Comments on: Gun-Plagued Cities Decry Handgun Ruling
Washington D.C.'s Ban On Handguns Was Struck Down By Supreme Court Thursday
Add a Comment See all 552 Comments
- When all the Mayors going to move downtown to the projects and tell you they don''t what a gun ? Our Forefathers died so you might enjoy freedoms, so use it honor them , arm yourselves , we, smell smoke on the horizon.The tough part is coming soon, when you may be called to stand up for you country , it is the duty of all citizens when they see wrong, to right it, with your lives if necessary.
- Reply to this comment
- CBS_Oliver wrote
More impressive than anything about this judgement is the thrill of anticipation of killing that it seems to bring to so many people
-------------------
All that happend is, the Supreme Court read the Constitution to you.
WHY DO YOU HATE THE CONSTITUTION SO MUCH? - Reply to this comment
- The peasants are to stupid to understand things the way we in San Fran do. BARRACK 2008!
Posted by von_marko
It is a good thing. If we all thought like those folks out in SF, we''d be even more s c r e w e d up than we already are. - Reply to this comment
O man? Now we, the gangs lookin for drug money, cannot break into your house and maim you or your wife and children? Now with these gun laws we will have to think twice when entering a law abiding citizens house who has gotten a gun legally! Thats unfair. Please someone anyone help us overturn these laws by any reason other than the fact it brings safety to a family and doubt whether for us to break in any old house at night and slaughter anyone who stands in the way of our crime. Please if you are against these laws and do not own a gun let me know and we will pay your house a visit so you can feel the pain of helplessness of someone messin with your family. Please I need my drugs! And maybe get a little with your loved ones?- Reply to this comment
- The people who are using firearms, of any kind, to commit crimes DON''T have possession of them LEGALLY. I''m a LEGAL gun owner who is TRAINED and LEGALLY licensed to carry and guess what? I''ve NEVER even thought about committing a crime or killing another person. The only thing I FULL WELL intend to use it for is to defend myself and STOP someone from harming me or my family, IF the need should ever arise. It''s about protecting me and mine from the a-holes out there who don''t give a cr@p about you, me, or anyone else. Those kind of people have always been, and continue to be, PROHIBITED from possessing, let alone carrying a firearm, BUT they do, and will continue, to do so ANYWAY. If YOU don''t want to own a firearm, fine, don''t. That''s your choice and I respect that and your reasons. But, you''re just going to have to live with the fact that I have a right to protect myself and the right to do so by means of a firearm. Several generations of my family''s men, including my husband, fought for the Constitution that says I have that right. (My free speech is included in that same document for all you liberals out there that don''t think anyone else is entitled to an opinion.) I''ve never had to stop anyone with my firearm yet and I don''t dwell on it. But, I feel a lot safer knowing that I can, and legally have the means, to protect myself and family if I need to.
- Reply to this comment
- Just keep your warped pursuasions out of my community!
Posted by MarkS7177
Just tell me which community it is so I''ll know which one to avoid. - Reply to this comment
- If the high crime cities followed the low crime cities and allowed the law abiding citizens to caarry a firearm the crime would go down.
Their reasoning is like telling a car, "if you drive first, then I will give you gas." - Reply to this comment
- This ruling couldn''t have come at a better time. With the Economy and dollar tanking the crime rate is sure to increase. More home invasions will be higher on the "To Do List" for addicts and homeless thugs trying to survive. These desperate atrocity''s will be above the kitchen knife/rolling-pin defence. Having the option of a possible firearm in the home will be more of a deterrent to this type of crime. I hope that anyone reading this will never have to face this horrifying situation and that anyone having a firearm will follow the safety rules that comes with the responsibility of possition/ownership. "God Speed USA"
- Reply to this comment
- As for 9/11 itself, I actually SAW one of the 9/11 pilots in the summer of 2000. He was trying to bribe the flying school to give him a license after he failed his flying test - due to poor English skills, not due to lack of flying ability.
He was reported to the FAA FIVE TIMES, and the FAA did nothing. Clinton issued an executive order to prohibit agencies from sharing information due to racial profiling, so the FAA couldn''t share the information with the FBI. And ANOTHER Clinton executive order had made airline flight delays the FAA''s new top priority, after their funding had been cut to balance the budget. So the FAA didn''t have much resource to chase after terrorists, they were busy reducing flight delays.
PLANNED ON CLINTON''S WATCH. And I say CLINTON WAS ACTIVELY, DIRECTLY, AND KNOWINGLY assisting, in exchange for huge political contributions.
Heh, remember how I said the 9/11 guy was trying to pay a bribe? THE PRESIDENT can be bribed, too... - Reply to this comment
- If my community want to elect people that will make hand-guns illegal, then hand-guns should be illegal in my community. I choose to live there. Its just tiresome arguing with you NRA, Brainwashed, selfish, fearful idiots!
Posted by MarkS7177
Didn''t you hear; the Supreme Court says we have a right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean you have to participate in the right, it merely means you can if you so choose.
