Closing Arguments: Did the Court Get It Right?

Has or did the Washington gun ban make the city any safer ? Has The ban on hand guns in Australia made it any safer? Not they want to outlaw knives in England.
Sorry anti gun people, your idea did not work!

Its not the Court’s job to decide if it makes us safer or not, its the Court’s job to determine the constitutionality of the law. Which they did.

very wrong too have guns someone could flip out and then what someone could die from this haveing guns

Guns Are NOT Safe—
they are DANGEROUS and a Primitive means to settle
disputes
Guns put Good Sense at grave peril

It is not up to the court to decide whether the law makes us safer or less safe. Their only job is to determine whether the law is constitutional or unconstitutional, and in that sense, they got it right.

The places that have the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime rates.
States that have carry laws, (concealed
or open) have the lowest crime rates.
Knowing that the person coming toward you may have a gun will make most criminals think twice about trying to rob them.
The Old West was NOT a violent society,
it was a polite society, because EVERYONE was armed.
Dialing 911 in Chicago is just calling the Coroner. He will do more for you than the Police will.

The court has it right. Just look at D.C.crime rate. Gun control was not working

Yes, the court got it right! I can guarantee that if a rapist or burglar was sure that the person that they intended to victimize was wielding a gun that the victim was knowlegeable in the correct utilization of, they would pass that victim by for a more vulnerable victim! After all, most convicted criminals will tell you that they were always looking for the most vulnerable person who they thought had no recourse to fend them off!

Now not only the bad guys will have personal protection. I don’t believe that allowing honest people to carry personal weapons (those that believe abeying the law is the right thing to do)will increase crime. I believe the dis-honest will think twice if they believe others are armed.

Yes the court finally got it right. There is and always has been an indivdual right to keep and bear arms.
Whether this is good or not, all you have to do is check the decrease in crime in all the states that have right to carry laws for their citizens. More guns in the hands of lawful peoples equals less overall crime.

5 of the 9 on the supreme court got it right, not really sure what the they were thinking.
Bottom line is gun control doesnt work. DC is a great example…some of the strictest gun laws and one of the highest crime areas of the US. Then there are those inspirational Gun Free Zones…as in in our public schools, how have those worked out for us?
Having a gun wont make you exempt for crime but at least you have the option of countering back and defending yourself instead of cowering under a desk waiting for your turn to be shot down in cold blood.
When seconds count…the police are minutes away at best.

Hurray for the United States Supreme Court. Remember, its not the guns that kill people its the people behind the guns. I am proud and honored to own a gun. I respect it and will use it to to protect myself and my family from all of bad crumbs that illegally have one. Why should the criminals have the guns and we, the innocent become their victims. Not this time. Thank you U.S. Supreme Court for protecting our RIGHT.

Yes, they got it right. Criminals don’t like to take any risks when robbing or intimidating other people.
This has been proven many times when you watch “Cops” and the criminals are the biggest whiners and criers when they are caught.

Although the media and most politicians would have us believe otherwise, the facts are indisputable – the only people restrictive gun laws ultimately protect are the criminals. In states that have authorized concealed carry laws, gun related crime has gone down. Being able to protect ourselves is a basic right that no one has the authority to abridge, no matter their stated “good” intentions.

As a TEXAN I applaud the Supreme Court’s affirmation of my right to bear arms. Guns in the hands of RESPONSIBLE people do not cause crime rates to go up nor do they make people unsafe. It’s when only the CRIMINALS have the guns that we have the problems. I think the crime rate in Washington DC will now go DOWN because the ban on allowing citizens to have guns went away. Now the criminals will have to worry about the person they are going to shoot having the ability to shoot back!

The issue isn’t whether or not the decision makes Americans safer. It is what did the framers of the Constitution intend? They intended for individual citizens to have the right to bear arms, a right that was denied to the common man in many European nations. This was viewed as insurance that the U.S. population could never be controlled by a despotic ruler.

Less safe after this ruling? No. Chicago and Washington D.C. have gun bans, yet gun violence is the most violent at those cities. Why is that? Anti gun laws are not obeyed by law breakers who break laws anyway. This only leaves the citizen who is lawful at the mercy of the criminals because they are unable to defend themselves. And the criminals know this! When a populace is armed, you introduce occupational hazard to the criminals. They think twice before committing a crime in fear that they may be shot back, as crude as this sounds. An unarmed populace is fish in a barrel. You can’t rely on the police when it takes them minutes to respond.
How many years does Chicago have its gun ban? How many laws in Chicago’s books are there? Whats one more law going to do? How many years is it going to take and get it right? Chicago has been the most violent in recent years, and this city is a case study that gun bans have zero effect in reducing crime. Never mind the fact that Mayor Dailey and his government is corrupt.

