Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

D.C Gun Ban Decision: Poll and Comment

You can read The Post's coverage of the story here and comment below.

In a recent Washington Post poll, 72 percent of all Americans said they believe individuals have gun rights under the Second Amendment, that such protections are not limited to "militias." Twenty percent thought the constitutional guarantee covers "only the rights of the states to maintain militias." For more on this and other data, check out today's post from the Behind the Numbers blog.

By Washington Post Editors  |  June 26, 2008; 10:38 AM ET
Categories:  Gun Ban Case  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: D.C. Attorney General: All Guns Must Be Registered
Next: Reaction to Gun Ruling (*Updated)

Comments

Hurray

Posted by: Liberty | June 26, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

If a gun is registered in another state; is that registration good enough to consider the gun registered in DC? (full faith and credit) If I am allowed to have a gun in the home for self defense; can I have a gun in the car for self-defense? (extension of home) Is this what the Supreme Court is allowing today?

Posted by: jackrickdc | June 26, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone actually think that allowing residents--once background-checked, fingerprinted, registered, etc--to possess a handgun in the home will increase DC violence? Violence from concealed weapons carriers is extremely low in the 48 states that allow it; why would we expect a different result in DC, where we'll still have to go through a similar licensing process?

Posted by: Greg | June 26, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Look at all the gun violence that already exists in DC. The gun ban wasn't working. The streets are flooded with guns and the only people undable to have them are the lawful.

I still have no interest in getting one but the ban was pointless

Posted by: Saint X | June 26, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

The criminals still have a great practical advantage over a law-abiding citizen on the street.
Absent a conceal carry permit provision in DC law the criminal is still the only person with a weapon on the street. Thus no change in the murder rate that is higher than in Iraq.

Posted by: kiyaker | June 26, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Jackrick, no, DC won't be reciprocal like that. No requirement to.

Posted by: Greg | June 26, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Today will go down in history as a great victory for law-abiding citizens and an historic loss for violent predators everywhere.

Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I am quite pleased to see the D.C. gun ban struck down. It didn't do much to stop crime and it prevented reasonable, properly trained people from defending themselves.

Posted by: William | June 26, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the decision but why did they also strike down the part of the law that demanded a trigger lock? Trigger locks prevent accidents, especially by young children, and I don't see how it interferes with any Constitutional right.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Congratulations to Mr. Injustice Scalia for his lasting contribution to making this one of the most uncivilized countries on the face of the earth. It is embarrassing to be a citizen living abroad and to have to explain the internal workings of the US to the more civilized world.

Posted by: William R. Bauer | June 26, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

but Who's responsible from seeing that firearms are not brought into Federal buildings, and how well are they trained? Don't look now, I think the line of tourists at the Reagan Building just got a whole lot longer...

Posted by: FedCubeDweller | June 26, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Mandatory locks interfere with ready accessibility, so that makes a great deal of sense. Of course, people should use them.

Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, a mafia hitman with 19 kills to his record, put it best in an interview in the September 1999 edition of Vanity Fair magazine:

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins"

Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

William R. Bauer, how does this ruling for individual rights make us uncivilized.

Posted by: Mike Smith | June 26, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

The US has the most permissive gun laws on the planet...and the most gun-related crimes.

Go figure.

Posted by: dg | June 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I'm not going to come to DC after 6PM anymore.

Posted by: that's it | June 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I haven't read completely the dissenting opinions but if I understand Justice Stevens "the people" has at least two different meanings wholly dependent on his estimation of how they are commonly exercised. And petition only refers to the noun?

I always wondered how come the Libs on the Court always wanted to expand those rights of "the people" except when it comes to the 2nd.

Posted by: Stick | June 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

criminals will get guns no matter what. now, people that want to defend themselves will have a fighting chance.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

The real terrorists are walking or driving the streets of this country, guns in their pockets or under their seats.

