weapons not already common?

By that standard, semi-automatic pistols and shot guns could have been restricted such that they never became popular/common. Revolvers maybe? They weren't real common in the muzzle loading days.

Perhaps even all non-muzzle loading firearms.

What Scalia Meant...
Scalia said

"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

By dangerous and unusual weapons, I'm pretty certain he meant shoulder-fired rocket launchers, M203s, flame-throwers, mortars, grenades and such things that are commonly used in a modern army.

I'm pretty certain that semi-automatic rifles and machine guns without grenade launchers are not meant to be included in his statement.

Anyway, machine guns are not federally banned anyway, as long as they were made before 1986 that is...

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

Buck and Robear

Buck, sorry to tell you, but the few times I've listened to Limbaugh he's made it pretty clear he's a "hold your nose" type.

I'm well aware of the areas where ex-Wyo and I disagree; there are many, and we've had our clashes. But when someone's right, they're right.

Lastly, I couldn't care less about the complaints about Kennedy or the libs, as the decision is what it is. Everything else is irrelevant. Minority opinions are about as meaningful as a fart in a hurricane.

As I wrote earlier, some people would complain about winning the lotto if they had to split the prize.


Robear, you're the one who seems to let other people think for them, judging by your raising of the irrelevant Limbaugh to begin with, as if he's some kind of Final Arbiter.

So your criticism of my posts, comments, or whatever...... well, I guess there are TWO farts in that hurricane.


STDog, I agree

"Incorporation" is a load as far as doctrine or theory goes, because the Founders didn't think it was necessary. To them, what they wrote was plain and simple on its face.


SaveTheGuns.com
Just as I said earlier, as it stands now that is what it means but the language leaves the door open for interpretation AND...

it does not conform to the language of SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED.

This equivacation has to be the work of O'Kennedy.

Vic, read it again

Scalia specifically writes in several places that Miller was very limited in scope and didn't address the issues under consideration.

Further, Miller did NOT "specifically ban" M-16s, as they didn't even exist in 1939, and aren't mentioned anywhere in that decision.

On top of that, the crux of Miller is that the sawed-off shotgun at issue wasn't protected, as THAT was a type of weapon not common to military usage, in essence saying that small arms that ARE in common military usage are the type protected under the Second Amendment.


Vic
"Note that the liberals in their normal mess said that it ONLY applied to people in a militia."

Can you imagine the hissy-fit liberals would throw if states and local communities started forming militias?

Got to go
Another d+_++ lightning storm with no d**** rain. My machine just took a hit and came back but I can't take any more. See ya'll later.

Why Doesn't John McCain Own A Gun?
I believe that every law abiding adult should have the right to own a gun. However, I don't understand why so many people gain such a "false" sense of security in owning one, specifically Christians. I never hear or read about any genuine benefits of owning a gun. Even in the case of DC with its somewhat high rate of homicides, it has the lowest rate of suicide in the country. This was primarily due to the handgun ban that existed.
During one of the debates, perhaps a CNN debate, the moderator asked the republican candidates if they owned a gun. I believe that John McCain was the only candidate that responded "no". Why doesn't the Senator own a gun? He's a decorated Vietnam veteran and yet he doesn't own a gun. Could it be that Sen. McCain believes that there is more harm than good that could come from owning a gun? Only he knows the answer. In the case of Amanda Carpenter, I wonder if she owns a gun. If she does, I wouldn't blame her. I believe that women, more so than men, need to protect themselves, mainly from men.

POST TEST
Checking the posting. This is only a test

Lilly
YOU SAID: "just yesterday the news came out that Type II Diabetes is highest among this population that eats anything it wants, loves to smoke, refuses to wear motorcycle helments, resents traffic speed limits, detests government, and drives gas-guzzling pickup trucks. They equate "freedom" with lack of personal discipline. These are the people who should choose our government? Whose social opinion should control the rest of us? To the extent such people are in charge, we already have mob rule."

These same people, who you consider to be a mob and who have no "personal discipline", also take personal responsibility for themselves and their lack of discipline, and don't expect someone else to pick up the check when they get Diabetes II or into a motorcycle accident, or lung cancer, or anything else.

That's the difference, Lilly, and you missed it.

Original intent & Justice Stevens…


Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion. He wrote 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 was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.


It is good to see that Justice Stevens and the gang of three are concerned about the original intent of the Framers and ‘limit[ing] the tools available to elected officials’. Perhaps they will consider their own words and stop the practice of overruling the people through their elected representatives and do some research on the Framers’ meaning before they make a ruling. Original intent is not hard to discover if they were really interested in finding it.

A well-regulated militia is dependent on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Let’s not forget the context given by the Declaration of Independence…’whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…’

The Second Amendment insures the protection of the people against a repressive government. To imply that it relates in any way to a government controlled militia is nonsense and they know it.

Given that the Constitution exists, the socialists cannot repeal it, but, as long as the legislature and executive branches will not rein in the courts, they can change it into something that limits the power of the people, rather than the government.

Why McCain doesn't own a gun
Zachary,
Perhaps the reason McCain doesn't own a gun is because he knows he has no need of one. He has the benefit of something called the Secret Service. They are a group of people who provide security to elected officials so the elected officials never have to consider the possibility that others aren't so protected. If you want to pay to have a security detail assigned to me, then perhaps I too won't need a gun for self-defense.

