Court says individuals have right to own guns

Hold on to your hats - this seed is gonna get huge. Killfile plus msnbc seed plus gun rights... I'll check back later but if this doesn't go over 500 comments in the next week i'll eat a hat.

Cities have the responsibility to protect their residents! If gun crimes is an issue for one city it's the responsibility of the city hall to take measures even if it means a specific gun ban, even if it's temporary.

If they wanted to pass laws that increased punishments for committing crimes with a firearm, then I am OK with that. Simply banning guns of any type only keeps them out of the hands of the law-abiding since criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. In addition, states that have enacted concealed carry laws have seen a reduction in crime. There is no better deterrent to criminals than not knowing which potential victims may be armed.

"Cities have the responsibility to protect their residents!"

Really? Look up cases where individuals have tried to hold police departments liable for not protecting them. Heck, read what started this trial in the first place! It is the duty of the police to enforce the law, and to hold law breakers accountable for their actions, but it is NOT their responsibility to PREVENT crime from occurring. It is YOUR right and responsibility to protect yourself. The DC ban and others like it remove the individual's ability to reasonably protect themselves.

Now that "keep" has been defined, let's start discussing our right to "bear" arms...

I think Scott above is right, heh this should shut down this server as many people that probably will comment on this :)

But the question is: "all guns?" The DC ban was broad, but does government have the ability to tell you "you can't have this kind of gun?"

Killfile,

Not if it is a God given right as stated by those bound and determined to keep thier rights. :)

Killfile plus msnbc seed plus gun rights

Killfile is a brave, brave man. Or else he's completely insane; or maybe he loves his delete button :)

Hold on to your hats - this seed is gonna get huge. Killfile plus msnbc seed plus gun rights... I'll check back later but if this doesn't go over 500 comments in the next week i'll eat a hat.

Save your hat. Try 500 comments in less than 5 hours.

I'll check back later but if this doesn't go over 500 comments in the next week i'll eat a hat.

No need.

Change all those 200 plus years laws two hundred years we did not have all the loonies walking as we do now, so the laws should be changed to fit the here and the now!

I'm not sure I'm translating that correctly, but I think you're very confused.

We need to keep arms with our government beginning to turn Communistic on us and with a Presidentail candidate who admits being a Marxist or Marxist sympathizer and friend of Communists.

Re-read the declaration of Independence. A people has a right to rise up when unjustly governed.

Just who might this "Marxist" candidate be?

If you only knew what your Government is not telling you or what happens behind closed doors. :)

Christ, the entire democratic party is just Marxism under a new name.

Can you defend that assertion using precise references to Marx's texts and the tenets explained therewithin?

Can YOU honestly say the democratic platform is anything other than socialism? If so, then what would YOU describe it as?

That the Democratic party platform IS exactly socialism is a postulate. It needs no proof, it just is. They have taken a nice sounding name, "democratic" which implies "democracy", and attached it to a platform where the goal is to implement as much socialism and the public will accept.

Everything Democratic policy is more and bigger government, nationalize everything to the degree they can sell the public, and they are more than willing to accomplish this piece by piece over time.

yeah coughBradyCampaigncough

HAHA tonight I'm going to tell the wife if she wants to buy a house in D.C., it's now fine by me LOL

Fear and paranoia, its the GOP way!!!!!!

Fear, paranoia, recklessness, profligacy, greed, superstition, immorality, duplicity, poor judgment, poor education, and a kangaroo court. That's their way too.

That's the DNC way. Get a clue.

Well Kriblet if you don't like it either move to another country, I hear England is nice and anti gun, or never come here, whichever the case may be..

deleted, wrong thread

smpcompdude and Augies, what planet have you been living on the past 7.5 years? Losers.

"The Supreme Court says the ban is illegal. Thatt is it. Those who disagree need to quit whining and let it go."

Gee, if the SC decision had been in the reverse, then guess who would be whining big time!

He didn't ignore it. It was never part of the case and well regulated militias are well established. Think!

the amendment states
which has three statements that are clearly seen here.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state = Government which was the state back then must protect itself in order to stay free.

the right of the people = the right of my individual privacy of my choice to,

keep and bear arms, keep = own, protect, prevent, honor

bear= accept somthing as a resposibility,

shall not be infringed = encrouch on somebodys rights or property (privacy), disobey or disregard.