Posted by: Paul | June 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse


If you are determined enough, you can get a gun most anywhere in America. Heck, I once picked up a hitchhiker, and the first thing he did was to try to sell me a 38. (The price wasn't bad, but it was a really cheap gun.) Banning guns in the District might cut down on domestic shootings, but it surely didn't help with gang-related killings and armed robberies.

I doubt this ruling will have much effect either way.

Posted by: Frank | June 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Brilliant.

The heck with violent crime, let's see how many kids get killed accidentally, spouses kill spouses, and so on. Let's measure the next five years vs the previous five.

Too bad they didn't rule the opposite. The right could scream about "activist judges". No matter how often the right-wing judges vote their wishes instead of the constitution, the left won't use that charge. No idea why.

Posted by: f2 | June 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday, SCOTUS got it right with their death penalty ruling.

Today, they took us another step back into the dark ages.

What a fear-filled, hate-driven, angry country we live in.

Posted by: Lynn | June 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I'm curious as to what the limits of the current ruling are. Does this ruling invalidate the various assault weapons bans around the country? What about bans on fully automatic weapons? I personally feel naked without my rocket propelled grenade launcher.

Posted by: DaveH | June 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The US fetish for guns continues. You reap what you sow.

Posted by: terrym | June 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Perfect, this is yet another step in making WDC a world-class city and driving the bad elements in this city to other places, like PG County. It also is another step in removing the Socialist elements that would stand in the way of the greatest country on earth. Now if we can just avoid having an Obama Presidency, we will be in great shape! God Bless America.

Posted by: Josie | June 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

I think this is a great decision. Stupid Americans will kill each other and leave only the good ones.
But ... the judges made a stupid decision, so the killings will go up to the highest level.
Oh, well, like the Romans, it was fun while it lasted.

Posted by: Jack | June 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

The points made about the law's fundamental ineffectiveness are on target, but the biggest impact of this decision is that finally there is a clear interpretation of what the Founders meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, and interpretation with which I agree. While millions have parsed the phrasing to their own ends, I believe when read literally it says what the Founders intended: militias are ad hoc units -- NOT FORMAL ARMY OR GOVERNMENT MAINTAINED UNITS -- which rely on INDIVIDUALS who are well-practiced in the use of firearms because of their own private use for hunting, target practice, and protection. Moreover, to submit that the National Guard is what the Founders had in mind when they used the term "militia" ignores the fact that the National Guard didn't even exist then! This ruling is a victory for inidividual rights in a sad era of the overall erosion of these rights by a so-called "conservative" President, aided and abetted by a willing and cowed Congress.

Posted by: davef33 | June 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

i do not agree with gun ownership - the constitution should be amended and guns should be outlawed from the land - the united states is too different place than it was when the constitution was drafted -

Posted by: muslit | June 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

While I am not a gun owner and never plan to be, and while I think gun control measures might help prevent crime, that is not what this case is about.

In this country, we have a constitution. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret it. I can't believe four justices blatantly disregarded what is so clear in the text. The majority got this one right.

If you want the law to change, amend the constitution - don't pretend it doesn't say what it says.

Posted by: Mick | June 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

The court said that handgun ban was a ban on a class of arms. What about various state bans machine and semi-automatics? Isn't that the same thing or am I wrong? If Scalia is going to say that that class of guns can't be banned, then it should apply across the board.

Posted by: Justine | June 26, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

God blessed America with a great arms industry. All real Americans are armed and ready to defend themselves, their families, and the Republic. Now if the authorities would dismantle the remaining barriers to becoming armed in D.C., all will be well.

Posted by: Rumplestiltskin | June 26, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

I disagree, because the complete liberty for the use of arms causes a lot of mortality between regular citizens, for other reasons than the stablished, in the US.

Posted by: Alejandro | June 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I disagree, because the complete liberty for the use of arms causes a lot of mortality between regular citizens, for other reasons than the stablished, in the US.