As for the comment that although D.C. has one of the highest murder rates in the nation, it has a low suicide rate; give me a gun. I think I prefer my chances of resisting suicide over my chances of resisting the local crackhead unarmed.

Zachary
Many senators and congress reps have armed security to look out for them, especially those running for president. That said, how do you know McCain does not have a 9mm concealed on his person?

With regards to your seeing no real benefit to owning a gun, you have not looked hard enough, if at all. People defend themselves with guns in this nation every day. The problem is, such stories are not picked up by the national news any more than the national news reports on every rape or drug store hold up that takes place around the country.

Point three. You claim DC's gun ban resulted in less suicides. That assertion would be more convincing if there were not about a thousand other ways to kill yourself, from overdosing to hanging, to self-poisoning by carbon monoxide. Ask yourself this: if you wanted to kill yourself, what would be less messy and less likely to result in you becoming a maimed invalid for the rest of your life? Sticking a shotgun in your mouth, or downing a bottle of sleeping pills with a vodka chaser?

And lest you think one can not survive a gunshot to the head, you should know that there are plenty who have. And most likely wish they would have simply left the car running in the garage



Well, Zachary . . .
I own a gun. And the benefit is this: between 1.5 and 2.5 million people a year saved themselves from criminal attack by the ownership and use of a handgun.

Besides, have you ever thought about this - perhaps the lack of crime in areas that allow gun ownership and concealed weapons permits is BECAUSE THE CRIMINALS WON'T MESS WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE GUNS IN THEIR HOMES OR ON THEIR PERSON!

My God, have you no logic whatsoever!

I don't give a rat's carcass whether McCain owns one, Obama, Clinton, you, Joe Schmo or Jane Schmo. I don't think everyone should be LEGALLY REQUIRED TO OWN ONE. I just think that it's MY RIGHT (per the 2nd Amendment and confirmed by SCOTUS today) to own one if I darn well choose to do so.

Just like it's my right to speak freely (within the proper confines of the law) or not speak (per the 5th Amendment and my own darn choice).

The mark of a true American is one that disagrees with something, but protects it anyway because it's a RIGHT (especially one clearly set forth in the Constitution and not dug up in fairyland).

Get it now!

Why McCain doesn't own a gun
Zachary,
Perhaps McCain doesn't own a gun because he knows that he will never need one. If I lived in a wealthy neighborhood and had protection from the Secret Service, I may not need one either. Here's the deal, you pay for protection for me and my family, and I won't be so concerned about having the means to defend them.

As for the comment that although D.C. has one of the highest murder rates in the country, at least it has a low suicide rate; give me a gun. I think I prefer my chances of resisting suicide over my chances of resisting the local crackheads unarmed.

Kansas bill of Rights Section 4
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

And in accordance with today's SCOTUS ruling, we are fine.

Sorry for the double post
Thought my original reply to Zachary got lost so I reposted the comments.

Hahahahaha, Buck!

Yeah, we'll have to disagree, then.


As far as I'M concerned, this is a day for celebration, not for trying to find a flaw in the diamond.

I'm happy I have the diamond!


I have One Piece of Good News Today
Hey BrianR. I have enjoyed your comments on this thread so far. (I just got back in from my sister-in-law's funeral.) At least I got one piece of good news today.

You and I realize it could have gone 5-4 the other way. After some previous decisions, this was more than a possiblity. I wish it had been 9-0 or even 7-2; but I will certainly take this decision and what it accomplishes.

After I have a chance to look deeper into both opinions, I hope to post an article on it at my site.


Great First Step
Now we need to fix the People's Republic of New Jersey....

Zachary-The-Man
I was about to post a long rebuttal to your previous post about not seeing any benefits to firearm ownership, but I'll spare you the embarrassment for the time being.

You are certainly welcome to post as often as you like on the subject. I hope you take the time to learn the truth about guns, lawful gun owners and the Second Amendment's protections.

Stick around son, you'll learn a thing or two. I will start by saying that guns are used more than 6,000 times a day to defend individuals, families and businesses and about 93% of the time the guns are not even fired. The vast majority of these self defense uses are not even reported to police either.

Another benefit is that it's awfully fun to split a golf ball in two with a .30 caliber rifle at 100 yards.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com
NRA Certified Firearm Instructor
NRA Membership Recruiter

Gray Ghost and Buck

Ghost, looking forward to it. I'll expect the usual heads up (though I check your blog daily anyway).


Yeah, Buck! A celebratory Martini -- or even a dram of single-malt -- tonight!

(pull our fingers....LOL!)


PS, Ghost, I forgot my manners

My condolences to you and your family on your loss.

(I was raised better, believe it or not)

Obama is consistent
in his unconditional, unwavering, passionate support for hunters and target shooters. It's just when it comes to self-defense that he gets, well, a little fuzzy at times...

Censored again...
I'll try to rephrase what I wrote the first time, but found my posting didn't make the cut. Too insensitive for TH cutters.

Had the court decision gone the other way, I would have resisted with every fiber of my being not to turn over my shotgun and rifle, both gifts from my father given to me as a young teen. Even more sensitive; I would provide great resistance in either registering them or handing them over.

