Comments on: Targeting The Supreme Court

How A Libertarian Who's Never Owned A Gun Brought The Decisive Case On The Second Amendment

[cfin5]

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

[cfin5]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson''s "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson

[cfin5]

Posted by angryman55 at 09:28 PM : Jun 29, 2008---- Really. It''s not lives they want to save seeing that it is the neolibs who keep uping the gun death stats,....its a control issue. When no one can defend themselves anymore, they''ll do as they please. Neocons have silently agreed with them on gun ban and abortion issues.

[djaar]

This "originalist" comment by Justice Scalia is extremely naive. You can''t even imagine how the founders would think about drafting a constitution in today''s world. You just have to try and interpret the constitution as logically as possible. If the second amendment included explosives, does that mean that anyone can own a nuclear weapon? No. Guns, especially in America, kill more people every year. Study after study shows that a household that has a gun is far more likely to be killed by it than an intruder.

[tcoleman12]

Washington mayor Adrian Fenty''s disappointment was palpable. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," he said.

Ideally the additional violence will be law abiding citizens dispatching criminals with their newly returned constitutional rights to defend themselves.

[jmagarotz]

close: do you really want the Supreme Court to change the rules based on current feelings, rather than to interpret the Constitution? Posted by ThinkB4USpea at 08:32 PM : Jun 29, 2008

Well spoken, Very well spoken indeed! If the SCOTUS ruled on emotion instead of law as some wish the "wishers" would have had their lives and property removed from their control many years ago. The Government large enough to give you everything you want is large enough to take everything you have. Unfortunately liberals don''t care about others only themselves. I pray this is the start on returning America to the "Land of the Free"!

[tbweb]

Criminals will never disarm, will always have guns! Only Law abiding citizens will disarm and obey gun Laws and remain vulnerable! Local Police are short handed and slow to respond in poorer communities and with higher fuel cost will be even more short handed and slower. Citizens should at least be allowed have guns in their homes.

[thinkb4uspea]

close: do you really want the Supreme Court to change the rules based on current feelings, rather than to interpret the Constitution? And isn''t the practice of interpreting the meaning of the words which comprise the Constitution, by definition, the practice of trying to figure out what those who wrote those words meant? And isn''t that originialist, by its very nature?

Cities have their own problems. Where I live, we don''t need gun laws. But cities have policies and practices which produce criminals like farms produce corn and tomatoes: housing projects and revolving-door court systems which turn criminals loose more quickly than cops can bust them. Originalist thinking won''t do us in; but big cities in America have a way of doing themselves in.

[marcosmalo]

chiefsfan-10 wrote: "As a retired Police Office of 32 years I must comment to those of you who are so narrowed minded to think that guns kill. There has never been a gun that has killed anyone [. . .] without a human being behind it!!"

Or in front of it! =) That was too easy.

Should guns be regulated? As much as possible while still hewing to the second amendment. Close the loopholes, enforce the laws, but respect our rights.

[terrorislami]

Posted by closethippy1 at 08:03 PM : Jun 29, 2008

ummmmm this is not a theocracy nancy,,,

[closethippy1]

Never mind the Constituion. How about the Bible? In it God says it''s perfectly OK to, for example, kill your own children if they disrespect you.
Or kill someone who complains about the odor coming from an animal sacrifice.
Or kill ***.
But yet we don''t do that even if it''s the word of God. Times have changed and so the Bible cannot be strictly followed even if God himself said so.
Now, why not do the same with the words of mere mortals?
I mean, over 30,000 killed by guns year after freaking year after freaking year has got to count for something, right?
Times have changed. We''re not in the 1700''s anymore.
This "originalist" bullcrap is going to do the US in.

[mcv57]

If you search for a Utopia in Government, I believe you must first purge the Government of Corruption and Society of SIN. Neither senario exist in America - welcome to the Wild West.

[jameso545]

The Supreme Court did the right thing. Everyone has a right to defend himself, his family and property. There should be no law which intrudes on this right. Handguns are the weapon of choice for self defense. Yes we will see a rise in handgun sales. That is as it should be. I am torn on the waiting period. I understand the purpose. Maybe that is something that we will have to accept. Today the law abiding citizens of Washington, D.C. are safer than they were yesterday.

[mcv57]

In eve of Jesus Cruxifition, Jesus had instructed his disciples on their mission. Jesus said that they should have a sword, Peter said, "I have two ... Jesus replied, "that is enough." Wisdom: "You must be gentle as a dove; but wiser than a serpent."

I believe the Lord was acknowledging mupliple messages. While he was with them, his children were protected; his departure and the lack of the power, left his children naked.

[terrorislami]

Posted by deepperppl at 07:42 PM : Jun 29, 2008

which has nothing to do with the second amendment to the constitution,,,

or do you not bellieve in the usa constitution as written???

[deepperppl]

If only ALL Americans were responsible enough to be able to have a gun and use it wisely,... The problem comes when you read news accounts of simple arguments over a bet or a "lover" that end up with one person shooting another. It makes it hard to accept gun ownership as a "right" when it appears to be a problem in the news. I think if we had statistics on gun ownership and shootings, we''d realize the average gun owner never uses their gun for violence against a loved one or even a stranger. Anyone got a link to statistical evidence that supports Americans are more responsible about their guns than the press intimates?

[dudewoo]

This person McCainsStain should bed banned from posting
he is not only an abuser, he is preventing other posts
from having a right to speak.

[obamandputin]

Russia will never be in America! The cause of Obama will never sprout in America?
But the money from putin is for Obamas primary contributin!
Obama and Putin in 2008!

[soulreaver_]

Russia will never be in America! The cause of Obama will never sprout in America?
But the money from putin is for Obamas primary contributin!
Obama and Putin in 2008!

[chiefsfan-10]

As a retired Police Office of 32 years I must comment to those of you who are so narrowed minded to think that guns kill. There has never been a gun that has killed anyone or anything without a human being behind it!! Someone like you or any other human being MUST take some sort of action to make that gun fire. Do you say that vehicles kill people when there are far more people killed or mamed by drunk drivers than by guns??? Get your heads screwed on straight so you can see in front of you and not at your back side! !