Now ask yourself one question? what would you do if someone came into your house and had a gun pointed at you or your family, what would you do? ask for a time out? ask the intruder if he would like to play scrabble? I do have a 360 maybe they would like to do that instead or maybe I can ask to play with water guns instead, i dont know? what do you think?

If I was making the rules now for D.C., I'd just ban the ownership of handgun bullets!

The "militia" was every able bodied male between 18 and 45, "well regulated" meant well trained in the use of arms. Sigh.. do you people EVER do any research on an issue you are phobic about.

"If I was DC, I'd say, o.k., you can own a gun in the District as soon as you pay the $1,000,000 per gun tax. And, if you get caught in the District with a firearm not registered in the District, the tax is double. This certainly would not "prohibit" ownership...and the District could use the dough."

Why cant people get it through their heads that criminals are not going to pay taxes or follow laws and they are going to have guns anyway? Do you actually think that incredibly stupid idea of yours would actually get rid of all the handguns in DC? Also did you know that after the handgun ban was put in place, violent crimes in DC actually went up, while in the rest of the country they were going down?

Just like any written word it's subject to interpretation especially when we want to interpret it in our favor.

oh so raise taxes yet again? typical.

And as to what Bert stated, criminals wouldn't care about that either..

if you read a lot of documents from the late eighteenth century, you will see that the syntax is quite different than what we use today, a fact which makes it kind of hard to interpret the section regarding militias in the same sense that we would read it commonly today. the comma which separates "well regulated militia" from the right to keep and bear arms would indicate, by the common syntax of the time, that these statements are somewhat independent of each other in that they are not necessarily dependent upon one another. this complicates attempts to interpret these writings today. luckily, the members of the supreme court are highly educated and can no doubt take this into account. i bring this up here because i understand that not everyone spends much time pouring over antiquated syntax in the english language, and so it would be easy to think of those statements as dependent from our current usage.

This shows what Scalia's true colors are -- instead of interpreting the actual language of the Constitution he ignores the "well regulated militia" aspect of the amendment, says the Constitution does not speak to state regulation of firearms and so strikes down the law. I see somebody didn't bother to actually read the decision. I know, it's 156 pages long, and uses difficult to understand words of more than one or two syllables. No sense actually looking at what it says, when you can just channel the spirits and divine the argument Scalia,, et al, put forward.

Hell, why work at it?

The anti-federalists wouldn't accept the Constitution without some specific amendments guaranteeing irrevocable rights of the people (not rights of the state), aka the Bill of Rights... This much is a given.

Here's where the logic of the left parts company with anything remotely resembling reality. So they wrote a Bill of Rights of the people, and in these rights they listed a right of the government to arm its military... Huh? That's beyond insane.

Every single item listed in the first 8 amendments is to prohibit the state from abridging rights of the individual.

THE PEOPLE have the right to speak freely.
THE PEOPLE have the right to worship as they see fit.
THE PEOPLE have the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure.

So now the left wants to say the 2nd, unlike all the other amendments, means "the government has the right to be armed"???? That is so stupid as to be blatantly insulting to a normal person's intelligence.

Furthermore, there are many, many recorded statements from both the federalists and anti-federalists alike extolling the virtues of an freely armed society, and the protection from tyranny that could only be guaranteed by having armed populace - and not even one stating that the government should control arms in any way.

The "well regulated militia" speaks to the belief of the founders that a militia, not a standing army, is the proper defense of a free state, and to preserve this as a working defense mechanism, the people need to be armed. The second part of their original intent was to be sure the people would always have the means to throw the government out if it attempted to become tyrannical, i.e. if their actions ticked off enough people to band together and depose them forcibly.

There's an enormous debate surrounding the text of the amendment itself.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," the amendment passed by the House and the Senate, is not "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the text distributed to and ratified by the states.

That being said, I doubt that this decision will have the widespread implications people assume it will have. The second amendment is one of the only of the Bill of Rights to have never been incorporated upon the states. Because DC is not a state, its laws are held to the same standard as all federal laws. Therefore the decision will apply to Congress and to DC but will not necessarily serve as precedent for the interpretation of state laws.

