Court says individuals have right to own guns

Simple reply; he's not going to win by a long shot!!! Believe me!

they are not protecting the child raper they are doing their Job and upholding the constitution i personally think if they rape a child then have their privates removed completely but killing them is not the way

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about rape (of a child or otherwise).

But the 8th Amendment DOES have something to say about cruel and unusual punishment.

Considering the circumstances of this case (8 year old raped by father leaving her with extreme injuries and IMO, destroying her childhood and her innocence by a person who had a duty to protect her from harm) execution was too light a punishment.

This issue is not at all in the SAME league with Child Rapists.

There is no Constitutional right to rape at all.

You absolutely cannot even consider OUR Constitutional rights on the same level as Rape.

My thoughts exactly. It is amazing to me that a SC judge could actually believe what he said and not realize he could also be talking about the 1st Admendment. So according to him we could restrict the rights of the 1st admendment that the liberals hold dear when it suits their needs - like getting known killers off on a technicality.

I too had that quote jump out at me. Coming form a sitting Supreme Court Justice, it is downright frightening. The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the tools available for the government to opress citizens. Nice job! If more Americans had the basic grasp of civics that you demonstrate, the Democratic Party would cease to exist and this country would be even greater than it is.

Man, I so totally agree with you.

Until I began to grasp the basic civics of our government, and read both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, I identified with the Democratic Party.

Now I guess I'm just one of those loony whacked-out Libertarians. Scary, isn't it, that people who understand the wisdom of our forefathers and the brilliance that is the founding document of our nation are considered crazy?

On the contrary, many states do still have their own militias. And, the point is that through the years the definition of militia has been changed. The Minutemen were not necessarily organized by the state; but, rather by their regions and townships. The idea was for mutual protective benefit. Also, remember the Second Amendment's wording:"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." These are two individual statements followed by a directive: 1. a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state (i.e. Minutemen for protection), 2. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and 3. the directive - shall not be infringed. Definition of infringe: to encroach upon in any way.

We still have the right to FORM the militia as it is needed. The militia is not intended for full-time military service, but for use as an emergency measure. Remember, back in the day they did have the Federal troops, but the militia also formed part of the forces needed.

There is no difference. What they stood for then we stand for now. If we are invaded we are the military beyond the one appointed by our country to protect us. If they fail we won't. If we have the tools to counteract terror in our own borders terrorism will never prevail. Framers have nothing to do with that. There is a reason we have guns and that is to make sure the government which "reigns over us" does not get out of line. It is the right of the people to change the government. It is also the right of every man to protect himself from theives, murderers, criminals and foreign threats otherwise onforseen. People who think gun owners are irresponsible blood thirtsy murderers are arrogant and need a reality check. If there is a time where we are invaded or find ourselves in a war in our own borders I will make sure to not protect you with the tools I have purchased to protect myself. You can rest assured of that if you don't believe in the right to protect yourself. If you don't want that right that is fine. But I do Killfile....

THis is precisely correct on the militias spoken of here. Many, if not most, cities had militias in this period of time. They were roughly organized in some cases and in some cases, such as the Nauvoo legion, were well organized military units voluntarily put together by the citizens of that city or area.

The Federalist Papers also give a lot of information that gives insight into the whole Constitutional thought.

It is clear that such an armed citizenry is a deterrant to bad government.

The key words are "well regulated." By whom? To what purpose?

Who's to decide when the government gets out of line? Which government - local, state or federal?

Do these invaders include the hapless Mexican who crosses the border looking for work? Or the guy who looks 'different' and thus must be a terrorist?

Before any of you jump all over me, I've had a pistol permit since the '60s. There are no pistols on it now, but I do have a lovely old Stevens rifle and am a very good shot. My granddaughter is, too. But since we are females, we obviously are not covered by the constitution and will not be joining your militia.

Amen Bob!

we don't have that militia anymore. We don't have a body of citizens between the ages of 17 and 45? That's news to me. I think you need to get right on this, Killfile, and write an article about our mysterious lack of citizens in that age bracket.

Wow. Right up front about violating your own rules for conversation, there, aren't you Killfile? I can't say that I expected more from you, after having gotten to know you a little better. I won't hold my breath for you to delete your own comment, as per your stated rules, as we both know that for you the CoH is entirely applied at convenience.

While we're on the topic of willful ignorance, maybe you could take a second to actually... I don't know... read the decision? Or be at all familiar with the history of the definition of "militia". As it stands, I'm fairly certain that you lack the ability to educate yourself on the issue, much less offer tutoring to me. But rather than give your comment "the derisive laughter it deserves," and go on about my business, I think it much more fruitful to illustrate to the several dozen commentators here assembled the absolute paucity of your argument, and the extent to which you will substitute bluster for knowledge.