The psychos and nuts and criminal types will have their weapons of choice no matter the law or the court ruling says. The ruling allows the honest, law-abiding citizen to protect himself! The court possibly has it right this time! Kudos!

Whether the ruling “make Americans safer or less safe” is completely irrelevant to the question of constitutionality of the law. The question cannot be taken into consideration.
Did the Court get it right? Of course. They ruled in favor of a strict interpretation of the wording.

I agree with the Court’s Decision defending indivual rights to own firearms; however, I still think that gun ownership should be strongly regulated. This evening I have had four glasses of wine and I will soon be walking my dog in my peaceful neighborhood with my 357 Magnum in my pocket. Do you really want to pass me on the street?

It is my belief that the Supreme Court got it right. Guns do not kill people.
People kill people. Just as an automobile accident kills. Just as a baseball hits a young kid in the head with the force of 100 mile an hour. Should we stop selling cars? Should we stop make baseballs? Teach children respect, and to follow all instructions.
My husband explained to the boys at a very early age 3 yrs 5 yrs. A gun with a bullet in when shot, would brake the target you are shooting all to peices. He then took them and show an example. He then told them it could not be put back together. It would never be the same. So do not point guns at anything you do not want to break. Manners, chores, responsiblity, make good citizens. This, all children need to guide them.

Yes the decision was correct. I am glad at least five justices understand the plain language of our constitution, and don’t feel the desire to change it. Apparently they know the history of bullies,and tyrants – confiscate all personal weapons. Personal arms are the last defense for freedom,and against dictators, and corrupt government.

I think they made the right reading, but I think the verdict will be how people handle guns in the first place. Bad guys will always find ways to have weapons, but we don’t live in the wild, wild west either. I am not apposed to our citizens arming themselves, but I hope they do so with wisdom when it comes to guns.

The Court has FINALLY got something right! Look at the DC crime rate and the crime rate of any country in the world that have national gun bans, gun control doesn’t work. It only makes victims of law abiding citizens.

What Supreme Court did was found what was lost; our way of life;
We no longer are the home of braves land of free;
We drive 2 hours each way; what it takes 30min;
We wait 2 hrs; what it takes 30min to get on the plane;
We’ve lost it; our way of life; safety be damned for eternity if we have to give up our way of life; in part or whole;

Safer? YES
Court get it right? YES

YES, the Supreme Court absolutely got it right. Now the good honest hard working people can use the same thing to defend theirselves that the thiefs, murders, and thugs use. GOOD JOB to all the members of the Supreme Court!

Yes….they got it RIGHT. That’s exactly why we ARE who we are. We are FREE. We are PROSPEROUS,& we try to HELP others. We will not tolerate a DICTATOR. We will not tolerate so-called “lawmakers” that try to take away our our basic human right of self-defense. Take a close look at the rest of the world. Do you like what you see? Would you like to live somewhere else? Africa? Asia? Europe? South America? If so, please go…..with our blessings. How about FREE SPEECH? ABC News is free to criticize our government….& so are you & I. Can you do that anywhere else? And get away with it? We are FREE because of our Constitutional Rights. And, our 2nd Amendment PROTECTS the Constitution itself. Think about it. The very first Amendment is the RIGHT to say what you please. The second : to DEFEND your right to say it. It’s a no-brainer.

Dear concerned citizen;
If constitution isn’t for individual; who is it for?;
Constitution mentions only three entities; Individual, State, religion;
In matter of religion; nothing of official documents can be used; that gets rid of religion; from equation;
That leaves State and individual; so once again .. who is it for?;

I also want to point out that Chicago and D.C. either banned or excessively restricted consumer gun sale and distribution. However, the entire country was not in line. If you could drive to the next state over and obtain a gun and amunition legally, how effective could one city’s gun ban truly be?

As a man from Montana where 2nd amendment rights still exist, I’m shocked that four of the nine got it wrong. During the Virginia Tech shootings aftermath, I kept thinking “How many of the victims, if given an opportunity all over, whould have armed themselves and at least had a chance to stop the slaughter”. My guess is 100%, including their families.