Killfile Don't kid yourself. The 2nd Amendment is a grammarian's nightmare.

haha and everyone seems to be a scholar on either side that can decipher it perfectly :)

You are kidding, right! The U.S supreme Court just interpreted the United States Constitution in a particular fashion. Of course it is binding on States and state laws. Any government - Federal, State, County or Municipal - must act constitutionally.
Man, we need better constitutional education in this country!

No it's not.

The Constitution is designed to protect citizens from the national government, not state or local governments. While it is true that many of the Constitutional provisions have been incorporated upon the states through Court decisions relying on the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment is not one of those provisions. And as this decision interpreted a DC law, not a state law, it does not serve to thusly incorporate.

That's not to say that the Court could not do so by means of a different decision. But it has not done so at this time.

Obviously we do need better Constitutional education. I suggest David O'Brien's Constitutional Law and Politics texts--those are the ones I use when I teach the subject to undergraduate students.

Um Yes it is binding that is one of the issues the Civil War was fought over. Could states disregard federal laws. The answer, no they cannot. For further reference see section 109 of the Constitution (which the states agreed to) "When a law of the State is inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid" hence Federal trumps State

Incorporation is a fundamental premise in constitutional law and your interpretation remains incorrect.

In fact, in this very decision, Justice Scalia (who wrote the opinion for the Court) discussed the incorporation of the first amendment upon the states relative to the Establishment Clause, a decision that came in 1948. He did so without insinuating that today's decision would serve that purpose same for the 2nd amendment.

If you are taching undergrads, I certainly hope that you are not teaching them that a State law or municipal ordinance can usurp a Constitutional Right...which is precisely what you seem to be saying here!

Respectfully, I am not confusing anything. We are not talking about a federal law vs a State law. We are talking about a Constitutional right vs a State law. Admittedly, I have not yet read this opinion, but if it states that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution guarantees an individual's right to own guns, then that right can can not be usurped by any government.

You may not think that you're confused, but you are incorrect.

The Court determined in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. In two late 19th Century decisions, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment only restricts the federal government. Although the Court soon afterward began the process of incorporation that resulted in the application of nearly all the Bill of Rights against the states, it has never done so for the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment has never been incorporated onto the states via the 14th amendment.

There has not been a Supreme Court decision on the incorporation of the 2nd amendment since 1876 when it was rejected.

This decision does not change that fact. The case (which, by the way, I have read in its entirety) concerns a DC law, not a state law. Therefore, incorporation is not an issue. Moreover, in his opinion for the Court, Scalia mentions the practice of incorporation with regard to parts of the First Amendment yet clearly makes no effort to insinuate that this decision would thusly apply the Second Amendment to the states.

The benefits are huge for any regular practitioner. Many athletes of one sport or another, such as martial arts, baseball, and soccer, train with firearms to improve their abilities in their individual sport. It really helped my martial arts, and I find myself better balanced for it when I rock climb.

Except that since this law was placed into effect violent crime in DC was higher in the majority of years since the ban went into effect. This includes a 9% jump in violent crime last year, and a required re-tally to be done on prior years for falsified numbers. So, why is this important? Read "Lee NJ77's" write-up directly above yours. If you take a look at any area with significant gun restrictions - and I'm not talking about waiting days, no guns for criminals, and keeping tanks in the military; those are completely separate issues - violent crime rises. The reason is, if a person is going to rob you, do they really care if owning a gun is added on to the crime they commit? Even more, they also know that the majority of law abiding citizens are now unarmed.

Exactly, when London took away all rights to carry firearms in the city, crime rose more than 200% within the first year.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to assure we citizens can continue to protect ourselves from an overbearing US government or foreign governments that would do us harm. The fore fathers came from an oppressive situation under British rule. Just as we did during the Revolutionary War, they wanted the ordinary citizen to have the right to rise against the US government should it ever attempt to become what it is now trying to become. Organized militias in the 1700s would consist of farmers and simple town folk getting together and organizing themselves to protect their families and property. The interpretation of a standing militia is not the police or a standing army. If that is what the fore fathers meant, they would have said standing army or police.