Oh to hell with it; I would disregard the decision completely and keep my guns - locked and loaded.

A majority of voters elected representatives, to include senators, to allow illegal aliens and terrorists constitutional rights when breaking our laws. Okay, I'm forced to go along with that.

Our lawmakers give entitlements, preferences, and extra protection to so-called minorities and gays over equal protection for everyone. Okay, Mr. or Ms. Lawmaker, I'll shut up and take it.

These same elected officials won't allow us to drill for the oil under our feet so we pay more than double what is possible in reasonable prices. Forced again, I am, so I'll just bend over and grab my ankles as our reps demand.

Pay taxes to support those who live on the dole for a lifetime, and have babies they can't (and won't) possibly raise or support? Yep, I'm forced to do so and I comply.

Social security for illegals? Our elected reps say "yes", so there's nothing I can do about it. I'll obey.

Take away my guns? To quote the late Charleton Heston as he held a firearm aloft during a Republican convention: "From my cold dead hands"! Amen to that.



For BrianR, Neo-Nihilist
"Robear, you're the one who seems to let other people think for them, judging by your raising of the irrelevant Limbaugh to begin with, as if he's some kind of Final Arbiter."

Actually, among the numerous posts on this thread that disappeared (?) ealier today, I voiced my opinion on the frightening nature of depending on the rudderless Kennedy to validate the BOR. This sentiment was later echoed by Rush, whom as you know, owes his success to the fact that he gives voice to the thoughts and ideals of many, many Americans--though evidently not yourself.

Naturally, you're entitled to your opinion; but you aren't entitled, however arrogant, to falsely impugn the patriotism of everyone highly concerned over the ethereal thread (5-4 decisions) by which our freedoms hang.

And BTW, I flew solo and likely to your chagrin "thought for myself" in establishing a very substantial net worth, which I intend on keeping by voting for McCain.


Relieved
I thought this would go the other way, but apparently Kennedy woke up on the right side of the bed today and could actually read the constitution. That's good news for us, but I hope I'm not the only one who's just a little miffed that one guy can be the difference as to whether the court can just amend the constitution. I do wonder what would have happened had it gone the other way. The liberal agenda has been on full parade recently, and had these lawyers in black robes actually decided to take our guns away, it might have been the tipping point. Fortunately, and maybe we owe Mrs. Kennedy for this, we can avoid a full fledged rebellion for a little while longer.

BrianR, Thank You Concerning...
my sister-in-law. We knew it was coming; but all of us (including her) had hoped she would last past July 4 and a family reunion planned for that celebration.

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Judge Scalia's prose is superb. And his reasoning is on the mark for the original intent of the Constitution and later decisions.

I also laughed at the number of times that Judge Stevens was called "wrong" or "wrong-headed" (in Judge Scalia's opinion). I dare say the Liberals will have to "invent a new language" to get around the in-depth logic that Judge Scalia used.

SaveTheGuns.com
"Another benefit is that it's awfully fun to split a golf ball in two with a .30 caliber rifle at 100 yards."

It is also fun to split a patched, .490 caliber round ball (fired from a flintock) on an ax blade at 25 yards. But I have no problem with your .30 caliber fun (However, 30-06, .308, .300 Sav, or what?)

NRA Endowment Life Member (With 3 grandchildren who are now all Life Members)

Well, Robear, goody for you

I'm fully retired at 59, living on my investments, so I'm again unimpressed.

Also couldn't care less about Limbaugh's opinion, as I consider him a fatuous blowhard. His brother's obviously the thinker in the family.

George Clooney's also managed to accumulate quite a fortune, so making large amounts of money doesn't earn anyone any special considerations, IMO.

Now.... if you want to discuss your OWN opinion, without resorting to Limbaugh as some form of validation, that's an entirely different issue, and I'll be perfectly happy to do that, with the same courtesy I've afforded Vic and all the others here who've disagreed with me today.

But frankly, I find the whole issue of bemoaning Kennedy and how devilish the four dissenters are completely boring and irrelevant.

I couldn't care less about it.

Wonder what's going to happen next
Mayor Daly up there in Chicago is all bent out of shape over this, as are libs nationwide. If liberal politicians decide simply to ignore this and enforce their gun bans anyway, then what will that say about the finality of the court's decision on anything? If we're lucky this can potentially lead to something that has been desparately needed in this country for over two hundred years, and that is a national debate about role of the court. It was never intended to have the sort of power it has simply assumed itself to have. Anybody with a brain and also you libs out there ought to be able to see that one guy, depending on what mood he happens to be in on any given day should not have the authority to make decisions for the entire counry.

Yeah, Ghost, wasn't it great?

Scalia absolutely didn't spare the rod. I loved it!

Ususally, the prevailing opinion doesn't go to such pains to address and debunk the minority opinion in the body of the opinion itself. I found that pretty unusual.

He did it masterfully. I love it!


BrianR
If you couldn't care less about it, then why take the time to post about it?

Dude, I didn't

I didn't raise the issue anywhere, Rearden.

I responded to one guy who did, which was obviously Robear.

I'm the one who keeps saying that it's irrelevant whether the decision was 5-4 or 6-3 or 9-0.