It should be educational as to the amount of reliance they should place on such a self-proclaimed expert as yourself.

From the Heller decision:

As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.

...the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it—and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia."

...Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment" (cited in the Heller decision)

While the firearms-maintenance provisions of state law and the First Militia Act have long since been repealed, federal law continues to classify the entire able-bodied male citizenry aged seventeen to forty-five as "the militia of the United States."[261]

...[261] 10 U.S.C. § 311 (1982)

You might also have a gander at the rest of the article, as well as the in-depth section touching on the definition of the militia as seen by the Framers.

From 10 U.S.C. § 311

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

I don't suppose I need to describe for you exactly what you can do with your googled definition. Next time, try using an actual dictionary, or taking more than thirty seconds to familiarize yourself with a subject.

In other words, do your best not to be "willfully ignorant."

You have a nice day, now, you hear?

for Killfile:from Merriam-Webster:
militia: (2)a body of citizens organized for military service.
military: 1 a: of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war b: of or relating to armed forces; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces

It's NOT rocket science... It's what you, I and our neighbors will do when threats of violence, tyranny, or oppression loom large and dangerously close.

It doesn't require or even involve a political debate; in fact, there is no time for it when the threat is right before you.

Killfile, what role you have placed yourself in here. You make it damn hard to tell. Are you here to proofread and confront everyone? Inh what context?

I'm unaware of any definition of militia that actually means citizens between the ages of 17 and 45

And this isn't exactly the first time we've had this conversation. Any viner who still wants to pretend they don't know this is, himself, being wilfully ignorant.

First, please note the part of the Heller decision you forgot to put in bold I highlighted the portion that was relevant to what I stated in the post you wrongly ridiculed. How would "able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45" NOT be a subset of "the people" and why would you think there's a difference, or that the difference at all supports the nonsense you tried to post as factual?

It's an interesting position you take-- "I was wrong, but really I was right, and besides-- what difference does it make?" I'll remember to give your future arguments the full respect they deserve.

When was the last time the Congress called forth the militia in a 2nd Amendment requiring sense? The last time ended in 1973.

Since what matters is what "the militia" was in context of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment... This is how the people who actually wrote the Constitution felt about militias and keeping and bearing arms, in their own words:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." — "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." — Tench Coxe, 1788.

"The great object is, that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." — Patrick Henry

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

"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." — James Madison

"Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." — Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes" — Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." — George Mason

"The said Constitution be never construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." — Samuel Adams

DOES ANYONE REALLY THINK THE MEN WHO MADE THESE STATEMENTS INTENDED TO SECURE THE RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT TROOPS TO HAVE GUNS? THINK, PEOPLE, THINK!!!!!! — azrider

I'll say it again, since you obviously haven't bothered to read the relevant portion of the Heller decision wherein this was discussed-- that the government decides to only organize a portion of the militia during a war, or decides to arm them with its own weapons when deploying them in the field, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what the militia is.

You asked the last time the government mobilized the militia, and the answer is that they mobilized it up until 1973. The whole time the draft was in place, it served as a "mobilization of the militia." Don't compound your error in understanding what the militia is by failing to understand when the government avails itself of it.

Who did the draft select from? Men between the ages of 18 and 45. Who comprises the militia? Men between the ages of 18 and 45. Coincidence? I think not.

Is the 2nd Amendment outdated? Obviously not.

Thats not the point killfile. It's not about the last time we "needed" a military force in the general populace. It is not about the fact that no true military battles have been fought on our own soil. It is the fact that it can happen! If it does happen then a militia will be formed whether it be official or unofficial in our own neighborhoods to protect what we believe in. While you stand by and eat pork rinds I will certainly be weilding a weapon to fight off those who attempt and take my freedom should our military fail and our borders become penetrated. We are not invincible and to think the United States Military can protect this country forever is an arrogant belief. It is not always possible, and should that be the case we need arms to protect ourselves. Our borders are full of holes, living in Arizona I am very aware of illegal immigrants raping stealing and killing. I am very aware of my right to own a weapon and protect myself against these invaders and it's not just those from Mexico it could be those from other countries coming into this country illegaly as well. As far as I am concerned if you come in my house to threaten my life you will die. Whether it be a butcher knife out of my cutting block or my SKS with 7.62 rounds or my 30-30 hunting rifle. That is my right. To protect myself. From foreign invaders whether they are in this country or coming in illegally into this country or are at war with our country. And I will stand on that statement until I die. And I will die to have that right.