The fore fathers knew exactally what they meant in the 2nd amendment. Shame on the leberal judges that spoke to have this right removed.

So what you are saying is NOBODY in DC should own guns. Well that is pretty much what the defeated law said. But you also say that you hear gunshots all the time in the middle of the night. I guess the criminals did not know about the law because if they did they would get rid of their guns. Typical liberal BS. What you are saying does not make any sense. Everybody has a RIGHT for self preservation - PERIOD. The criminals don't care what the laws are - you admit that in your statement - you hear gunshots at night. Why make it illegal for me to own a gun and protect myself?

How come Chevy Chase, Bethesda and Northern Virginia don't have problems with"gun-fire in the middle of the night"? They are adjacent to the District.

Maybe it's because criminals know people in those areas can carry guns.

Question, "Would you rather rob a liquor store in DC (where up until now it was illegal to own a handgun) or in Virginia (where every liquor store owner has a gun under the counter)? Not a hard decision for even the dumbest of criminals.

Also, Where in the second amendment does it says anything about hunting?

If you don't want to carry a gun; don't. That's your right. However, I have the right to do so if I choose. Who says so? The Supreme court says so.

Actually, in Virginia liquor stores are owned and operated by the state government, and the employees of these stores are prohibited from keeping firearms on the premises.

Roger,
I am not sure when you lived in the District but for the past 30 plus years, it has been illegal for a private citizen to possess a handgun. The gunfire you heard most likely was either police protecting DC citizens or criminals who couldn't have cared less about gun restriction laws. I am relieved that the Supreme Court made this particular decision. I pray that I am never in a position to have to defend my family against thugs but if I am, I will not have to worry that doing so is unconstitutional because I use a gun.

Olivia, you are right on target. The DC laws did nothing except create a happy hunting ground for society's outcasts. The average criminal likes it when their prey are unarmed.

Look at the crime trends in Florida since they passed their CC ordinance. Violent crime has decreased. On the other hand, look at England's crime rate since they banned the private ownership of firearms; their violent crime rate has increased dramatically.

tell that to the criminals as well, oh wait they won't listen to your reasoning either.

You're right. No one hunts 6-point bucks on streets downtown or in Suburbia. But I shoot targets, varmints (not political ones, hehe) and live game in numerous places appropriate to do so, and I live in the city limits of one of our largest cities. Does this make my ownership and use suspect or even inappropriate? Absolutely not. Do criminals care what I normally do with my guns? Absolutely not! Once stolen from me, are criminals going to use them or sell them on the black market? Cetrainly.

All of my guns and ammunition, except for one handgun, spend their time at home in a gun safe along with tax statements, titles and deeds, cash, expensive jewelry, and other personal valuables.

WHY? to keep them from criminals! Criminals who do not care about others rights, possessions, or lives, and most certainly don't care about laws- especially as "soft" as the laws are in the end come prosecution time.

I never wanted any more than a .22 pistol for recreational shooting UNTIL my home was robbed. I made a police report and included model and serial numbers for my guns. I bought a cheap military surplus field rifle that weekend, and a large-bore handgun (after a week-long delay for the Brady background check) within a few weeks. 8 months later, two of my guns were returned recovered by the ATF and Houston P.D. I bought the gun safe three days after that.

My guns were recovered from a hot gun "fencer" the ATF had staked out, infiltrated, and raided a month after my home burglary occured. The ATF had been undercover inside his "business" for three weeks and seen over a hundred guns come and go.

After his lawyers got through selling wild interpretations of laws for his criminal trial, he received 6 months in County jail for possession of stolen property. That's it. 6 MONTHS IN JAIL. HE had bragged to the undercover agent that he switched from selling drugs to selling guns because they were readily available on the black market, and he knew the consequences for getting caught were less than if it were cocaine, meth, or heroin.

Want to know where laws fail the good people? Here is a shining example of criminals getting more leniency and the good people suffering more difficulties and encumbrance due to poor lawmaking and judicial execution of the laws.

This begs the question: Why are our criminal laws watered down and so soft by the time the sentence comes down for the crime? Why is there so much sympathy placed on criminals, and so much scrutiny placed on the honest, law-abiding people? Is there any wonder that criminals aren't that worried about the consquences of their actions?