Teresa O’Brien: Your comments are a bit asinine.
- First off the justices did not pass a “gun law”, they made a ruling on the reading of the second amendment.
- Have you ever been in a part of this country where guns were legal? If so, was it really like the wild wild west? People shooting into the air at a wedding receptions?
- Although it does get reported, albeit very rarely, people HAVE protected themselves both in the home and in the streets as a result of defending themselves with their firearms. The media rarely report something good happening because its not good news like bad news. Also criminals who know that a certain area or home has the ability to defend themselves don’t even try. Their knowledge that a populace is armed is deterrent and prevents an encounter from taking place to begin with.
- You will see for yourself the crime rates going down once people have the ability to defend themselves. Just look at the statistics. The numbers tell an interesting story. You just choose to be ignorant.
- Way to insinuate a threat on a person holding a seat in government. You’re a real class act and that statement speaks wonders about you.

Yes the majority of the supreme court got it right. The constitution does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. You have that right naturally. The constitution informs the government that the people have the right to defend themselves and their country sometimes from their very own leaders and can not take that right away.
Yes any city that repeals their gun laws will become safer. Read the bias against guns by John Lott.

This ruling will bring about total chaos! With so many parents addicted to illegal substances leaving behind their frustrated children to fend for themselves, and so many guns available, I guess that makes it safer to walk the streets!
But I guess those violent crimes only frequently exist in my neighborhood, so why should anyone else care what this means for my family?

Chicago is a very dangerous city for the citizens and law enforcement. There are numerous murders everydayin this city. No only adults get killed everyday but innocent children,teens & officers get killed everyday. Do you think these are random killings? Well they are not. They are meant for someone and the innocent get killed instead. Vicious criminals break into innocent people’s homes and murder them. The innocent are playing,sitting,walking etc & yet they are killed. It’s not the gun that kills, its the person behind the gun. Yes, Mayor Daley, you said it right, it is a shoot out, like the ‘Ol West’ It’s us against them. What you need to do is get rid of all of the punk gangs in Chicago and there wouldn’t be a need to have a gun to protect yourself. I applaud the US Supreme Court for a victory to uphold our right to bear arms.

Thomas Jefferson wrote about the militia in 1781: “Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia.” ( from Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX ) Many other Federalist letters directly referred to the militia as being all the people. I think the Supreme Court got that part right.
I think that the Court was correct to say that reasonable regulation of firearms was acceptable. Just like speech can be regulated, and public assembly can be regulated as well. I don’t hear anyone having problems with reasonable regulation of those rights.
However I think the Supreme Court (oddly) screwed up regarding what this individual right is supposed to protect. This has severe implications on what you might consider to be reasonable regulation.
The right was not meant to protect the people’s ability to protect themselves or their personal property, or to go hunting with firearms, or to go target shooting. Personally I think those are also fine goals, but they aren’t mentioned in the constitution anywhere that I can see.
My gratuitous rephrasing…
{the populace}… keeping and bearing arms, being a necessity to the security of a free state, will therefore be a protected right.
What does “security of a free state” mean? And what role is necessary that the people must be armed to fulfill? What regulation would therefore be reasonable and also not interfere with the necessary role that people with guns need to fill?
I think that the framers of the constitution were worried about tyranny by a government and that gov’t using it’s army and police to enforce that tyranny.
It is my opinion that the framers of the constitution intended that a gov’t of the people, by the people and for the people would be expected to protect their own freedoms with their own guns.
Therefore, handguns are not what should be considered protected by the constitution, and shooting burglars or deer is not protected either.
Assault weapons, machine guns, armor piercing bullets, (up to date modern army infantry gear) is what I think is protected. Because those are the things that the people would need to fulfill the role of “protectors of their own freedoms”.
So, the question I think is whether we decide to revise the constitution with a new amendment that is more reasonable considering the current general will of the people… or we should live with what we have. And, unfortunately, what we have is a legal system that isn’t facing the *real* arguments.

Was there really any doubt as to what the 2nd Amendment meant? Five got it right…the other four didn’t. Fortunately five was enough! It’s troubling to know that four of the judges had trouble reading and interpreting such a simply stated Right!
Perhaps it’s time to put each of the other Rights to the same scrutiny. Would all the anti-gun people like those explained to them as well? I think not! Wake up America!

What about law abiding citizens owning and carrying a handgun makes the community less safe? By definition, “law abiding” citizens aren’t using handguns to commit crimes, they are LAW ABIDING, not criminals! It is the criminals use of handguns against the law abiding citizens, that is what is wrong here. If someone decides for themselves that they aren’t comfortable enough with handguns to own one and have it to protect themselves, fine, don’t own one, but stop trying to keep me from owning one to be used for self protection.