You've seized onto what amounts to a word choice detail in a question I'm trying to ask and making an issue out of it. Use better word choices, then. I can only go by the words you chose. Unlike you, I don't read minds.

No, I asked When was the last time the Congress called forth the militia in a 2nd Amendment requiring sense? Again, 1973.

when did we last have to depend upon people owning their own firearms to field a military force? Oh, I see. You think those two are the same question simply worded differently. They're not, but I can see how your confusion over the meaning of the term "militia" has caused you to think that they are. Are you operating under the mistaken notion that the freedom from infringement is predicated on the government's inability to supply the militia government-issued weapons? I imagine that the Amendment would have said that, if that is what the Framers meant. So I think the thrust of your question, here, simply misses the mark.

But to answer it, on a guess, I'd think somewhere between the Civil War and WWI. Of course, in a similar sense, there may have been some deputizing of posses which might fit the bill in some fashion, and I have no idea when the last of those occurred.

Obviously not? Justice Scalia seems less sure than you. Why? Because he acknowledges that there are undoubtedly some out there who feel that it is, and that the question is perhaps debatable? I don't think Scalia thinks it is outdated. I don't think it is outdated. This thread is full of the arguments of those who don't believe that it is outdated. You asked for an opinion, and my opinion is that it is obvious that the 2nd Amendment is not outdated, for the reasons given in all those arguments.

If you want to argue to the contrary, present your argument. I suspect it will be wrong in obvious ways, but we've been down that road before, haven't we?

As to the first part of your unnecessarily hostile comment Unnecessarily hostile? I made a joke about your apparent ignorance as to the meaning of the term "militia" and you returned fire with an argument-free post detailing quite explicitly your derision, condescension, and general opinion of my character. Frankly, it would have been within reason if I had simply said "@!$%# you", and been done with it. Instead, given that you used the opportunity to contrast your opinion of my post with your opinion about the depth of your own knowledge on the meaning of the term "militia", I simply saw fit to educate you about what you chose to spout off about.

You want a cessation of hostilities? Be a man, and apologize for intentionally being a dick for little reason. Until then, I think I'm fully justified in treating you as though a) you started this whole thing, and b) you deserve whatever tone with which I reply.

You use, incorrectly, the word "predicated" there which - as the decision details - is really more about "explains" than anything else but that's word choice and I'm not a mind reader. So perhaps you meant to be wrong. Not at all. I used "predicated" in the full knowledge of what the word means-- If an idea or argument is predicated on something, it depends on the existence or truth of this thing. I'll repeat the assertion: in discussing the "rational" [sic] of the "ammendment" [sic], you seem to think that the right is predicated on the government's inability to supply the militia government-issued weapons. You're not a mind reader? Turns out you're not much of a speller or a thinker, either.

I apologize for that assumption and for responding in a tone based upon it. Apology accepted.

First, thank you for pointing out my spelling deficiencies. I'm sorry you suffer a deficit, but if you're going to make an argument based on your opinion of someone else's grammar, you should expect the same favor to be returned.

Second, you continue to confuse rational and predication I'm sorry, but I do not. I understand Scalia quite well, thank you. It's not his argument that I am addressing, as I have now made clear at least twice. You have raised the question as to whether the standing army makes irrelevant any necessity for a militia capable of supplying its own arms, hence my suggestion that your question may be based on the mistaken notion that the right is predicated on an inability of the State to supply arms to those of the militia which it chooses to organize. That mistaken notion seems to me to persist in a number of your responses.

I wonder how the framers would consider the provision given the presence of a standing and powerful military. My guess is that their precaution against tyranny and their recognition of every man's right to defend himself would still be considered valid reasons for the guarantee of arms. And, as I said before, incidents such as Hurricane Katrina give reason to suspect that they would see value in the ability of citizens to organize and defend themselves and their neighbors in the face of insurrection (or in this case, widespread looting and violence).

Certainly Scalia comes out in favor of the 2nd Amendment here, but he does so in a way that suggests - to me at least - that he's not sure that what is legal and what is right necessarily overlap here. I'd be surprised if he didn't, but I can see what you're saying.

For myself, I'd much prefer that we err, if err we must, on the side of individual rights rather than majority convenience and sentiment.

doubt it, they can still be arrested for being "reckless" I do believe :)

please explain you crazy comment

I'm waiting to see what towns like San Fran and Chicago do, NRA is filing lawsuits in those towns and others like them that try to ban guns based on what happened today.

So Nikisme, are you saying only white folks own guns? You certainly are full of hatred towards those who would defend their families.