THawk, regarding a distinction between a militia and a standing army, this issue would have been very important during the historical context of the writing of the amendment. the issue of a standing army was quite sensitive in early U.S. history, with a great deal of opposition to the very idea of having one. militant civilian action, militia-like, was actually thought of by many as a better alternative to a standing army, due in large part to the issue of federal vs. state power raised by the notion of something as powerful and institutionalized as a standing federal army. of course, this same perspective was also typically harshly isolationist, where military action would not be organized for mass exportation to other parts of the world, and so simple self-defense was quite a different matter. i just bring this up to give some historical context for the 2nd amendment that might shed some light on the distinction between original intent and the use of the term "militia".

Would you rather rob a liquor store in DC (where up until now it was illegal to own a handgun) or in Virginia (where every liquor store owner has a gun under the counter)? Not a hard decision for even the dumbest of criminals.

In addition to being mistaken. I am not planning on robbing a liquor store. Are you?

The impact on liquor store robberies is just one aspect of such a law.

You can load questions how ever you want:
Would you rather live in a country with more accidental deaths or fewer accidental deaths?

All else being equal most people would prefer the former, of course they never are and it depends upon what is done to reduce accidental deaths. One proven way is to limit ownership of handguns, of course thats not the only consequence.

militant civilian action, militia-like, was actually thought of by many as a better alternative to a standing army,

They could have used the words civilian or "miltia-like" of course they didnt and in fact used the very different phrase "a well regulated militia". Who regulated the militia? The State did. What is part of a well regulated militia? Well part of it is regulating who has firearms and who has support roles among others.

So by all means lets look at the history and the actual words used.

Its not like they didnt know how to refer to an individual persons when they chose to. The Fifth Amendement was worded completely differently from the Second.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Funny how the so called strict constructionists now want to ignore the language about Militia and free State when its not convient and pretend it was worded like the fifth amendment.

Well regulated militias are used to put down insurrections in the State not promote them.

Killfil: The "source" is that Obama is against gun-ownership. If he cannot confiscate your guns, he would find a way to prevent you from getting your hands on ammunition. There will only be pocket change left for everyone after he is taxed us to death. That is the true "change" he is promoting. Pocket change. Steal from the rich through excessive taxation and give to the poor. Socialism anyone? No thanks! I worked hard for my money, and he won't get his hands on it.

Killfile, do you really think that he would post this on his website? Obama doesn't want you to know. But all you have to do is check is previous statements and his voting record. He is very clear on this. Ban all gus.

If it's so obvious, you should have no trouble coming up with evidence.

So prove it.

Courts: You have not been looking hard enough. Keep looking and you will find Obama's anti-gun ownership stance. He knows he will not have his wind on his back on this one, so his position is not widely publicized because it would detract from his so called "appeal" to the masses. Do you really believe that an ultra-liberal like Obama would consent to you owning a gun? Hardly!

That's not how this works. If his stance is so obvious, you shouldn't have any problem whatsoever providing evidence. All you have provided thus far is assertional and generalization, assertions you cannot document and generalizations that do not hold water (I, for example, am an ultra-liberal who owns several guns). If you can't provide evidence, you shouldn't be surprised that no one takes you seriously.

Courts: Where did you go astray? An ultra-liberal owning "several" guns. My, oh my! I think you may be a sheep in wolf's clothing and not the other way around.

Obama's anti-gun ownership stance

Since you have apparently become distracted from the topic at hand, I'll ask again: do you have any documentation whatsoever to support your assertions?

Courts: You have not been looking hard enough. Keep looking and you will find Obama's anti-gun ownership stance.

Sonia, have you looked at all? If you have seen the proof of this stance, then cite it here. As Killfile stated above, here on NV the onus is on the commenter to provide proof of what they are claiming. Stop insulting Courts because she, like most of us here, expects you to be able to back up your statements.

It would be dumb to contend that Obama doesn't have a reflexive anti-gun streak, since the information is so easily gathered. But it would also be a mistake to think that his position hasn't shifted somewhat over the last decade. I'm not worried that he would immediately take action to ban guns in America, especially in light of this ruling by the Court, but I don't think anyone can deny that he has been in the past supportive of gun bans (both in practice and in theory), or that in general he's opposed to widespread gun ownership.

