Reader comments
A correct ruling on gun rights
34 comments | Read story
Lew Jeppson | 12:18 a.m. June 27, 2008
I agree, but meanwhile the 4th amendment is pretty well shot.
Jobu | 12:17 a.m. June 27, 2008
This is great news indeed. Now we need to expand the definition of firearms to
include RPGs, bazookas, and howitzers.
GWB | 5:32 a.m. June 27, 2008
Yep, now with that ruling the NRA and GOP have prevailed. Congratulations to
them, they have now lost the election year wedge issue.
Now what are the 2nd Ammendment voters going to pick as their single issue to vote on? What is the NRA Political Action Committee going to do with their money???
Anyone have an answer? I would really like to know.
Now what are the 2nd Ammendment voters going to pick as their single issue to vote on? What is the NRA Political Action Committee going to do with their money???
Anyone have an answer? I would really like to know.
Comments continue below
lamonte | 5:41 a.m. June 27, 2008
I agree with the premise of your essay lauding the decision of the Supreme Court
with regard to the personal possession of hand guns. Despite the tragic
statistics related to handgun deaths in this country, the right to own a handgun
must be protected.
However, your reference to the number of handgun murders in the city of Washington is misleading at best. The number of handgun murders in Washington DC has remained constant primarily because the law is ineffective as long as neighboring states, like Virginia where I live, allow the free and unsupervised purchase of handguns. The low murder rates in other nations who partially or totally ban guns would defy your reasoning. At Virginia Tech University, there are 32 dead students whose loss can attest to how this precious right has been abused. I hope not to hear from those who would suggest that arming the students on campus would have saved lives. Common sense tells me that argument is false. While we guarantee individual rights to bear arms, we must find ways to bring sanity to a culture that seems to nullify the value of human life.
However, your reference to the number of handgun murders in the city of Washington is misleading at best. The number of handgun murders in Washington DC has remained constant primarily because the law is ineffective as long as neighboring states, like Virginia where I live, allow the free and unsupervised purchase of handguns. The low murder rates in other nations who partially or totally ban guns would defy your reasoning. At Virginia Tech University, there are 32 dead students whose loss can attest to how this precious right has been abused. I hope not to hear from those who would suggest that arming the students on campus would have saved lives. Common sense tells me that argument is false. While we guarantee individual rights to bear arms, we must find ways to bring sanity to a culture that seems to nullify the value of human life.
Interesting? | 7:03 a.m. June 27, 2008
Interesting how the DesNews only quotes liberal Democrats on their response.
Funny how only those who were so strongly opposed to gun control now come out
and say how wonderful this ruling is. Makes one wonder if they ever read, or
even heard of, the Constitution before. It is nice, for once, to see that
liberty from government oppression is sustained.
COSMO | 7:18 a.m. June 27, 2008
Same old anti-freedom, pro marxist drivel from the
same old diehard red-diaper doper babies.
If you cannot handle freedom and responsibility, may
I invite you to leave, and lamonte if you are so concerned about human life, how about you start with
the innocent life of butchered children, in the abortion mills, throughout America.
same old diehard red-diaper doper babies.
If you cannot handle freedom and responsibility, may
I invite you to leave, and lamonte if you are so concerned about human life, how about you start with
the innocent life of butchered children, in the abortion mills, throughout America.
Left Coast Liberal | 7:54 a.m. June 27, 2008
Under this great ruling states can still ban specific guns, asign waiting
periods and keep guns out of public buldings.
This is kind of a peric victory. The government retains control.
This is kind of a peric victory. The government retains control.
lamonte | 8:37 a.m. June 27, 2008
COSMO - Although I hesitate to respond to your childish diatribe I feel I must
correct an assumption you have so totally misstated about me and my beliefs.
Although the subject matter at hand has nothing to do with "abortion
mills" you have made out outrageous assertion that I must refute. My
religious beliefs, with regard to abortion, fall in line with the First
Presidency of the LDS Church. I believe in the sanctity of life whether we are
discussing an unborn child, an innocent victim of senseless crime or the
unfortunate death of soldiers sent off to fight an unwarranted war.