Never discussed Kennedy at all.

Why don't you read what's already posted before asking the question? Too much work?


Three Cheers
Listen to the socialists all over the country as they're interviewed by the media. There's predictions of rivers of blood and anarchy in the streets of American cities. The Left is having a melt down.

To the Left: We're coming after you WITH our guns. We'll have automatic weapons, SAWs, gattling guns, howitzers, mortars and surface to air missles strapped to our waists. Anyone we find not armed, will be lynched. After that, we're all gonna go out, get drunks and kill each other. It's happening. It's your worst nightmare. Leave the country while you can. Flee to Somalia or North Korea where they're just like you and don't like weapons. Hurry. Get out of here!!!

JD's Handsome Son Lives. He will not be silenced by Townhall censors and thin skinned progressive metro sexuals

Then perhaps you should go away Brian,
since you "find the whole issue of bemoaning Kennedy and how devilish the four dissenters are completely boring and irrelevant."

And you "couldn't care less about it."

It's apparently poignant to many posters here today.

And it's too bad you're frittering away your retirement hanging out here. Particularly since you're so thin skinned. Wasn't it you challenging "Robert" to a fight for quite some time? Yukkety Yuk Yuk.

BrianR
Look holmes, maybe you didn't raise the issue but you made a clear assertion about bemoaning Kennedy and the other four. It IS relevant that four lawyers in black robes decided to amend the constitution from the bench. The point is that it should be 9-0 everytime something as obvious as this comes up, and the fact that it is not should be troubling to everyone. Why is it necessary to read all of your posts, when I was asking a very honest question about something you said, specifically?

R&R (Robear and Rearden)

I should go away, Robear? Someone die and make you the TH police or something? Did I miss the coronation?

That was HILARIOUS, dude!

It's "poignant" (wrong usage of the word; you probably meant "pertinent". Unless, of course, it makes you sad) to YOU maybe, but it seems there are quite a few of us here who don't care about the issue.

I wasn't talking about it when you addressed your initial comment to me. Maybe YOU shoud go away.

And yep on ole Roberto. He never did work up any gonads.

Rearden, ANOTHER wrong word usage; it's "homes" as in "homeboy", not "holmes", unless you're referring to Sherlock, I guess.

And as should be perfectly clear from what I just wrote, I did NOT raise the issue of Kennedy, and this pointless conversation is finished.


MSM Propaganda
Not so subtle MSM propaganda: I noted on Yahoo! News, next to the headline about this, they feature a picture of a person shooting at a target range - firing at a HUMAN silhouette.

Hmmm - wonder why they didn't show someone firing at a normal target such as those in civilian ranges rather than target silhouettes usually found only in law enforcement ranges?

BrianR
Sorry holmboy, I didn't realize that you were the final arbiter on the correct useage of slang. O.K., so you didn't raise the issue of Kennedy, so the hell what? What you said is "But frankly, I find the whole issue of bemoaning Kennedy and how devilish the four dissenters are completely boring and irrelevant." The fact that it can even be this close is neither boring nor irrelevant. However this pointless conversation is over, so I guess I'm just wasting my electronic breath.

Actually, jimbo, in all honesty

I see a lot of silhouette targets on the handgun line at the range I go to. Pretty common.

But your point is well taken. It IS always better dramatically -- as far as the MSM is concerned -- to portray us as *evil* psychos just itchin' to pull the trigger on Granny.


Yep, Rearden, you are

It's pointless and boring to me, I haven't discussed it, I find it irrelevant, so am not interested in discussing it.

The great thing about this country is I can choose which topics I'M going to discuss.

As to the slang, I'm not any arbiter, I simply know the language.

You should feel perfectly free to use the language as you wish, however correctly or incorrectly.


Finally! A Right Decision
Without having read the entire thread of comments, let me offer just my singular observation. I own several handguns and was prepared to be arrested, fined and jailed before giving up a single one. Having already had a break-in, while I was at home, if it weren't for the fact that I was able to get my hands on my weapon I would be dead right now. The perp was armed and I was able to apprehend him to await for the police to take him off. He's already committed two other home invasions one of which resulted in the shooting death of a family member. I have no doubt he would have done the same to me since I could identify him.

My gun saved my life! Would you liberals save my life in such an event?

175 pages to state the flippin' obvious?
What business did that case ever have going to the court in the first place? What's wrong with the plain English of the Constitution that we have so many laws passed against it? That we have to rely on five guys in dresses to tell us what our rights are is sickening.

WILL
You are a paranoid loon. Just say no to drugs or whatever you take and you will not have such paranoid delusions. There's no need for you to worry about all us heterosexual conservative gun toters coming after you-either before or after this decision by SCOTUS. Ridiculous.

BrianR
Okay - you caught me - my favorite gun range is the gravel pit down by the river. My favorite targets are gallon milk jugs filled with water. :-)

BrianR
Look man, you can talk about whatever you want, until Kennedy wakes up on the left side of the bed one day and he and the other four decide you can't, and that is kind of the point.
I know the language too, mi amigo. I can also read it and understand what I am seeing, which is something I cannot say about the four justices and sometimes Kennedy when looking at the constitution. To me it is deadly serious that the court is this out of control, and that is all that I am saying.