If you want to live in a communist community move to Russia. Here in America we have certain freedoms and rights that are forbidden in some other cultures; enjoy them as you may, but don''t surrender your rights because that can lead to the confiscation of mine. - Reply to this comment
- Neocon9 wrote
9/11 was PLANNED under Clintons watch.
-----------------
Oh, brother! Don''t get me started. I''m with you - this "On Bush''s watch" is a bunch of BS.
A LOT of stuff is STILL happening on Bush''s watch that are the RESULT of things that were done on Clinton''s watch. The current home mortgage crisis is a typical example - Clinton DEREGULATED the home mortgage industry, and now we''re getting the results years later.
Enron, 9/11, and who knows how much else was the RESULT OF CLINTON''S FAILURES. But the results were FELT ON BUSH''S WATCH.
The current Social Security crisis is the result of FDR''s lousy policies. But they''re blaming that on Bush, too... - Reply to this comment
- Neocon9 wrote
9/11 was PLANNED under Clintons watch.
-----------------
Oh, brother! Don''t get me started. I''m with you - this "On Bush''s watch" is a bunch of BS.
A LOT of stuff is STILL happening on Bush''s watch that are the RESULT of things that were done on Clinton''s watch. The current home mortgage crisis is a typical example - Clinton DEREGULATED the home mortgage industry, and now we''re getting the results years later.
Enron, 9/11, and who knows how much else was the RESULT OF CLINTON''S FAILURES. But the results were FELT ON BUSH''S WATCH.
The current Social Security crisis is the result of FDR''s lousy policies. But they''re blaming that on Bush, too... - Reply to this comment
- Neocon9 wrote
9/11 was PLANNED under Clintons watch.
-----------------
Oh, brother! Don''t get me started. I''m with you - this "On Bush''s watch" is a bunch of BS.
A LOT of stuff is STILL happening on Bush''s watch that are the RESULT of things that were done on Clinton''s watch. The current home mortgage crisis is a typical example - Clinton DEREGULATED the home mortgage industry, and now we''re getting the results years later.
Enron, 9/11, and who knows how much else was the RESULT OF CLINTON''S FAILURES. But the results were FELT ON BUSH''S WATCH.
The current Social Security crisis is the result of FDR''s lousy policies. But they''re blaming that on Bush, too... - Reply to this comment
- Posted by jon2012 at 01:02 PM : Jun 27, 2008
he did not say that is the ONLY reason nancy,,,
Posted by terrorislami at 01:06 PM : Jun 27, 2008
I thought you gave it your best shot. - Reply to this comment
- Jon, this discussion is about the liberal''''s loss of gun control in DC and elsewhere but I''''ll point out one last time, you''''re missing the point. 9/11 was PLANNED under Clintons watch.
Posted by Neocon9 at 12:57 PM : Jun 27, 2008
I could give you the benefit of the doubt but planning, until a certain point of no return is reached, is difficult to detect, much less do anything about. Clinton''s affairs are not prima facie evidence of dereliction. You have to show actual dismissal of mounting or incontrovertible evidence of the terrorist attack to make the case. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by jon2012 at 01:02 PM : Jun 27, 2008
he did not say that is the ONLY reason nancy,,, - Reply to this comment
- No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344
Posted by terrorislami at 12:44 PM : Jun 27, 2008
It''s an excellent quote terrorislami but what does it say about its absence in the actual draft of the Constitution? The Constitution was the work of several men. Looks to me like Jefferson was persuaded this wasn''t a terribly bright idea, to state it as an absolute right. But as a right contingent on the possibility of fighting against a renegade government, that''s the more reasonable articulation. As a right to kill your fellow citizens, it needs to be stated as such because it is not a self-evident right. - Reply to this comment
- Jon, this discussion is about the liberal''s loss of gun control in DC and elsewhere but I''ll point out one last time, you''re missing the point. 9/11 was PLANNED under Clintons watch. You''re assertion that it was under Bush''s is like me getting arrersted for cops finding crack in a car I just rented that was just previously rented by the crack smokers that left it there. And thank you for pointing out the obvious... property damage being much greater under Bush''s watch. Its called a war. I should hope that it would be great in terms of damage. Actually I don''t think it''s been great enough.
- Reply to this comment
- Posted by jon2012 at 12:50 PM : Jun 27, 2008
911 happened because wet willy kkklowntoon did nothing when the usa was repeatedly attacked,,,
had he went after them in afghanistan back when he was president,,,
911 never woiuld have happened,,,
BTW,,, kkklowntoon wanted to go back into iraq in 1998 as well,,, - Reply to this comment
- jon2012.....do you naively think that just because they prosecuted a couple Islamic terrorists for the 1st Trade Center attack, that somehow that was "doing something" about the terrorist organization or about the problem of terrorists abroad ? that did nothing but put a few operatives (the ones who rented the truck) but did nothing to combat the overall problem
Face it, Clinton was busy making designs on blue dresses, instead of actively destroying terrorists cells worldwide...Bush did something and sent troops to visit Terrorists in their hideouts....not just launch a few missles into the desert, like Clinton did - Reply to this comment