You have no right to assume any of the claims you have made in your comment.
You have no right to assume any of the claims you have made in your comment.
uncannygunman | 8:45 a.m. June 27, 2008
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but my initial take is that it was a
good decision as far as it goes. But this was really an easy case, once you got
over the textual disagreement. The hard part will be applying it to other gun
laws that are less blatantly violative of the amendment.
Imagine that it was unclear whether or not a particular religious sect was in fact a religion entitled to First Amendment protection. We'll call them the Mormons. Now imagine a patchwork of laws banning Mormons from doing all kinds of things: getting on airplanes, going into national parks, failing to register as a Mormon. Finally, a law is passed banning Mormonism altogether.
What would you think of the Supreme Court if it threw out that last law, finding a First Amendment right to be a Mormon, but purported to allow all those other laws to stand? Well, that's pretty much what it just did with gun rights.
Believe me, the heavy lifting is yet to come! (unanswered question number one: does 2A limit the states as well as the federal governement?)
Imagine that it was unclear whether or not a particular religious sect was in fact a religion entitled to First Amendment protection. We'll call them the Mormons. Now imagine a patchwork of laws banning Mormons from doing all kinds of things: getting on airplanes, going into national parks, failing to register as a Mormon. Finally, a law is passed banning Mormonism altogether.
What would you think of the Supreme Court if it threw out that last law, finding a First Amendment right to be a Mormon, but purported to allow all those other laws to stand? Well, that's pretty much what it just did with gun rights.
Believe me, the heavy lifting is yet to come! (unanswered question number one: does 2A limit the states as well as the federal governement?)
Edward Abbey | 8:46 a.m. June 27, 2008
"When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns."
to Cosmo | 8:57 a.m. June 27, 2008
Try a good professional therapist, Cosmo.
GWB | 9:07 a.m. June 27, 2008
To COSMO: Is that You Michael Weiner Savage?
Seems to me that the only person I have heard use the line "red-diaper doper babies" is Mr. Weiner.
Your perspective - if you don't like it leave, is so mature.
I bet you whined about the Supreme Court last week when they said we could not execute child rapists. Does that mean you are going to leave, knowing your mantra "if you don't like it leave."
Seems to me that the only person I have heard use the line "red-diaper doper babies" is Mr. Weiner.
Your perspective - if you don't like it leave, is so mature.
I bet you whined about the Supreme Court last week when they said we could not execute child rapists. Does that mean you are going to leave, knowing your mantra "if you don't like it leave."
Law Dog | 9:09 a.m. June 27, 2008
The Supreme Court has ruled and owing a gun is still a 2nd Amendment Right. I
have always believed that. But there are still those who would take that right
away. They want us back into the days of swords, knives, axes and bludgeoning
tools. We now see that some of those so called countries who have gun control
have high murder rates with knives and other stabbing and bludgeoning
instruments and many others are beginning to catch up. Only those skilled in the
use of those stabbing and bludgeoning instruments will be able to protect
themselves and the criminal will continue to commit the crimes and the murders
and most will not be able to protect themselves. The gun is the true equalizer
and true deterrent to the criminal. That has been proven over and over. In 25
years of law enforcement most assaults were with fists, clubs, knives, bats and
other instruments and in most cases the victims had no way to protect
themselves.
The injuries sustained were minor up to and including death. An armed society is a safer society, period! I just read of 3 stabbings in Japan in the news paper!
The injuries sustained were minor up to and including death. An armed society is a safer society, period! I just read of 3 stabbings in Japan in the news paper!
To Law Dog | 9:49 a.m. June 27, 2008
False. Australia saw a significant downturn both in firearm deaths and homicide
incident rate each of the four years after their gun buyback program began.
There IS a correlation between the availability of firearms and firearm crime,
regardless of what your blind ideology says about it.