Understood, Hank, and I'm not arguing

with you about that. I fully understand the issues at play with the makeup of the bench, and the proclivities of the players.

It's an issue I have discussed many times, and have even written essays about on my blog.

What I'm saying is that MY posts on this column *today* on this topic didn't deal with the split of the decision, it's not a topic I addressed *today*, and it's not one I feel like discussing *today*.

My only comment on this issue was in response to that other guy's comment addressed to *me*, in which HE raised the issue, and cited Limbaugh as if that's the ultimate authority, and no other thoughts count once the Great Rushbo has spoken.

That summarizes the entire participation of moi on that topic, and as I wrote, I'm not interested in discussing it *today*.

I'm sure there are plenty of others who are, if that's your cup of tea.

It's not mine....TODAY.

Still here, Brian?
BrianR the tuff-guy wrote: "It's "poignant" (wrong usage of the word; you probably meant "pertinent". Unless, of course, it makes you sad) to YOU maybe"

No, Brian, I used the term correctly. Poignant, contextually applied, also means keen or strong in mental appeal; affecting or moving the emotions. You lose.

And BTW, Vic cleaned yer clock. Again!

P.S. I'd bet on "Robert" cleaning your clock too.

BrianR
Fair enough. My initial question to you was based soley on curiousity. Actually I'm convinced we're allies on a lot of things, which is why I wanted to clearify my point and to challenge you to clearify yours, which you have.
While I am happy that the court was able to understand english today, it troubles me that it could be so close, and perhaps on another day, you and I can explore that further.
Godspeed.

That's a lie BrianR
"My only comment on this issue was in response to that other guy's comment addressed to *me*, in which HE raised the issue, and cited Limbaugh as if that's the ultimate authority, and no other thoughts count once the Great Rushbo has spoken."

And perhaps it's you that should spend some time re-reading other's posts before attacking them. Better yet, go out and get some air, retired dude. Like I said, "thin-skinned" to the point, in fact, of prevarication.

That all you got, Robear?


(((((((((((((((ya-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-wn)))))))))


SCOTUS scenario
McCain gets elected by independents (pro gun and pro dill folks). Stevens retires, McCain makes his choice (keeping my fingers crossed) and Dems refuse to confirm. We would then be left with 8 justices and perhaps some 4-4 or 5-3 votes. Interesting.

Oh, yeah, Hank, I agree

I've read your blog essays, and we're on essentially the same page.

Obviously, there's no one with whom we'll agree 100% other than our individual selves. And that's fine; it's as it should be.

Today, I'm enjoying parsing and discussing the decision, its impact, and its ramifications.

In other words... soaking up the Sun of a great decision!


As to slamming the Court itself, or whatever, a great discsussion for another time.


"notasurfer", re McCain

I have to say -- and have been saying for quite a while -- this Heller pro-gun decision makes it even EASIER to not vote for McRINO.

Makes him irrelevant on this issue.


What Brian, the TH Tuff-Guy meant to say
WHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Yeah, Robear

Grow up.

We're done here.

How troubling...
to witness Conservatives bicker amongst themselves on such a momentous occasion. This is a time for revelry.

Those discontented with the four liberal justices should help ponder strategies for replacing them.

Let this great day serve as a call for conservatives to unite against our most dangerous enemies.

Ah! It just occurred to me!

"Robear" could be the French pronunciation of "Robert".

That you, Roberto?


Amen, Maximilian!

Exactly! I agree 100%.


Lilly
What a completely prejudiced, uneducated, elitest thing to say.

Sorry to burst your Stereotype but im a 27 yr old college educated, recycling, minority married, gun owning staunch conservative that doesnt smoke, drink, or ride a bike and scored 93 out of 100 in my last fitness exame. Ive read some of your posts before and have decided that we hold completely opposite opinions on just about everything.
Now if you want to talk about people equating "freedom" with lack of personal dicipline i might find some common ground, like abortion for example.

Check out the Pink Pistols!!!!!!
Willie Boy,

You have a knee jerk reaction without the hammer! The NRA has helped form a gay gun rights group which has chapters in almost all states. It's either pinkpistols.org or .net I am not sure so Google it.

They were formed when gays in the cities started buying guns for defense against gay bashers (the real ones who bust in gay bars with bats and tire irons not people who dissent with your agenda).

Local NRA instructors were concerned that so many neophytes with guns posed a safety hazard. They started teaching basic gun safety and then the legal aspects of self defense. Then a surprising thing happened. The gays started their own shooting leagues and went into competition.

The very existence of this group has the San Fran gays in a lather. They don't want gays to be brutalized but they don't want them armed or , God forbid, allied with the NRA.

-Ray
NRA Life Member

Just about
when I thought the SCOTUS could not make a good decision at any point, they get ONE right. Talk about topsy-turvy....wow!

Monday Morning Politicizing
It was nice to hear how Obama has "always been in favor of an individuals right to own a gun" AFTER the ruling has been handed down!!!

Calling Barry Obama an "Empty Suit" is an insult to the suits currently hanging in my closet.