Posted by: Alejandro | June 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

While I do not support the idea that certain items like "flash suppressors" on assault rifles are necessary for home defense, I do applaud the Court for appropriately allowing regular citizens to defend their homes with handguns against those who would seek to do them harm. Like Justice Scalia, I believe that American history if replete with instances in which citizens have been free to defend against tyranny with the use of guns. I see no difference in today's application in this case.

Posted by: DougS | June 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

"The US fetish for guns continues. You reap what you sow."

And that would be Liberty.

Posted by: info | June 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

What a sad day for interpretation of our Constitution.

"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."

Apparently the first two clauses were an add-on that bear no meaning. Our language is completely bastardized.

Posted by: Yikes | June 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Our country was founded on the right to freedoms most other people in other countries don't have. This was a no brainer. One day in the future, you liberals may be very glad that we never allowed the government to disarm the populous. Protect your rights.
And, never forget that it is against the law to rob a bank, for a felon to carry a weapon, to attack your spouse, etc. Laws only work for those who obey them. Criminals will always have guns.

Posted by: David White | June 26, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Maybe if Scalia had said the individual right flows from "the emanations from the penumbra" of the 2nd the Libs would have signed on.

Posted by: Stick | June 26, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, democrats tried to make the point about what Bush would do to the courts if he got elected. This sad decision epitomizes what he DID - load the court with conservative right wingers. These sad decisions will just keep on coming. Handguns are for police to defend our streets, not for everyday citizens. Its a very sad day for DC residents. And keep handguns in the hands of law enforcement officers. Give us the right to vote or don't tax us. Make up your mind.

Posted by: Richard | June 26, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

D.C. mayor needs to know that "Gun Control" means placing the front sight of you gun on the criminal's upper chest or on thier head and pulling the trigger with steady pressure to the rear.

Posted by: Woohoo | June 26, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Guns take lives, they don't save them. It's said a lot but no one offers real evidence.

You know that if the republicans were on the other side of this issue they would try to tie it to the war on terror.

While I'm glad Democrats took the high road and didn't use the people unfounded fear of terrorism(like another does) to help keep the ban, I kind of wish they had.

Posted by: D | June 26, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

The wild west mentality that springs to mind with this decision is frightening. When the 2nd amendment (key word: amend) was drafted, the United States was a far different place. People were isolated from each other and surrounded on all sides by hostile foreign forces (Native American tribes, Spanish, French, English.) This was before a public safety infrastructure was developed. Now we have police, fire/rescue, and the striking down of this gun ban shows the lack of faith we have in a common entity of protection. Why not work at increasing the police budget to compensate and gradually phase out the prevalence of firearms? Why should the individual worry about their protection when their is a system in place to manage that? Only time will tell I guess.

Posted by: kballa | June 26, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

When did criminals become "well-regulated" or a "militia"?

Posted by: WAM | June 26, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

The statement "The rights of the people" is in all of our documents, giving individual ownership to the citizens of the United States. Hurray for the Supreme Court on their decision.

Posted by: Debbie | June 26, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I feel less safe knowing my neighbors can now own handguns. There are some who should only own plastic cutting knives that are now able to own a gun. Great. Thanks a bunch for making me feel less safe in my own home.

Posted by: Sam | June 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

This is another example of an activist Republican court legislating and further usurping the ability of states (or the District to make law. If citizens do not like the gun ban, take your case to the legislature.

Posted by: Ward 6 | June 26, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Ironically this does not do much good for people who want handguns in the District since they can't go to another state and buy one and I assume there are no gun stores in DC.

Posted by: Stick | June 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

The NRA and other contributers to the GOP are getting their money's worth out of w and the Justices he has put into the court.

Posted by: FLTNVA | June 26, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Thank you to the court for standing up for the US Constitution. Combine this with the recent ruling on habeas corpus and I think they have sent a strong message that there are limits on the power of government, and that the Constitution cannot be discarded whenever the government finds it inconvenient.