Mike | 10:20 a.m. June 27, 2008
Amazing how the Right complains about "activist judges" yet this
decision is so far off the plain text of the constitution. In this case
it's the conservative wing that are activist. This just proves that all
judges are activist - whether you see them that way depends on where you stand
on an issue.
Law Dog | 10:43 a.m. June 27, 2008
According to the Australian Government Crime Facts and Figures that is printed
by the Australian Government, you need to get yourself properly educated about
their crime facts and figures. It isn't what you think!
Now for my blind ideology. Since I retired from law enforcement I obtained a concealed weapon permit and since that time My gun has saved me from bodily injury and possible death on 4 occasions. So I will say it again. "An armed society is a safer society, period".
Now for my blind ideology. Since I retired from law enforcement I obtained a concealed weapon permit and since that time My gun has saved me from bodily injury and possible death on 4 occasions. So I will say it again. "An armed society is a safer society, period".
Joe | 10:49 a.m. June 27, 2008
Please note in the Virginia Tech murders, 30 out of 32 murders happened after
police arrive at the campus.
Let's say that a hungry bear wanders into a school. What would be the appropriate response? Lock all the doors so that the bear would have a difficult time breaking into each class. And if the bear was within a classroom when the lockdown occurred, persuade the to limit his attention to only those within that specific class room? Or perhaps if the teacher had appropriate training, he/she could reason with the bear and persuade it to live a peaceful life, eating berries and grass.
Criminals have guns, and most of them have never been purchased. If guns are banned, criminals have the option of arming themselves with other weapons, or actually manufacturing firearms themselves. And the government has guns, and is willing to impose its will on an unarmed populous.
For anyone who takes a reasoned logical look at statistics, private gun ownership decreases crime (violent crime in particular) in virtually all cases. This indeed should have been a 9-0 decision.
Let's say that a hungry bear wanders into a school. What would be the appropriate response? Lock all the doors so that the bear would have a difficult time breaking into each class. And if the bear was within a classroom when the lockdown occurred, persuade the to limit his attention to only those within that specific class room? Or perhaps if the teacher had appropriate training, he/she could reason with the bear and persuade it to live a peaceful life, eating berries and grass.
Criminals have guns, and most of them have never been purchased. If guns are banned, criminals have the option of arming themselves with other weapons, or actually manufacturing firearms themselves. And the government has guns, and is willing to impose its will on an unarmed populous.
For anyone who takes a reasoned logical look at statistics, private gun ownership decreases crime (violent crime in particular) in virtually all cases. This indeed should have been a 9-0 decision.
lamonte | 10:54 a.m. June 27, 2008
Mike 10:20 am - Those are excellent points. In this morning's Washington
Post E.J. Dionne puts it this way:
The court's five most conservative members have demonstrated that for all of Justice Antonin Scalia's talk about "originalism" as a coherent constitutional doctrine, those on the judicial right regularly succumb to the temptation to legislate from the bench. They fall in line behind whatever fashions political conservatism is promoting.
Conservative justices claim that they defer to local authority. Not in this case. They insist that political questions should be decided by elected officials. Not in this case. They argue that they pay careful attention to the precise words of the Constitution. Not in this case.
The United States and its gun owners have done perfectly well since 1939, when an earlier Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as implying a collective right to bear arms, but not an individual right.
Here is what the Second Amendment says: "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."
Mike, I think your comments falol right in line with this reasoning. Thanks.
The court's five most conservative members have demonstrated that for all of Justice Antonin Scalia's talk about "originalism" as a coherent constitutional doctrine, those on the judicial right regularly succumb to the temptation to legislate from the bench. They fall in line behind whatever fashions political conservatism is promoting.
Conservative justices claim that they defer to local authority. Not in this case. They insist that political questions should be decided by elected officials. Not in this case. They argue that they pay careful attention to the precise words of the Constitution. Not in this case.
The United States and its gun owners have done perfectly well since 1939, when an earlier Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as implying a collective right to bear arms, but not an individual right.
Here is what the Second Amendment says: "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."