During the Clinton , Obama debates, both candidates expressed that they would do all they could to reenact the "assault weapons ban>" And if you are ignorant as they, Assault weapons have been banned since 1935, and still are.

You Republicans will make up anything you can and you're not even slightly bothered that it is all lies. Obama has stated that he understands that people feel a right toown guns and that hunters certainly are not a problem. He states that we just have to find a way to keep them out of the hands of those who would use them in an unlawful manner - citing the 27 young people killed in Chicago in drive-by shootings just this year. He has no desire to ban guns so try a new lie for a change - this one is so over!

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and "research."8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. ()

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in "Obama had greater role on liberal survey," Politico, March 31, 20087. ()

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. ()

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, 2/15/08. ()

5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.

6. "Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record." Obama '08, December 11, 2007. ()

7. "Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. ()

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. ()

9. "Obama and Gun Control," The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. ()

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. "Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control," Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. ()

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, "Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action," February 15, 2008, ()

14. Barack Obama campaign website: "As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . ." (#crime-and-law-enforcement.)

source

there is the proof

It would be dumb to contend that Obama doesn't have a reflexive anti-gun streak,

Its "dumb" to make such ill founded subjective contentions with such loaded terms.
Its not at all dumb to contend that Obama doesnt have a "reflexive anti-gun streak" since its not at all dumb to reject such loaded pejorative terminology.

You link doesnt support the subjective view that his position is "reflexive." I think its dumb to pretend that supporting any gun restrictions is sufficient to assume that someone has a relexive "anti-gun streak."

Did you read your own link?

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

See the great thing about our Constitutional rights is that I support (under the First Amendment) your right to make such a ludicrous statement. Our rights are there for a purpose, to protect a greater end.

your screen name says it all do you think someone does not have the right to bear arms if so move to china

"Wow...could you imagine Americans NOT having the means to kill eachother senselessly...at work, in our schools, or at home???"

Not having the means? You mean, take away every single tool that has the potential to inflict harm, and then bind our hands and feet? Tools have never committed murder, without the human to use it they just sit there. Taking away one tool does NOT in any way control the human aspect of the problem, which is the only problem.
I honestly can't imagine Americans NOT having the means to kill each other senselessly, it means that we would have nothing with no control or ability to make decisions for ourselves. As someone who HAS lost friends and loved ones to violence, I can still easily say that not having any means will never be worth the sacrifice, the risk is more than worth it for the freedoms that come with it.

Move to England, crime is going through the roof, only criminals have guns (police actually do not want to carry them because they are being prosecuted for harming criminals) and they want to allow you no self defense what so ever, and only have butter knives as criminals are stabbing people, if they don't have guns... Your utopia of stupidity in government is just across the pond.

maybe we can get that computer thing with the marbles in minority report and just execute every who might commit a crime... lol

Wow...could you imagine Americans NOT having the means to kill eachother senselessly...at work, in our schools, or at home???

Gee, we'd all end up watching more evil porn without those guns!

At least our highest court and the fascist regime continue to give us the opportunity to be stupid and violent.

It's our right!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's see, ...the means to kill each other senselessly...at work, in our schools...." If you research the most recent school shootings, I'm pretty sure that there are both Federal and State laws that prohibit carrying a firearm on a school campus. This is fine for the law biding citizen. But for the psychopathic killer, it means happy hunting grounds. In Israel, a country surrounded by those who would like to see them wiped of the face of the earth, there has never been a school (or an Israeli airplane for that matter) ever taken over by a terrorist group. Ever wonder why? It's because the citizens of Israel are armed; which includes teachers and airline pilots. WE have created killing zones in our schools and at the work place by ensuring that no-one in these institutions have a means of protecting themselves - psychopathic killers perfer unarmed prey. I guarntee that those that rose up against Nazi terror in the Warsaw ghetto wished that those in power had not taken their firearms from them. Brave as they were, they couldn't hold off Nazis with firearms - and in the end, thousands perished - I know, "it would never happen in America." The Polish Jews thought the same. While I don't know where the quote originated, I like: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...."

You are so right!!!!!!

Wow...could you imagine Americans NOT having the means to kill eachother senselessly...at work, in our schools, or at home???