Posted by: happy libertarian | June 26, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

We are who we are and thus in the eyes of the civilized world we will remain THE WILD WEST and our financial status in the Gobal Economy will continue to spiral down along with our influence in the World.

Posted by: bhicock | June 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

I wan anti-gun until a pro-gun friend took me to the NRA shooting range. It was so fun! and you can use firearms as protections in case of home invasions etc. You have a home insurance and fire extinguisher for your home , right? Think firearms the same way. You may or you may not need it but you'll be glad to have one when someone breaks in to your home to rape you.

Posted by: I was anti-gun | June 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The issue in this case is more about DC sovereignty to make its own decisions than anything else. I am a 9-year resident of DC, and I also shoot rifles when I go home to visit family in a "bona fide" state. I am not anti-gun in principle, I am for protecting public safety. In many states it is just a normal thing to have a rifle because everyone hunts. In urban areas, guns are used more for crime than for hunting (duh). For me that's just handguns in general, though.

But here's the real crux of the problem: It is up to states to determine which guns are acceptable -- such as disallowing semi-automatic rifles or machine guns or freaking RPGs. If the proponents of the gun rights argument were to carry their logic out, that guns truly are a right to all Americans in order to have a "well-regulated militia" then of course you would allow RPGs -- what Army General would want a militia that could only use rifles and handguns? Come on, now.

As I said, the argument is really a cover for controlling DC. I find it amusing (in a sad and bitter way) that the by-and-large Republican supporters of this decision to "protect DC citizens' Constitutional rights" are also the ones who argue against allowing DC full representation in either House of Congress. Equally amusing is the fact that the Republicans who support "states' rights" in rhetoric pick and choose when to apply that principle.

Neither issue is a truly partisan issue (ask the DC Republican Party), they are both based on disgusting arrogance. Let 'em all go and argue for their rights to own semi-automatics now then. I'm sure law enforcement would be so pleased.

Posted by: Michelle | June 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The NRA militants are well armed, highly motivated, and well funded. They have infiltrated almost every sector of American society. They are single minded in their one desire - to arm every man, woman, and child in the U.S.
Mentally ill, that's no problem - "How many guns do you want?"
Stark raving mad and foaming at the mouth? Grab a gun and take out your demons on your neighbors. Getting bullied in high school? You need a gun to protect yourself. Roommate lost the remote? Why, that deserves a bullet to the head.
Now, it looks like they are on their way to accomplishing their mission.

Posted by: Hal Conner | June 26, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

The second amendment is the reason why no country has ever attempted a ground war on our soil.

See the movie Red Dawn, think about it, then buy a gun!

God Bless America!

Posted by: Locked & Loaded | June 26, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Maybe now DC will lose the long held title of "Murder Capital of the Nation"

Posted by: Neil | June 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Read the Second Amendment and think about the intent. This is just straight up "plain reading" and historical knowledge. Unlike some opinions which are replete with emotional non-sense, this opinion is perhaps the easiest to grasp and applaud. Whiners need to get a grip on reality.

Posted by: Duane | June 26, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Sad how many people fear guns and not the people who wield them. It's delusional to think gun control laws stop guns crimes. Russia has strict gun laws yet has the highest gun crime. Check the facts. Silly, I know, people caught up in mass delusions make their own.

Posted by: THOMAS | June 26, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I am in favor of gun control and believe it has to vary depending on the locality. What makes sense in a rural area is completely different than in a densely settled city, especially one with a crime problem. Both places--not just the city, and not just the country--should have the right to regulate gun ownership and usage as appropriate for local concerns.

That being said, I also believe it is the Supreme Court's job to objectively hold up laws against what's written in the Constitution, and it's hard not to see the words "the right to bear arms" as granting, well, the right to bear arms. I think they did their job, which is not to make policy, but to act as fair "referees" using the Constitution as the rulebook. Now it's up to local, state, and federal governments to continue to appropriately regulate guns within the limits the court has set out.