Mike, I think your comments falol right in line with this reasoning. Thanks.
one more thing... | 11:39 a.m. June 27, 2008
Great editorial and may I add that the dissenting justices should be in prison
right now. It's unbelievable that Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens and that other
Marxist could read the second amendment and come to the conclusion that they
did. Frightening.
And Lamonte, evidently you have a Government job as you seem to spend lots of time posting on the dn website - and it wasn't an "essay" - it was an editorial.
And Lamonte, evidently you have a Government job as you seem to spend lots of time posting on the dn website - and it wasn't an "essay" - it was an editorial.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | 11:42 a.m. June 27, 2008
As Justice Scalia noted, leading legal scholars have looked at the history of
"the right to keep and bear arms" and have reported in distinguished
legal journals that, what do you know, "the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. The
prefatory language about the need for a capable militia means a force that, like
the armed citizens that rebelled against Great Britain, the same citizens who
ratified the 2nd Amendment, is made up of the free men of the nation with their
own weapons. Britain had already suffered from kings who suppressed rebellion
by confiscating personal firearms, and the Revolutionary War began when the
Redcoats tried to confiscate the arms of the citizens of Concord, Massachusetts.
To claim that government can ban handguns is to destroy the ability to form the
kind of citizen militia that fought at Concord and Lexington in April, 1775, so
emphasis on the "militia" clause does not support a gun ban either.
As the constitutions of the original 13 states show, personal ownership and use
of firearms was seen to benefit defense of both the person and the community.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | 11:49 a.m. June 27, 2008
Let it be absolutely clear: Scalia's opinion for the majority cites chapter
and verse of ORIGINAL MEANING of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. It is
NOT an "activist" judge creating a "right" out of nothing
(as Roe v. Wade did for abortion and Lawrtence v. Texas for homosexual behavior)
but the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, right after the 1st, which was
ratified by thye same people who fought the Revolutionary War using citizen
militias armed with personal weapons against the British Redcoats and their
Hessian mercenaries. The people claiming that Scalia is ignoring the real text
and history of the Constitution are disciples of Hitler and his Big Lie theory,
that the biggest lies are the most successful. That includes Nancy Pelosi.
Their assertion that the law on the 2nd Amendment was "well settled"
is a bunch of baloney. This is the first time since the Supreme Court was
established in 1789 that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was directly
discussed.
Remember that DC's gun ban allowed people who defended their families with a firearm against invading killers to be put in jail! Does the Constitution intend such stupid and evil outcomes?
Remember that DC's gun ban allowed people who defended their families with a firearm against invading killers to be put in jail! Does the Constitution intend such stupid and evil outcomes?
Court finally gets it | 12:00 p.m. June 27, 2008
Because Militias are a good thing. The people, have a right to keep and bare
arms.
I've always believed the second ammendment means what is says, and now the Supreme court does too.
I've always believed the second ammendment means what is says, and now the Supreme court does too.
RE "GWB | 5:32 a.m." | 12:27 p.m. June 27, 2008
You are the poster-boy for Partisanship. Always on one side, no matter what.
You can't even conceed that clarifying this is not only good for Conservatives but it is also good for all Americans (that the Constitution was upheld).
How can you say, "Yep, now with that ruling the NRA and GOP have prevailed. Congratulations to them, they have now lost the election year wedge issue"?
Was this REALLY a GOP&NRA vs what ever you are competition for you?
That's the whole point of this article. That this wasn't a Partisn issue to many. Even liberal THINKERS like Eugene Robinson and Pat Leahy see that.
But YOU have to carry on the partisan rhetoric and pretend this is a GOP vs whatever you are issue.
The Bill of Rights ISN't just for the GOP. The 2nd Ammendment ISN't just for the GOP. This SHOULDN'T be a partisan issue, but some people insist on pushing it that way and making this right guaranteed in the Constitution out to be a GOP operative or a NRA stuge. When are you going to take off your political blinders and see that this is a right for all of us (not just GOP)?
You can't even conceed that clarifying this is not only good for Conservatives but it is also good for all Americans (that the Constitution was upheld).