Yes the court got it right and it is long over due

The Supreme Court’s job in this case was to rule on constitutionality of DC’s law. They were NOT tasked with making the U.S. safer or less safe. In my opinion they only got it partially correct. They were correct in confirming that the 2nd Amendment guarantees every U.S. citizen the right to bear arms; however, they stopped short of actually completing the job at hand. Many laws (& executive orders) are still in place throughout this country that severely restrict gun owner rights. These need to be abolished too!

Yes, they got it right. They didn’t make policy or describe the world as they would like it to be, they just did their job and answered the simple question “what does the constitution say?”. Everywhere the term “the people” is used it means individual citizens and that is just what it means in the 2nd amendment. They did however say local governments could place reasonable restrictions on firearm use by people such as mental defectives, felons and unsupervised minors.
By definition laws don’t apply to criminals but just the knowledge that their intended victim may be armed should cause a lot of criminals to think before they act. If someone abuses their right to own and use a firearm then they should be treated as a criminal but until then they are entitled to the rights granted by our founding fathers..

The Court got it right.
Shocking, I know.

Yes, the SCOTUS got it right and, as others have said, it’s amazing that four – FOUR!!!! – of them got it wrong.
Want to read something scary? Read Justice Breyer’s dissent letter. He suggests that the right of the individual to own handguns should be balanced against the greater needs/requirements of the government to prevent crime in high-crime areas. What????? Our individual rights are subordinate to the rights of the government????? Does he even understand what the heck the Bill of Rights are for?????? Funny, but a couple of weeks ago, he had absolutely NO PROBLEM in choosing to protect the individual rights of the Gitmo detainees (who aren’t even US citizens) over the needs/requirements of the government.
Unbelievable…

Their job is to interpret the Constitution. So while I’m glad 5 of them did their jobs, I’m also worried that the other 4 think it’s their place to create new law.

No. There have been times in the past when the Court has reversed itself, and this will be such a time. Sadly, it will only be after a period of great national rancor and unnecessary bloodletting. Almost immediately, suits have been filed to remove restrictions on firearms in public housing. Those of us who don’t live in that mindset will just have to suffer the fallout from this nuclear mishap. And our kids.

It is a disgrace that we Americans hold these Supreme Court Justices in such high regard. It would have been refreshing if the court that opened up a new avenue to venture down instead of rehashing the same words that were written nearly 300 years ago when a gun was a single shot pistol. In this country you cannot hold a firework in your hand on the fouth of July due to local laws but you can hold a gun with the intent to do bodily harm anytime you want. Sick isn’t it.

Yes they got it right, I hope they continue to stand firm on upholding the rest of the constitution. It’s we the people, not we the government.

Yes, they absolutely got it right! In the world we live in these days, we can’t depend on our local, county or state law officers to protect us from the potential violence of others. I believe that the majority of people who do pack a gun, don’t do it with the intent of killing someone. We just want the right to protect ourselves and our families.

Yes they got it right. It’s so simple… “If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” There are bad people out there and no matter what you do bad people will get there hands on guns. I want to protect myself. Criminals don’t follow laws. Duh!

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is to hard for the Democrats/Liberals to UNDERSTAND?

Over the past few years in Cleveland, the number of persons killed because they were accidentally caught in crossfire is astounding. Today’s victim was a grandfather who was sitting in a wheelchair on the sidewalk in front of his house. Some moron drove by, stuck his arm out the window, and shot his gun over the top of the car with no regard for where the bullet was going. If it were illegal to carry guns, these incidents would be far less frequent. The Supreme Court was wrong.
Posted by: Murph | Jun 28, 2008 3:39:20 AM////SNIP////////
I Suppose you would have us believe that if it’s against the LAW, that Criminals will care??? Get a CLUE. If YOU Wish to BE UNARMED, fine, dont expect everyone to follow you in that stupidity of thought

Yes, they got it right. Anyone who thinks that “the people” doesn’t mean individuals, is a moron.

As a 14 year veteran of law enforcement and a veteran who has fought in two different conflicts for this countrys freedom I definitely belive they got it right. 95% of the other law enforcement officers I know believe they got it right also. I know from experience if someone is breaking into your house there is a small chance the police will get the in time. I believe the right to self defense is a God given right. Way to go Supreme Court

The protection of the second ammendment is a fraud unless you consider the citizens of the United States a well organized militia.

Although I think the Supreme Court decision was correct, I was a little bit surprised by Scalia. It seems that he used a little creative interpretation that he usually abhors.

Those justices (Ginsburg, Souter, etc) what voted to keep the gun ban are the same justices that the previous day said that it was O.K. to rape children. Obama did his usual flip-flop on this issue. Remember how he rediculed Hillary in PA calling her Annie Oakley and said she was going hunting with her six shooter. He decried the 300 murders in Chicago. The Mayor whispered to him “Hussien get real, you just got 300 more votes.”