I don't even know what to say about the arrogance of that comment. Lol.. crawl back into the cave you came from. Racism is a thing of the past and we are moving forward whether you like it or not. An african american is running for president. Times are changing for the better. Time for a reality check.

What in the world does the KKK have to do with the Surpreme Court upholding an Amendment to the Constitution? An absolute asinine comment that has no bearing on anything. What's sad is that people like this can vote and procreate. Now if there is a new law needed....

Dr. Sigmund Freud said, "...individuals that have a fear of firearms usually have pent up sexual frustrations...."

The ban on hand guns overturned.
Can a newly re-constituted K.K.K. be far behind?

And the connection between the two is ?

Note that those in favour of the Second Amendment argue with
fact and logic
Those who are now wringing their hands in shock and dismay only
respond with "feelings"

Why does race have to always be brougt into every issue in America? This is good for everyone. If guns were banned, the criminals would get them anyway. They do now. Do you think that if someone wants to get a gun and kill someone they will do it legally now? No. They will still get them. At least now the common person is capable of making things a little more fair by having his/her own gun to protect themselves. This has nothing to do with black and white. It is just a fact. Think about it.

Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

Racial Bias and Gun Rights are 2 very different issues.

Why is it everyone against yesterday's ruling always come up with analogies on very different issues as the same issue.

Yes if not a gun a knife, sword, rock, rope, razor blade, or more could be used to kill another human. Guns are just a weapon just like anything else that can be weilded. People might argue well a gun makes it easier... thats not true, if someone wants to kill someone they are going to either succeed or be killed... it doesn't matter how they do it but it will happen if that person is determined enough.

UnConvinced and imbored,

I agree with your assessments. If one looks at the crime rate in England since the ban on firearm ownership was put in place, I know you will find that violent crime has risen dramatically. Before the ban, Bobbies didn't carry firearms. Today, they all do.

A firearm is a tool. A tool by itself does no harm. It is the person behind the gun that controls whether or not the tool does good or evil.

In the Broadway show "Jesus Christ Superstar", Jesus stands up, after being bambarded with requests that he save the people from their pains, illnesses, agony, and screams, "HEAL YOURSELVES".

If social programs are the answer to crime, why are socialized living environments like free and low cost housing the most dangerous places to live?

If poverty caused crime, all of our parents and/or grandparents (great-grandparents for some of our readers) would have certainly been criminals and in prison as a result of the "great" depression. Instead, most Americans did "work for food"...one day at a time. My dad, working in a mission in a village in Ghana, noticed that everyone big enough to do so was carrying a machete. He asked the doctor in the mission hospital about the use of those weapons (considering the village was mostly non-christian) and was told that only one wound had been treated in the last 18 months. The children are taught that it is not right to hurt other people. It's what's inside that counts.

Are you assuming Cheney is a Christian? I don't know him personally. So, I couldn't make that statement either way. But, I do love how you have taken a very real and important issue and strewn it aside to make an irrelevant and hate-mongering statement.

gratefuljr: So, you have all this inside information about Dick Cheney? Who says he was drunk when his hunting accident happened? He apparently is not a drinker due to his heart condition. Perhaps if someone took a few shots at you, and if you survived the ordeal, you might just get yourself a gun.

I really enjoyed how you worked insulting so many differnt groups into your comment. Lets see:

1. Right wing conservatives
2. Christians
3. God
4. Owners of firearms
5. Dick Cheney
6. Hunters
7. Drunks (by linking them with DICK Cheney)
8. Old Guys

All in less than 50 words. The DNC is currently looking for individuals with your qualifications to help in developing ideas for TV commercials. Give them a call.

Seriously, You should seek professional help for your "anger" issues.

gratefuljr - I would rather go hunting with Cheney than driving with Teddy. Oh thats right, they call it the Chappaquiddick "incident" not vehicular homicide. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Sonia

Are you saying that the recipient of Cheney's buckshot should have shot Cheney? lol

How about when Ted Kennedy was drunk and drove his car into the water with Mary Jo onboard? I don't see what this has to do with automobiles; same for your comments about Cheney - what does it have to do about the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution?

capitalK: No, that is not what I am saying, and you know it. You may LOL all you want, but the Cheney shooting incident was an ACCIDENT. If you were robbed and shot at by a common criminal, would you not want to defend yourself? Or maybe you would just get into a fisty-fight with the criminal? Guess who the winner would be? It would not be you, my friend.

So where do you get your information. As far as the Bible being fictional, what gives you the credentials and/or the right to say that? I do not criticize your faith, if you have one or your belief set.