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | June 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Dave F, it's not the ad hoc that's being argued, but the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State." Are handguns necessary for keeping the Queen of England out of our backyard?

Info, shouldn't we extend liberty to assault rifles then?

Posted by: Yikes | June 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Hi. Glad this US citizen emmigrated to the UK where police still don't wear guns! I feel sorry for all the other good Americans (many who have posted here) who have had to live with the current administration for so long. As the UK tabloids said the second time Bush got elected: "How can 58,000,000(?) Americans be so dumb"?

Posted by: Patty | June 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Excellent ruling.

Good Americans will need guns to protect themselves from HUSSEIN Obama and his Islamic terrorist goons.

Posted by: Mandy | June 26, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

It is the Second Amendment that assures the citizens of this great country that the rights of the people as set forth in the Bill of Rights and our Constitution will continue to exist.

Posted by: Donald H. Nixon | June 26, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Gun control proponents: Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro. Thomas Jefferson, et al, well understood that an armed citizenry was all that stood between government tyranny and freedom. As our constitution is thrown out on a daily basis, as FEMA camps are readied, as we are spied on,and overtaxed, as our dollar is devalued by the illegal Fed, as our President treasonously joins the North American Union,and as the corporate controlled media talks of Brittany, we must fight for our rights. If the government had us disarmed, imagine what they would do. Wake up America, this is Amerika.

Posted by: Michele from New Orleans | June 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Guns save lives! Guns are used every year in about 2.5 MIL cases to stop intruders. Criminals will get guns no matter what.

Posted by: John in DC | June 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

The worse thing is that OBAMA AGREES with this decision.

I'm fed up with Obama and his flip-flops.

I won't vote for him in Novemeber.

Posted by: Darlene | June 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Having been held up at gun point twice in DC in the early 80s, I can say definitively that having a gun would have been no help. In both cases, the muggers were nicely dressed, well behaved and asked an innocent question to get me to stop and chat with them. Then a gun appearred and the phrase was said, "this is for real. Give it up." If I had had a gun, it would have been of no use. I would have been shot dead before I could have even pointed it at them. As long as some states allow guns, all criminals will have them. Will it reduce crime if honest citizen have them --- based on my story and many others I have known who've been victims of crime - don't think so. Does this ruling matter one way or the other - don't think so either.

Posted by: Dee El | June 26, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

It's cute to see all the persons on this board bemoaning a supposed loss of civilization. I've finished reading the majority opinion, and I've gathered that not much will or should change in terms of national firearms laws. There may be some relaxation of outright bans on types of weapons (handguns v. long guns, semi-automatic v. automatic), but any restrictions (background checks, serial number registration, transfer taxes) on specific types will probably remain. On the militia statement, several states do recognize the presence of the unorganized militia composed of all males able and willing to bear arms. And please remember, persons with legal carry permits from the various states have to submit to licensing process that not only examines any criminal or mental background, but also may require a familiarity with firearms, sometimes include a scored shooting qualification, and certainly informs any applicant on the legality of using lethal force. And any permit issued does not supersede any federal restrictions regarding weapons carried into government buildings, educational institutions, etc. Overall good decision today; I do not believe this will plunge D.C. into a maelstrom of gunfire.

Posted by: H Belvedere | June 26, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

To whomever wrote the post concerning not visiting DC after 6pm: Thanks helping the traffic situation!

Posted by: Naldo | June 26, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Geez, Hal, nobody's going to force you to get one. In fact, do us all a favor and don't!