The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, not make us safe. In fact, a free people will always be somewhat less safe from their neighbors than an oppressed people. The nature of freedom determines that.
An oppressed people will always be less safe from their government than a free people – the definition of oppressed.
Freedom requires the ability to fight off oppression and the only way to do that is to have access to arms. That was the purpose of the Second Amendment.
Five of nine got it right. Lord protect us from the other four because they would lead the oppressors.

They got it right and I think if some of our educators carried guns in purses or kept them in desk drawers, some of the mass shootings could be avoided at our schools.

You are safer when you carry a gun.Would you mess with me if you knew i could end your life with a shot?

We are bound and determined to keep guns on the streets, even if it kills every last one of us.

To John who asks the question, “Have gun laws made it any safer in Australia?” and then seems to suggest that they haven’t. You obviously don’t live in Australia. Australia is a much safer country to live in than the USA. I have a daughter, son in law and grandchildren who live in NC. I have spent several long periods of time in the USA and feel much safer back in Australia.

==very wrong too have guns someone could flip out and then what someone could die from this haveing guns=
Someone could die from your driving a car.
Someone could die from your cookin’.

==A gun is not a shield and will not protect you from bullets. It is a murder weapon – nothing more, nothing less.==
Soooo, a creep comes into your house, points a gun at yo’ wife’n'kids and looks every bit as though he intends to kill ‘em, and you gotta gun and could stop him, but you stop and think that you’d be murdering him?????
I’d buy a ticket to see the look on their faces when you tell them that.

If SCOTUS didn’t get it right, then change the Constitution. It won’t happen, but, maybe, you’ll feel better for trying, and, after all, it’s all about making yourself feel better, isn’t it?

Yes, to those who say it is a murder weapon-nothing more-nothing less…Hello—- in the HANDS OF THE CRIMINAL!!! Not in the hands of those who have the right AND RESPECT to bear arms and SHIELD themselves from THE CRIMINAL!!! A victory to all registered gun owners. Now we have to fight to lift the gun ban in my city, Chicago, where all the criminals are. Feel safe now, fellow gun owners for the US Supreme Court has spoken.

NOW THE CRIMINALS WHILE BREAKING IN WILL NOW HAVE MORE GUNS TO STEAL. IF THE BAN MADE IT LESS SAFE WHY WERE THERE SO MANY GUN CRIMES IN AMERICA, AND WHY WERE CHILDREN GETTING HOLD OF SO MANY GUNS ? DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL DO PEOPLE STILL USE DRUGS?

==NOW THE CRIMINALS WHILE BREAKING IN WILL NOW HAVE MORE GUNS TO STEAL.==
Do they need more? How many do they need to whack you and your family?
==IF THE BAN MADE IT LESS SAFE WHY WERE THERE SO MANY GUN CRIMES IN AMERICA…==
Cuz-a smuggling of guns into this country and sold on the street.
==…AND WHY WERE CHILDREN GETTING HOLD OF SO MANY GUNS ?==
Cuz they want them.
== DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL DO PEOPLE STILL USE DRUGS?==
They get them on the street, too, by stealing money. You wanna ban money?
If you wanna change the Constitution, go ahead.

“Safe” can obviously be a very subjective concept…”Safer” will therefore steam from this subjectivity. Right or wrong falls in the same category…What is right for you can be wrong for others, and what is safe for you can be dangerous for others.
In this light, those two questions will get different answers…all seemingly making sense to one’s own perception. Without falling in the pitfalls of moralities and subjective concepts, what is at stake here is a lot more abstract than understanding the meaning of the said amendment.
If life was a game, the only rule would be to survive…Everything on this planet has the right to express and defend his consciousness. Roses have thorns, dogs have teeth…and we have guns. Guns have replaced swords and spears, clubs and stones, and finally brute physical force. The gun, only matches the forces one might encounter today in his daily effort to survive…just like our ancestors matched with spears the forces at play in their world.
Further more, guns are the fastest, simplest, most effective and most energy saving way to defend one’s life. Evolution is based on this concept. In an utopian world, guns might become obsolete…but in our world, today, right now…their role is paramount. From the professional soldier to the police officer and the civilian, the possession of firearms is the ultimate symbol of defending one’s right to survive our modern world. It is a personal responsibility, in an age where self reliance is vanishing, where we rely on everyone else to take care of us, to take care of our safety, of our needs. Calling for help and needing assistance has become a burden on our nature, on our freedom.