How can you say, "Yep, now with that ruling the NRA and GOP have prevailed. Congratulations to them, they have now lost the election year wedge issue"?
Was this REALLY a GOP&NRA vs what ever you are competition for you?
That's the whole point of this article. That this wasn't a Partisn issue to many. Even liberal THINKERS like Eugene Robinson and Pat Leahy see that.
But YOU have to carry on the partisan rhetoric and pretend this is a GOP vs whatever you are issue.
The Bill of Rights ISN't just for the GOP. The 2nd Ammendment ISN't just for the GOP. This SHOULDN'T be a partisan issue, but some people insist on pushing it that way and making this right guaranteed in the Constitution out to be a GOP operative or a NRA stuge. When are you going to take off your political blinders and see that this is a right for all of us (not just GOP)?
king of the world | 12:49 p.m. June 27, 2008
This is (blanking) great!
Now I can get a couple of AK-47's and I'll rule the world!
Now I can get a couple of AK-47's and I'll rule the world!
lamonte | 1:08 p.m. June 27, 2008
one more thing 11:39 -
from Webster's online dictionary we find that an essay is defined as:
a: an analytic or interpretative literary composition usually dealing with its subject from a limited or personal point of view b: something resembling such a composition
I think that definition sounds like an editorial to me so they are most likely the same thing, but thanks for your opinion.
I was also wondering if you conservatives could actually make a point without using the terms Marxist, Hitler, or socialist? But then again I be stretching it if I claim you're making a point as oppsoed to calling people names..
from Webster's online dictionary we find that an essay is defined as:
a: an analytic or interpretative literary composition usually dealing with its subject from a limited or personal point of view b: something resembling such a composition
I think that definition sounds like an editorial to me so they are most likely the same thing, but thanks for your opinion.
I was also wondering if you conservatives could actually make a point without using the terms Marxist, Hitler, or socialist? But then again I be stretching it if I claim you're making a point as oppsoed to calling people names..
GWB | 1:17 p.m. June 27, 2008
To "RE "GWB": you must have misunderstood my post.
I have always believed in gun ownership and the .38 undr my mattress will back this up. I am glad that this is finally settled, an individual right (as I have always interpreted it) exist to keep and bear arms.
Notably though Scalia also pointed out that it is not an absolute right (ie resrtictions for felons etc.).
My Point was now that this is settled, what is all the NRA money going to be spent on? This is no longer a wedge issue.
Even Obama has recognized that individuals have the right to own guns and voted he voted for the Vitter Amendment that "prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law" after the Bush Adminstration confiscated weapons after Hurricane Katrina.
So my real question was, now that individual gun ownership has been taken of the table as a wedge issue, what is next?
Maybe we can move on to solving problems instead of voting on single issues that are now settled.
I have always believed in gun ownership and the .38 undr my mattress will back this up. I am glad that this is finally settled, an individual right (as I have always interpreted it) exist to keep and bear arms.
Notably though Scalia also pointed out that it is not an absolute right (ie resrtictions for felons etc.).
My Point was now that this is settled, what is all the NRA money going to be spent on? This is no longer a wedge issue.
Even Obama has recognized that individuals have the right to own guns and voted he voted for the Vitter Amendment that "prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law" after the Bush Adminstration confiscated weapons after Hurricane Katrina.
So my real question was, now that individual gun ownership has been taken of the table as a wedge issue, what is next?
Maybe we can move on to solving problems instead of voting on single issues that are now settled.
Re "GWB | 1:17 p.m." | 2:12 p.m. June 27, 2008
So if you agree with the decision... Why do you feel the obligation to say
ANYTHING disparaging about the GOP or the NRA in your comment? Unless
you're trying to get the partisan juices flowing again?
Are you just trying to reiterate Obama's assertion that the GOP = the NRA, and the whole stereotype of conservatives being a bitter people who have to hold on to guns and their religion to have a purpose in life?
If you agree with the SC decision... Why not just say, "It was the right decision", instead of going off on some tangential rant about the GOP and the NRA? That's what I think makes you look like a partisan yammerer... That even something you agree with you turn into a little rant about your stereotype of the GOP (gun nuts).