W/O=

Brian,everybody else
I understand, bro. I too was tremendously uplifted when I heard this decision, and particularly heartened when the majority (for once) was written by the brilliant Justice Scalia. I also acknowledge that in this election, assuming the democrats retain control of the senate (which EVERYBODY seems to concede)it doesn't matter all that much who wins. Even if Senator Hothead wins he'll to nominate judges who will then have to be approved by the senate. The four constitutional justices are not likely to go anywhere any time soon. If there are to be vacancies, it will be either Ginsberg or Stevens or both. Even if two mega-libs are appointed we'll be in exactly the same place we are today, and that is with an out of control court deciding our rights based upon the whims of Justice Kennedy. If we really want to solve this problem, we need to focus on the senate, first. Then, the house. The congress has authority to control the courts, they just don't. For all the talk about "change", this ought to be item numero uno.

Yep, Hank, exactamente!

I fully agree, my friend.




BTW, did you see where it looks like "Robear" is probably actually "Robert", our Ageante Provocateur Extraordinaire?

We got totally sidetracked due to his usual gadfly act, under a French alias.

What a waste of time and mental energy for both of us!

Uhh..
Not happy with the decision. None of my neighbors are. The vast majority of DC residents aren't happy either.

Thankfully, all 13 members of the Council and Mayor Fenty have already committed to putting in place new strict gun legislation that the vast majority of voters are in favor of. While it won't be as expansive as the Handgun Ban, it will not be easy or even worth registering a gun in DC. Phil Mendelson is on this issue as we speak!!!

BrianR
I didn't consider it a waste at all. We conservatives are in a perpetual battle to define ourselves against the onslaught of attacks by the drive by media, and as such it is only healthy to define ourselves in the arena of ideas, of which you and I were respectfully engaged.
Robert has proven himself to be an absolute fraud on multiple occaisions. I consider him an afterthought (and if you have a problem with that Robert/what ever the hell you want to call yourself, bring it)
Here's to future conservastion, muchacho.
Be well.

amendment
I meant to say "conversation, muchacho". My bad.

Yeah, ya busted me Brian
"BTW, did you see where it looks like "Robear" is probably actually "Robert", our Ageante Provocateur Extraordinaire?"

What a nitwit you are. Make sure to check under your bed for Wobbie tonight before you turn in.

BTW, since you and I are both in CA, and I indeed have a helo pad at my ranch (Northern CA) come on up, tuff-guy,and I'll show you why I'm called RoBear. Yer French sucks.

And it was indeed rewarding to see that I provoked you. More to come!

DC is already telling SCOTUS to stick it
I encourage everyone to read the the City of DC's website to see their response to the ruling. While they are getting ready to establish a registration scheme, they have already stated that they will not allow semi-automatic handguns to be registered.

Back to the Courts we go, folks.

Chris
"DC is already telling SCOTUS to stick it"

Yes we are.

"While they are getting ready to establish a registration scheme, they have already stated that they will not allow semi-automatic handguns to be registered."

And the problem is?

"Back to the Courts we go, folks."

Well bring it on.

Ralph Ellison
Ralph,

Please put a big sign on your house identifying it as a gun free zone. Have fun with whoever shows up.

Put up or shut up - big guy.

Chris

Ralph Ellison
So let me get this straight, you don't care what the Supreme Court says? Is that right?

Chris
"Please put a big sign on your house identifying it as a gun free zone. Have fun with whoever shows up."

Wow, what a unoriginal "dare". I've heard this "dare" from several of your kind. Well, my block actually has one on our corner. Also being that almost every home in my neighborhood and throughout the city does not have a firearm, I think that point is pretty much obvious.

I don't have a gun: never have and never will. I'm not afraid in my neighborhood nor are afraid of my neighbors. I don't need guns or bars to feel "safe and snuggly". I also don't believe in bunkering myself in my home, afraid of my own shadow. Furthermore, I try to be visible in my community and mentor at risk youth.

I do "put up" Chris. Now, how bout you shut up!!!

Or you can answer this question: What are you doing to stem the tide of illegal guns in this nation?

Ralph Elllison
My question remains.

HankRearden
"So let me get this straight, you don't care what the Supreme Court says? Is that right?"

Of course I care what the SCOTUS says. I'm not happy with this decision (as are a majority of DC residents), but I'll survive. Trust me, we in DC are used to not having our voice heard. However, my city is going to do what the court has recommended and pass common-sense, reasonable regulations to protect their citizens against gun violence.

As the city has stated,

"The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home. In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies."

Pretty reasonable I say. Now, do you want us to do away with all regulation of guns?

BTW HankRearden
Are you now a big fan/perpetual defender of the SCOTUS now? I seem to recall numerous occasions where cons have been quite upset/flippant toward the Court's decisions. I guessing you didn't care about the recent decision on detainees or did you? Did you agree with Scalia's comments on the case, including the following:

– “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

– “Today the Court warps our Constitution.”

– “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today"

Rather strong, don't you agree?

Robear, you are such a loser

Yeah, pal, like you have any gonads, you nutless brainless wonder.

As many times as I've offered to fly you -- at my expense -- from anywhere to LA so we could meet "in person", your latest little drek posting is truly pathetic.

Just FYI, schmoe, the reason I'd made direct contact with you lately was that you'd actually started to sound rational, and I was willing to help you deal with the TH folks on your permanent ban.