“Soooo, a creep comes into your house, points a gun at yo’ wife’n'kids” etc…
Well, how do you think he got the gun in the first place? Either he legally purchased it, stole it from a guy like you or bought it from someone who did. Guns are too easily accessible, that’s the whole point. In a country with strict gun control your scenario is extremely unlikely to occur.
But I agree that the first step towards national gun control is to clean the streets of illegal weapons and make sure that every gun is easily traced back to one single responsible owner who has been properly trained in shooting and handling guns.
And, by the way, I’m not against hunters keeping rifles as long as they have gone through the proper training and testing.

now that owning and beaing guns are a civil right, convicted felons have their civil rights stripped. a court ruling that punishes convicts not innocent people.

==…how do you think he got the gun in the first place?==
Is That what you’d be thinkin’ when he threatens you and your family??
== Either he legally purchased it, stole it from a guy like you or bought it from someone who did.==
So??
== Guns are too easily accessible…==
Then amend the Constitution.

problem with our country is namby pamby liberals who think they can rehabilitate killers, rapist and the rest of the world scum——i love the three strike law—an eye for an eye–punishment must fit the crime.

Wow, this issue really inflames passions! It wasn’t even about taking away our Constitutional rights, just deciding (as we have always done) which weapons are legal. Just a few suggestions:
1. Tom W. Franzen, whichever side of the issue you are on, if you really want people to read your comments, don’t shout. I might have read it, except that the all caps turned me off—it’s the online equivalent of shouting or ranting.
2. John Russell (who wondered how keeping law-abiding citizens from owning guns could help to keep us safe), look at the numbers regarding accidental shootings because a child gets hold of a gun. The counterargument is that the gun is locked up out of reach of kids, with the ammunition stored separately, but that means the gun is not readily available when the bad guys break down the door. And of course, kids are pretty creative at finding ways to gain access to forbidden items.
3. Bill, who argued that educators should have guns in their desk drawers at school, the day that my university classes are full of people with guns is the day that I want to quit teaching. I am wildly safer accepting the far less than one in a million risk of a maniac shooting up my classroom than I would be with well-meaning vigilantes in all of my classes. This was our 19th Century philosophy, and it was justice by the guy with the biggest gun. The Wild West was far more dangerous than today’s U.S. I don’t want to go back, having disputes settled by angry people with guns.
4. Dave, who thinks that only ignorant people don’t want to carry guns, I don’t want to leave America, just because you don’t agree with me. Like you, I just want to be safe, but the Wild West is not my idea of a safe society.
5. Kchew, I’m glad that you keep your guns locked up and that you don’t carry them to the grocery or in your car to deal with road rage. The people who scare me are the many who don’t behave that way. Knowing that other drivers have guns in their cars is not a pleasant thought—road rage is bad enough with gestures and shouting. Every incident I have read about involves somebody who claims to be a mild-mannered person who simply let his/her temper take control in a moment of passion. They are always sorry afterward (but the victim is still dead). No thanks!
6. CJC, do you really believe that guns are the only reason we have any freedoms left? How many despots have you killed to protect those freedoms? Do you know of any despots in the history of our republic who were eliminated through shootings? Yes, we have had assassinations, but most of us believe that those were tragic moments in our history, not preservation of our liberty.
7. To those who argue that handguns restrictions clearly don’t work, since high crime areas also have gun restrictions, you are confusing cause and effect. Simply citing correlation is not enough—it is at least as plausible to argue that areas with many deaths by handgun are likely to restrict ownership, in order to reduce that death rate. Even if it reduces handgun deaths, there could easily continue to be a higher than average death rate in those areas. Simply finding a pattern doesn’t explain causality. The reverse argument would be to note that even we have free access to handguns, we still have one of the highest murder rates in the civilized world. Hmmm.
8. To those who asked sarcastically “which part of 2nd Amendment don’t you understand,” I wonder “which part of “well-organized militia” do you not understand? We have always balanced our 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms against the safety of the rest of us. That’s why we have always had limitations. You may bear arms, but you may not own tanks, F-16s, nuclear weapons, bombs, etc. If we really had an absolute right to form militias to attack the government when we feel that it infringed on our liberties, there would be no limits on types of legal weapons. A private air force would protect your freedom more than simply a handgun! We don’t allow that. The Supreme Court simply made a decision regarding where to draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable gun ownership.