Are you just trying to reiterate Obama's assertion that the GOP = the NRA, and the whole stereotype of conservatives being a bitter people who have to hold on to guns and their religion to have a purpose in life?
If you agree with the SC decision... Why not just say, "It was the right decision", instead of going off on some tangential rant about the GOP and the NRA? That's what I think makes you look like a partisan yammerer... That even something you agree with you turn into a little rant about your stereotype of the GOP (gun nuts).
GWB | 2:43 p.m. June 27, 2008
"ReGWB"
What did I say that disparages the GOP?
I first said "Yep, now with that ruling the NRA and GOP have prevailed. Congratulations to them, they have now lost the election year wedge issue.
Now what are the 2nd Ammendment voters going to pick as their single issue to vote on? What is the NRA Political Action Committee going to do with their money???
Anyone have an answer? I would really like to know."
What is the disparaging point?
I think you are a bit defensive, and I challenge you to find a disparaging point in my post.
What did I say that disparages the GOP?
I first said "Yep, now with that ruling the NRA and GOP have prevailed. Congratulations to them, they have now lost the election year wedge issue.
Now what are the 2nd Ammendment voters going to pick as their single issue to vote on? What is the NRA Political Action Committee going to do with their money???
Anyone have an answer? I would really like to know."
What is the disparaging point?
I think you are a bit defensive, and I challenge you to find a disparaging point in my post.
Mark B | 2:50 p.m. June 27, 2008
OK, the Court says that owning guns is fine, and that they need not even be
locked. But we still have a problem - 30-40,000 people dead every year from gun
violence under widely differing circumstances. So, what should we as a society
do to reduce that number, given the fact that the US already leads the world in
per capita gun ownership? We also imprison more people than any other nation. I
suggest it's time to start thinking past the end of our noses ("No
one's taking MY gun"), and begin serious inquiry.
ONE MORE THING | 4:44 p.m. June 27, 2008
@ mark b - maybe we need to promote more gun ownership and watch the number of
people dead from gun violence drop dramatically -
@ lamonte - like I said ... you must have lots of time on your hands
@ lamonte - like I said ... you must have lots of time on your hands
Anonymous | 5:12 p.m. June 27, 2008
Round 'em up.
Head 'em out.
Shoot 'em up.
What deluded fools!
Head 'em out.
Shoot 'em up.
What deluded fools!
Attn: Mark B | 6:54 p.m. June 27, 2008
First, the US does NOT lead the world in per-capita gun ownership. That blue
ribbon belongs to Switzerland, where most adult male citizens have MACHINE GUNS
in their closets, and just about all of the rest have handguns. Switzerland
also has one of the lowest gun-related crime rates in the world.
Second, the "gun death" numbers you're using come from the same political activists who count 20-year-old drug dealers among the "children killed by guns." They count any death in which a firearm was present as a "gun death," even if there was no shot fired.
The actual number of shooting deaths is about 25,000, and this number includes suicide, police-involved shootings, defensive uses, etc.
Or, in other words, you are 4 times as likely to die because of an incompetent doctor than you are because of a bullet.
Second, the "gun death" numbers you're using come from the same political activists who count 20-year-old drug dealers among the "children killed by guns." They count any death in which a firearm was present as a "gun death," even if there was no shot fired.
The actual number of shooting deaths is about 25,000, and this number includes suicide, police-involved shootings, defensive uses, etc.
Or, in other words, you are 4 times as likely to die because of an incompetent doctor than you are because of a bullet.
Dear 6:54 | 8:40 p.m. June 27, 2008
I don't think you know a thing about Switzerland or who owns those guns.
That goes for the NRA, too.
I do know that doctors try to improve their skills all the time, but I'm not sure that gun owners do. How many deaths would it require for you to consider gun deaths, whatever the number, as "too many"? The SCOTUS says you have the right to own firearms for home protection. Fine. But no right is absolute. Isn't there anything we can do to reduce gun deaths, INCLUDING all those you seem to think don't count mentioned in your third paragraph? After all, the bullet stoppers in each case are just as dead.