Needless to say, "luke skywalker" (man..... was THAT lame. How old are you, anyway?), the reason I didn't respond to you was that your prior posts obviously had been written when your meds were working.



Yes, folks, Robear/Robert's email address is "luke-skywalker@whatever.com.


Is THAT pathetic, or what?


Ralph Ellison
I'm glad you decided to engage me in this argument. Also, I appreciate your supplying for me an argument to debate. I've read the mayor's opinion, and I will submit to you that it doesn't matter; the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants (now), and you will have to abide by it because that is the way our political system is currently contrived. If you find fault with that then WELCOME TO THE CLUB. Now, the gun ban you submitted is not reasonable; someone in their home with a disassembled firearm cannot defend themselves against someone entering their home with an assembled firearm (there's a time problem).
To answer your direct question, yes, I want the congress to do away with all regulation of guns.

In reply to Ralph
Who so eloquently states:

"I do "put up" Chris. Now, how bout you shut up!!! Or you can answer this question: What are you doing to stem the tide of illegal guns in this nation?"

I can't speak for Chris, but in my neck of the woods, shut up is good advice; as in "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up"

The meth-addicts running wild in my state are syphoning our diesel storage tanks and stealing wiring, fixtures, a/c coils and anything else to sell to get their fix. They usually are armed with sawed-off shotguns (typically stolen heirlooms or very valuable and prized posessions nonetheless).

My DS Arms .308 thankfully has a much better range and accuracy, thereby "stemming the tide of illegal guns in this nation."

Not good enough for you? Maybe you could come out here and talk some sense into them?

Ralph Ellison
You are a lightweight.

HankRearden
I must start with you last point. You stated that you want all gun regulation to be abolished. Funny thing is that today's opinion as well as the position of the NRA does not agree with your assertion/hope. That's a rather broad/very small minority position Hank that not even the NRA agrees with. So you want no regulation of any kind on firearms/weapons? Wow! I don't think that will ever or should ever happen.

With that being said, I think it's best to agree to disagree on this topic. I can see that this convo/debate will have no end nor hope of some common ground on this DC issue. You have your (admittedly extreme) position and I have mine. Have a nice night!

Ralph Ellison
Ralph,

Couple of thoughts. It would be interesting to know in which sector of DC you live. My guess, it is a more upscale neighborhhod that gets plenty of police presence. Do you ever spend much time in places like Southeast DC? If not, please move there and tell your neighbors that they don't deserve the right to protect themselves in their own home. If you don't want a gun, fine. But to use the force of government to disarm your fellow citizens is pretty slimy. Actually, what you do is the height of cowardice. You arm police to disarm your fellow citizens. Why don't you do that yourself?

Second, how I fight illegal guns is to fight for laws that respect our constitution and encourage as many good citizens to have legal guns - thereby letting nare-do-wells know that they face a high likelihood of being shot if they attempt to hurt innocent citizens. And by being armed, I don't need to be bunkered down in my house. I have the capability of dealing with the trash of society that you seem to want to protect by disarming the good guys.

And I must say, it kind of makes me worry what type of mentoring you are doing with at-risk youth.


Gotta love it, Brian!
"Subject: Robear, you are such a loser

Yeah, pal, like you have any gonads, you nutless brainless wonder.

As many times as I've offered to fly you -- at my expense -- from anywhere to LA so we could meet "in person", your latest little drek posting is truly pathetic.

Just FYI, schmoe, the reason I'd made direct contact with you lately was that you'd actually started to sound rational, and I was willing to help you deal with the TH folks on your permanent ban.


Needless to say, "luke skywalker" (man..... was THAT lame. How old are you, anyway?), the reason I didn't respond to you was that your prior posts obviously had been written when your meds were working.



Yes, folks, Robear/Robert's email address is "luke-skywalker@whatever.com.


Is THAT pathetic, or what?"

================================================
Brian, dear soul,

Your entire, highly neurotic and paranoid screed is worth everyone reading again. In fact, it shall remain immortal in TH history.

LA huh? That explains a lot.

Just so you can sleep tonight, my email is robear@isp.com

I'm genuine, and obviously fear nothing.





Cont'd
"You are a lightweight."

Seems as if you want to insult rather than debate. I thought you would answer the question at least. I thought you were different from a lot of the posters on TH Hank. My mistake.

Obama - What Is His Real Stance on Guns
After today's SCOTUS decision, Sen. Obama said he stood by the decision and acknowledged a person's right to own a gun. My question is: How does this square with his litmus test to appoint justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? In a separate dissent she states that the 2nd Amendment does not give the right to own guns to anyone but members of the militia. Will Obama stand by the courts decision and agree with them if he appoints another Ginsburg to the bench and this decision is overturned?

Sure he will. It is convenient for him for is re-election bid in 2012.

R-i-i-i-i-i-ght, "Robear"

Or should I say "Luke".

By the way, "Luke", be sure to say "hi" for me to Princess Leia and Han Solo, too.

What a dweeb.....


Ralph Ellison
You addressed my last point because you cannot or will not adress the other points I made. No bother, I'm used to it from leftist/idiots like yourself. I don't really care what the NRA says, my interest is personal liberty. Have a good night, lightweight.