As someone who does not live in the USA it saddens me to read again ignorant comments from people like Dave:
–How about FREE SPEECH? ABC News is free to criticize our government….& so are you & I. Can you do that anywhere else? And get away with it?–
Yes Dave you can do it in most civilised countries in the world. In Australia I am free to criticise (note our spelling difference in Aus) our Government to my heart’s content with no fear of reprisal. In fact voting is compulsory in Australia, historically so that no person can be discriminated against for voting in a way that may be against the interests of those who may have influence over them in areas of employment, governance etc. All Australians vote using the same style of paper voting cards so that the Florida problems could not occur here. (definitely no pregnant chads to argue over).
In fact if you live in Germany, France, Italy, Scandinavian countries, Britain etc. (Too long to list) you will find the right to criticise your own government without fear or favour. You may even be surprised that your human rights are more strongly protected in many of these countries than in the USA. All you need to do to verify this is to read online newspapers from any of these countries. Google newspapers from these countries and check. Read the comments the British readers and journalists make about their political leaders.
No Dave I wouldn’t want to live in Zimbabwe or Russia or some of the other places you mentioned.
Fortunately not all Americans are as ignorant as Dave about the rest of the world. My wife was American by birthright. One of my daughters lives in the USA with her husband and children. I have travelled extensively around the world, often using cruises originating from or disembarking in the USA, with the majority of passengers being from the US. These have been delightful times with mostly great American people for company.
Unfortunately some of the American passengers showed incredible ignorance of anywhere else in the world outside of the US. I recall one passenger remarking that America was the only ‘free’ country in the world.
As to the Supreme Court, they probably made a correct legal judgment based on the 2nd Amendment. This was their job. As to whether every citizen being able to bear arms makes for a safer society, that is not so simple. The US already has such a large number of weapons (those things designed specifically to kill but which don’t kill by themselves-somehow surprisingly a person must be involved in the intention and operational phases) in the hands of both upright citizens and unfortunately criminals that not being able to own a gun could be seen as denying a citizens necessary protection.
I wonder though whether the writers of the constitution were arguing for the right of gun ownership to protect upright citizens against criminals.
That argument doesn’t apply in countries like Australia where there has never been the same degree of gun ownership and thus gun crime. Figures do show countries with low gun ownership have lower numbers of gun deaths per head of population.
By the way Dave hand guns are not banned in Australia just highly regulated. My son owns (responsibly and legally) hand guns and shotguns.

am i wrong or was the second ammendant to protect us from our enemies—-and an overoppresive government.
thank god it is alive and well today.

one last thought
FULLY automatic weapons must be properly registered—cost a few hundred dollars—must be stored in place of registration—paperwork must be kept with weapon at all times—-.i must shout this—HOW MANY CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMITTED WITH THESE WEAPONS IN THE LAST 20 YEARS.these certainly are not for hunting.just our freedom at work

Mr. Incredible,
since what we are discussing here is an amendment in itself, amending the Constitution is indeed an option. But that requires support from a vast majority of the American people and is not likely to happen anytime soon. I respect that.
However, the main problem with the Second Amendment is not that it is pro or con gun rights but rather that it is badly phrased and therefore open to interpretation. This has led to seemingly opposite Supreme Court rulings.
Re-phrasing the Second Amendment itself would be a good thing, no matter if the outcome would be pro or con gun rights.

==Re-phrasing the Second Amendment itself would be a good thing, no matter if the outcome would be pro or con gun rights.==
Can’t do that without amendment.
Anyways, we’ll keep it as it is.

Ever notice how the liberals say we’re abandoning the constitution in order to keep us safe from terrorism? And yet when it comes to the right to bear arms they have no problem abolishing more and more of those rights in order to keep us safe from gun violence?
Too funny.

Ever notice how the conservatives say we’re abandoning the constitution in order to keep us safe from guns? And yet when it comes to human rights they have no problem abolishing more and more of those rights in order to keep us safe from terrorism?
Too funny, too.

==Ever notice how the conservatives say we’re abandoning the constitution in order to keep us safe from guns?==
Except that conservatives secure the Constitution, as in this case, by going along with the clear language and intent.
== And yet when it comes to human rights they have no problem abolishing more and more of those rights in order to keep us safe from terrorism?==
What human Rights are conservatives ignoring in protecting Americans from terrorism which has not been seen in this country since 911?
==Too funny, too.==
Libs WOULD find it funny that NO American in this country has been the victim of another terror attack since 911. That’s just one reason — prob’ly the biggest — we shouldn’t elect them in November.

“Except that conservatives secure the Constitution, as in this case, by going along with the clear language and intent.”
You really got me there. Almost had a stroke from laughing.