I do know that doctors try to improve their skills all the time, but I'm not sure that gun owners do. How many deaths would it require for you to consider gun deaths, whatever the number, as "too many"? The SCOTUS says you have the right to own firearms for home protection. Fine. But no right is absolute. Isn't there anything we can do to reduce gun deaths, INCLUDING all those you seem to think don't count mentioned in your third paragraph? After all, the bullet stoppers in each case are just as dead.
Truth-Sayer | 10:44 p.m. June 27, 2008
The right to keep and bear arms is the original, and the epitomy of a
"right to life" issue. If we don't have the right to protect our
own lives, the lives of our families and our neighbor's lives, we have
nothing!
The fact is, the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect us. The police are rarely "on scene" when a crime is committed, and they cannot be there instantaneously when one's life is threatened by another.
The Supreme Court got it right this time---it should have been a unanimous vote if these dissenting judges were really interpreting the meaning of the Second Amendment as it is written and in a common sense manner.
Now for a common sense question: If the 2nd Amendment was only for "the militia" and not for the people---why do we have miilions of guns, gun owners and gun merchants? Have the police and the government just been turning a blind eye to these facts since the 2nd Amendment was ratified?
Who is the militia but the people? There was no national guard when the 2nd Amendment was ratified--it has always been "the people's" right!
The fact is, the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect us. The police are rarely "on scene" when a crime is committed, and they cannot be there instantaneously when one's life is threatened by another.
The Supreme Court got it right this time---it should have been a unanimous vote if these dissenting judges were really interpreting the meaning of the Second Amendment as it is written and in a common sense manner.
Now for a common sense question: If the 2nd Amendment was only for "the militia" and not for the people---why do we have miilions of guns, gun owners and gun merchants? Have the police and the government just been turning a blind eye to these facts since the 2nd Amendment was ratified?
Who is the militia but the people? There was no national guard when the 2nd Amendment was ratified--it has always been "the people's" right!
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- U. puts Universe Project on hold 2:02 p.m.
- '08 Black Friday death keys changes 2:00 p.m.
- Stocks rise following jobless news 1:54 p.m.
- Adventurer ditches in Atlantic, unhurt 1:18 p.m.
- Thousands comment on Idaho mine 1:14 p.m.
- SLC continues free parking tradition 1:10 p.m.
- Cache woman still critical after crash 12:09 p.m.
- Crews working to free man in cave 12:03 p.m.
- Utes fall to Seattle U. at home 11:56 a.m.
- Quinn backs embattled Weis 11:54 a.m.
- Donny and Kym dance to victory
- Howard made the rivalry a rivalry
- Witness describes '99 killing
- Cougars cruise past Southern
- Loyal to Cougarettes, Crimson Line
- Crews working to free man in cave
- Y. focused on 10-win season
- Twitterati to BCS: 'We hate you.'
- Utah, BYU are top choices for bowls
- Thunder rolls by Jazz
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
254 - Glenn Beck to enter politics?226
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Protests against Phoenix LDS temple201
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match138
- BYU records with win133
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin127
- Hall, Johnson matchup key102
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th in 4 years96
- Cougars turn focus to dreaded rivals90
Latest comments
Poor goofy redshirt! He's taken a page from the Limbaugh/Beck/Coulter neocon...
I love the Des News headlines "Wildcats get past D-II foe". Since when is a...
I think a lot of people under estimate Riverton. Their only loss last year...
Keep drinking the kool-aid. So you enjoy SEC football more than MWC. Good...
Hey Paul shouldn't you be focused on preparng the Raven's 53 man roster for...
Argument: It would ruin the bowls. Rebuttal: Just like the NCAA and NIT...
anyone is better than Bennett except a democrat
Memo gets extended, for what, so you have to play him, when he shouldn't be...
I like Utah. It is good to have a place for the kids who can't get ito BYU...
I love how Wynn is practically being considered a heisman candidate after 3...
Advertisements