DumbYank

PLEASE Stop generalizing !

Anyone who kills senselessly is a criminal. Plain and simple!

A drunk driver is someone who kills senselessly, that is a criminal act. That does not mean that everyone that drinks is going to get behind a wheel.

Anyone intent on killing will do so and will find the means to do so.

There are millions of gun owners like myself that would never do anything of the kind.

I live in Texas. Of course hunting is a very important part of the culture and our heritage. I never said it wasn't. But saying the 2nd Ammendment only deals with hunting denies the ownership of firearms for any other purpose. I don't hunt, but I punch paper and carry for self-defense. Many of my friends hunt, and I've enjoyed many a wild game cookout. But as long as we are law abiding citizens, we don't need any "justification" for firearms ownership.

I never said MSNBC (actually an AP story on MSNBC) said guns were only for hunting. But the reporter did say that the SCOTUS declared that the 2nd Ammendment upheld the right to bear arms for self-defense and hunting, and that's wrong. The Heller decision does not mention hunting. It's a factual error. If the reporter wanted to talk about possible uses, where was the mention of target shooting? Plinking? Skeet? Why do you say the ammendment requires justification? The operative phrase says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Simple and to the point. I've seen nothing in the early papers of the Founding Fathers about a disgreement over the right to hunt. That was a given in those days. Hunting was the way most colonial Americans fed their families. As I've said earlier, no one is denying that hunting is a right and part of our heritage. But that is not the primary purpose of the 2nd Ammendment. If it was, there wouldn't have been decades of dispute over gun ownership.

I am curious to know what cops think about it...

In the time frame that the amendment was written I don't really think you would have had a problem with it being ratified. Think about what you just said.

At least one I know of didn't appreciate being shot when he went to a man's door to serve a paper. The cop is dead.

I am curious to know what cops think about it...

I know some will be relieved they won't have to pay taxes to feed and shelter those who are sent to prison.

I annually qualify with my pistol at a outdoor range and I have to pay 3 dollars above the 15 dollars for environment cost to clean up the expended lead.

If any city needs more guns, its San Fransisco! They need to get rid of the vermin that is eating way at that once great city?

Someone said it right on another post, at least they got this one right!!!!!!!!!! This is for the majority of the peolpe, not for the minority of the people!

I agree San Fransisco is not part of the united states of America anymore... NO ROTC, They DON'T WANT THE NAVY, DON'T WANT THE BLUE ANGLES, HELL THE AMERICAN FLAG is probably offensive to them too..

I no longer go to that once great city. Its gone down hill, in its politics and life style.

Your right, they don't have a sense of value any more. Not all, but a small group that appears to be representing that city!

Sounds like Babylon... and we all know how that ended up.

That's the dark ugly underbelly of Liberalism unchecked.

10-4! No doubt!

Jeepdude - do you really think that you and your buddies owning a few shotguns and 9 mms is what keeps our govermentment in check? Do you think our government is afraid that if they do something you don't like you might attempt a drive-by on Congress or the White House so their fear of you and your guns is somehow going to affect policy? You should really get over your delusion that your guns somehow make you a more powerful person.

10-4!

Some posters think, from what I gather, its ok for the bad guy to have a gun, but, not the good guy, they should just fear the bad guy and lay down and take it like man/women?

If we don't fight back, how do we get full protection from the scum that try to control our lives. The police can't be every where, and from my perspective, I can understand that and the people should also understand that as fact of life. So, the decision was proper!

puzzled-350651
Jeepdude - do you really think that you and your buddies owning a few shotguns and 9 mms is what keeps our govermentment in check? Do you think our government is afraid that if they do something you don't like you might attempt a drive-by on Congress or the White House so their fear of you and your guns is somehow going to affect policy? You should really get over your delusion that your guns somehow make you a more powerful person.

He doesn't have to that why we have the NRA and other organizations like it to protect our freedoms. Which the Government DOES fear.

puzzled is definitely puzzled.

No, of course 1 person with a gun cannot stand up to the government. But 335 million...? Our government is the first in the history of the world that is supposed to be FOR the people, BY the people. We've strayed far from that in 200 years but still not near as far as other countries and societies. That philosophy hinges on the fact that the government is simply a representation of the people, and that the real power lies with the people. Our government should ideally not be seen as having a will separate than the will of the American people.