==we don’t need to waste time with trials ==
We give them everything to which they are entitled as captives, not criminals. That means military trials. They took that chance militarily, not criminally.
However, Limbaugh has the correct perspective: “The moral of this story is don’t take any prisoners.” That would solve the problem.

[] SCOTUS – half right / half wrong
The U.S. constitution limits the servant government’s authority to deny rights of the people. (i.e., life, liberty, property)
If you have the right to life, it is useless unless defended.
Since it is patently impossible for servant government to protect EVERYONE, and it doesn’t claim that responsibility, the responsibility to defend yourself is YOURS.
Thus ANY TOOL that helps you defend yourself is legitimate… gun, sword, pike, truncheon, whatever.
Frankly, if government gets its authority from THE PEOPLE, then how can it claim a power it denies to the THE PEOPLE?
“All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent.”
BTW – disarming the populace is not the solution to civil order. It only empowers the bully, the strong, and the well armed criminal, to prey upon the weak, unarmed and vulnerable.

YES! They got it right.
Just as locks only “keep honest people honest”, gun regulations only control the law-abiding segment of our society.
Disarming honest citizens puts us all at the mercy of criminals who will keep, and continue to use, weapons illegally.
Once the criminal element in Washington D.C. knows that honest folks might be armed (and not easy targets / helpless victims) that will lead to less crime, not more, just as it has in all the states that permit concealed carry.

==Except that conservatives secure the Constitution, as in this case, by going along with the clear language and intent.==
Clear language and intent? The reason that the issue continues to arise in the courts after more than 200 years is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights left the issue ambiguous.
==Libs WOULD find it funny that NO American in this country has been the victim of another terror attack since 911. That’s just one reason — prob’ly the biggest — we shouldn’t elect them in November.== Posted by: Mr. Incredible
Do you believe that alienating most of the world and creating more enemies than we have killed has made us safer? I think it is beyond incredible, Mr. Incredible. Certainly, the lack of a terrorist attack does not prove that we are safer. The only such foreign attack prior to 9/11 was Pearl Harbor in 1941, so 7 years without a repeat doesn’t prove causality. Actually I feel much less safe, knowing how much hatred we have generated. I was living abroad during 9/11 and much of the period after, and I am still amazed at how much good will we had after 9//11 in countries that had disliked us, and how much we lost when we invaded Iraq. We certainly squandered a lot of political capital and goodwill around the world. No, Mr. Incredible, I don’t find that funny at all. Incredible perhaps, but not funny.

Please someone tell Kate to get some sense
Guns are safe only the criminals are unsafe. Guns do not hurt anyone–only the people who use them for bad things.
Also you can come live here–nestled between D.C. & Baltimore and find out just how unsafe it is to live in Maryland and we aren’t allowed to carry guns

Yes they got it right. Gee why don’t we make it illeagal for crimminals to have guns—OH !!! thats right they don’t have to obey the same laws.

Yes they got it right. The ACLU has been trying to take our guns this way for @ 50 year, and the court keeps getting it right.

Your story was misleading. As a victim of a home invasion, I am sensitive to the media supporting the “rights” of criminals. You chose a controversial case and ignored the fellings of victims of countless crimes that are allowed to happen every day because the legal system has released the same violent criminals again and again after they have been caught. I support the Castle Laws Of Texas and Florida, as well as our 2nd amendment rights.

==Do you believe that alienating most of the world and creating more enemies than we have killed has made us safer?==
I don’t care what others think, as long as we are right/correct. Just as I don’t care what street gangs think; we don what’s necessary to make things safe.
==…the lack of a terrorist attack does not prove that we are safer.==
Uhhhh, yes it does. It shows that we are doing the job to frustrate the bad guys. You remember who THAT is, don’tg you?
==The only such foreign attack prior to 9/11 was Pearl Harbor in 1941, so 7 years without a repeat doesn’t prove causality.==
Except that the terrorists have targted this country since 911, and we have frustrated them. They don’t like that, and, apparently, neither do you.
== Actually I feel much less safe…==
It’s just that you can’t get over 2000.
==…knowing how much hatred we have generated.==
Soooo, you’re saying that people who hate, say, Blacks are not responsible for their hate???? That that hate is generated by somebody else????
== I was living abroad during 9/11 and much of the period after, and I am still amazed at how much good will we had after 9//11 in countries that had disliked us, and how much we lost when we invaded Iraq.==
We can’t let others determine when and where we do the right/correct thing. Sometimes, you gotta go it alone, be the only one standing while everybody stays seated.

it’s a catch 22 and a gamble everyone has to take in consideration