Chris
"It would be interesting to know in which sector of DC you live."

Ward 5. Not exactly Georgetown or Ward 3 to say the least.

"My guess, it is a more upscale neighborhhod that gets plenty of police presence."

Obviously no.

"Do you ever spend much time in places like Southeast DC?"

Being that this is the place where I volunteered and worked for every summer from 14-22 as well as can walk to, I know what Southeast is. Now, are you trying to classify a whole quadrant of the city as dangerous. Typical tourist viewpoint.

"If you don't want a gun, fine. But to use the force of government to disarm your fellow citizens is pretty slimy."

So guns are the answer Chris? Rather slimy and naive. As for force of govt, why it that over 70% of residents agreed with the ban?

"Actually, what you do is the height of cowardice."

No Chris. Bunkering yourself with guns is cowardice. Now where do you live?

"You arm police to disarm your fellow citizens. Why don't you do that yourself?"

So I'm the bad guy? The MPD is the bad guy? he plurality of DC residents are the bad guys?

"...thereby letting nare-do-wells know that they face a high likelihood of being shot if they attempt to hurt innocent citizens."

So more guns are the answer? Also, your state is not helping the situation. Thousands of guns are traced back to your state because your lax gun laws.

"And by being armed, I don't need to be bunkered down in my house. I have the capability of dealing with the trash of society that you seem to want to protect by disarming the good guys."

So I want to protect criminals?

"And I must say, it kind of makes me worry what type of mentoring you are doing with at-risk youth."

It makes me worry that you have a gun. I'm getting this Bernhard Goetz vibe from you. Thankfully, I'm sure you and your kind have more yesterdays than tomorrows.

HankRearden
Well Hank, I know that there will always be some sort of restriction on the sale of firearms and weapons in the USA. Sorry, but that will never change.

Splinters in my scrotum
1 bad hair day by Kennedy, and this Country erupts into chaos. As he balances himself atop a swinging fence, We The People await his Decree of who we are, and where we are going.

Go ahead, Brian
Email me bro.

Or are you afraid, tuff-guy?

Protecting the Endangered Black Male...

Unlike Washington DC, Detroit's Black residents are now allowed to carry concealed weapons (Hooray!). The results speak for themselves. Crime is slowly dropping in Detroit as CCW permits slowly increase.

The growing fear of Pistol-Packing Black men in Detroit is sending criminals to the "safer" White suburbs. Local media reports that Detroit's suburbs are seeing a surge in armed robbery, car-jacking, purse snatching, etc.

Just today, the suburb of Warren reported an all time record of 11 high-speed chases in one day. All of the arrested were Detroit residents looking for a "safer" target audience.

Opponents of urban gun permits really look down at Black folks as idiots and morons. Very common view in Democrat circles.





Ralph
I live in a nice community south of DC where the level of gun ownership is very high and the crime is very low...go figure...

And I don't bunker myself with guns, I legally arm myself with guns so that I at least have a chance to defend myself and my family. Haven't had to do it yet, thank goodness, but at least I know that I am prepared to.

Bernard Geotz - kind of interesting how idiot liberals like yourself try to paint every gun owner as a vigilante. My guess is that you are a huge fan of Robert Mugabe - you know that scumbag dictator who disarmed his populace and is now killing them with his armed thugs. He, like you, believe in a disarmed populace. Guess youare a Robert Mugabe.

And I am not a tourist. Lived in the area the past four years. DC crime all over is a lot worse than where I live. Looks like the ban really worked out for ya.

Hahahahahaha, "Robaire/Luke skywalker"

Dude... you have my email. You've used it with your lame-oid "luke skywalker" nom-du-dweeb.

If you suddenly grew some cojones, let me know. Offer still stands. I'll fly you here on my dime.


What? No Responses?
I noticed that those opposed to handgun ownership did not respond to my point in #147. I did notice that several within this thread see no problem with a shotgun or rifle in one's home. Yet, given their sizes, it is not practical and virtually impossible to hide from one's view in the case of a home intruder.
So again, let me ask this question -- With a ban on handguns in the home, in light of the noted intruder in my situation (#147), should I have just prayed he wouldn't shoot me (like he did another), or disobey the law and possess a handgun. My choice is obvious: I would go to jail, and/or pay the fine before being killed by a home intruder because I had to give up my gun.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Robaire/Luke

whatever you're calling yourself this minute!


Man, you are sooooooooooooo totally pathetic!


Do you keep like a little Ouija board around, with poker chips marking which identity you're using at any given minute to try to keep your scorecard straight?

Okay, the laugh factor's been great, but this is a waste of column space.

We're done.

I'm back to ignoring you now.


What? No Responses?
I noticed that those opposed to handgun ownership did not respond to my point in #147. I did notice that several within this thread see no problem with a shotgun or rifle in one's home. Yet, given their sizes, it is not practical and virtually impossible to hide from one's view in the case of a home intruder.
So again, let me ask this question -- With a ban on handguns in the home, in light of the noted intruder in my situation (#147), should I have just prayed he wouldn't shoot me (like he did another), or disobey the law and possess a handgun. My choice is obvious: I would go to jail, and/or pay the fine before being killed by a home intruder because I had to give up my gun.