To that end, allowing the government as an entity to completely control every aspect of the use of force as a last resort effectively ends the philosophy that the people behind that government have any power at all.

Another situation to consider is: if tomorrow China (or some other country) chose to declare war on the United States and invade our borders and come onto our soil, with our military (INCLUDING National Guard, etc) stretched thin across two wars on the other side of the planet... it would become necessary to form militias for protection. Militias would be formed from law-abiding, armed citizens.

I still fail to find any logic in the idea that we're supposed to rely on governmental entities for our protection and well-being. I will *never* allow my wife and children's safety to be determined singularly on the government, whether that be national, state, or local.

Let's not overlook the fact that ONE CRIMINAL is just as dangerous to their victim as any government.

It is every individuals right to be free to live right by theirself, their families, and their peers, and it is their duty first and foremost to protect themselves from whatever perils or oppression come their way.

"I wish the police would've gotten here sooner"

or

"I wish I could've protected and defended myself".

Who and what you rely on is Your choice. And ours right here in the US of A, according to the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment and the resulting proliferation of firearms in America because of the 2nd Amendment is THE REASON Japan did not invade the USA. This was a quote from the leaders of Imperialist Japan during World War II. Given the might and determination of Imperialist Japan (remember Pearl Harbor?) we probably would not be the USA now, nor would we be enjoying all the freedoms and pleasures we now enjoy. After all, it took nearly 4 years and 2 atomic bombs devastating two of Japan's greatest cities to end the violent aggression. Can't overlook this fact...

(Puzzled), The revolution that formed this country started with with an individual and a group of individuals who had a vision of freedom. And as I can tell from those responding to this forum the majority would those here, if called to do so would protect our freedoms. There are many groups that would come together to fight this fight. (Puzzled), don't fear us you should fear the government who choses to take away you individual freedoms. I must also add that we are not a bunch of uneducated individuals. I myself have served in the army and I currently have my own electrical contracting company. Don't think that we would be an unorganized band of misfits. It is our Right to keep and bear arms and to defend our selfs from those enemies both foreign and domestic. Long live the NRA!

Just in case it's not 100% crystal clear, criminal GOVERNMENTS have killed many times the number of people that ordinary criminals have. Naturally those people were disarmed by those same criminal governments prior to being murdered.

Just take Hitler, Stalin and Mao and forget all the rest, not that they don't exist... Do you think street thugs have killed anywhere close to that many people?

If you REALLY want to make the world a safer place from criminal violence, disarm the governments, not the people.

You are short sighted with your drive-by comment. 200,000,000 citizens with guns and anger can be a pretty formidable opponent for a government. Remember that if things got bad enough, the standing military, in control of many weapons, would likely take one side or the other, too.

The World is now a more dangerous place? This changes nothing as to the number of guns that are already out there or the purposes for which people use them. If they had ruled the other way, that would have changed nothing either. They ruled the only way they could, that the second amendment was an individual right just as the 1st and 4th are. Just because it doesn't fit in with your grand scheme for a socialist society, doesn't mean they're brain dead imbeciles.

the supreme courts job is to uphold the constitution criminals will find guns no matter what the law is this ruling and the second amendment is to protect the law-abiding citizens from such criminals and our government when they start taking these rights away it is up to the people to overturn the government and replace it

Don't like it move to China maybe then you will feel safer

Nikisme If you don't like it move to China Maybe you will feel safer there

Once again, evidence of the appalling lack of education about the constitution and our government. The Supreme Court's role is NOT to safeguard us. Its' sole role is to interpret the constitution and laws.
Your post only goes to show how successful the liberals have been over the past 4 decades in indoctrinating people to believe that the Supreme Court has the discretion to ignore the Constitution in favor of whatever social outcome they may desire. They have no such discretion, if acting within the bounds of the Constitution!

Yes, that is a simple minded person who wrote that. What a joke! On top of that, those judges have more protection and don't have to worry about house invasion!

I can imagine, a scumbag breaking into my house a night and telling him to hold that pose, while I reassemble my pistol. Holy no brains, batman!