Posted by: Bill Mosby | June 26, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

but I applaud the Court's decision as a law abiding resident of the District of Columbia. All the City's ban did was keep law abiding citizens from exercising their fundamental right of self-defense in their homes. Unless there is a national prohibition on handguns, criminals and wrongdoers operating in DC had access to guns regardless, while those inclined to obey the law did not. Criminals never have and never were going to obey the ban; all it did was limit the rights of the law abiding. This ruling simply gives District residents the same rights as their neighbors to the north in Maryland and the south in Virginia, where most of the illegal guns in DC come from in the first place. If someone in Arlington can protect his family why can't someone in Woodley Park or the Shaw section of D.C. Kudos to the Court for recognizing what most Americans have come to believe: the right of responsible gun ownership is an integral part of our modern conception of individual liberty. And frankly I don't give one whit what the framers thought about it. This our Constitution and not theirs! Originalism be damned! Hopefully now I can back to excoriating this Court for being a bunch of right wing goons.LOL

RJ-Parkview/Columbia Heights

Posted by: RJ | June 26, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

To whomever wrote the post concerning not visiting DC after 6pm: Thanks for helping the traffic situation!

Posted by: Naldo | June 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I live in rural America. We are only protected by a few members of the sheriff's department. If we call for their assistance, it can up to one hour for them to respond. My rights to own a firearm is crutial for the protection of myself & my family. I applaud the Supreme Court for their stand on the individual rights of its citizens.

Posted by: Terry | June 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Please spare us the whining about "militias" in the 2nd Amendment.

If the founding fathers wanted to limit guns to militias, WHY DIDN'T THEY DO IT?

We know what that clause meant because history tells us exactly how the Framers implemented it. Guns for all.

Gun-grabbers are the ones trying to twist the Constitution. Thank God the Democrats have stopped shooting themselves in the foot over gun rights, and have learned to respect the 2nd Amendment.

I support Obama 08 and the right to bear arms!

Posted by: B. Kaufmann | June 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Whatever the 2nd amendment says or was intended to say, the notion that citizens having guns will keep us from a tyrranical government at this point in history is absurd. A 50 caliber machine gun can take on a hundred with rifles and handguns easily. For us to check a tyrannical US government, citizens need access to tanks, fighter jets, and at least tactical nuclear weapons. Hmmmmm.....maybe I should start a non-profit that claims the 2nd amendment allows us to have any weapons systems the US military possesses. Always wanted to captain my own aircraft carrier - for the sake of freedom and libery, of course!!!

Posted by: Dee El | June 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I volunteer with a group made up mostly of clergy who are first responders to families of DC homicide victims. I have been VERY busy doing this as a result of the recent surge of senseless murders in DC. It is hard to watch young children crying pitiably for their beloved young uncle or father, not understanding what a murder means, and wanting him to play with them again. I witness this again and again, each one unspeakably sad. Weeping mothers bent over in grief from the handgun murder of their dear child are hard to console; they know they will never see their child again. I invite the supporters of handguns to join a program like ours, as we will need plenty of new volunteers to provide grief counseling and comfort when the murder statistics inevitably rise, as this ruling guarantees. One visit is not enough - the depths of sorrow need to be seen in theme and variation again and again to be truly understood. It breaks your heart. Assume your responsibility, gun supporters; perhaps your new understanding will change your mind, and hopefully your heart as well. Offered in sorrow -

Posted by: smeehan | June 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse


Chances of a handgun being
accidently used in a home
with hand guns compared to
a home without handguns:

Comparing only homes with guns v.
homes without guns.

Homes w/guns: 100%
Homes w/out guns: 0

Posted by: gunsrgreat | June 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

For all the NO votes, move to Russia, commies.

Posted by: Patriot | June 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Signs point to the government taking on more and more importance in the lives of Americans, who appear on the verge of approving the concept of gradle to grave security- the price just may our freedom. Any decision of the Supreme Court that delays that fateful result is welcome, including this decision that affirms the Second Amendent.

Posted by: mhr | June 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

A British tourist asked me last year why everyone in America can own a gun, and I said because of what your country did to my country 300 years ago.

I think in theory the 2nd amendment is just and still relevant, but in practice this is going to make it harder for cops to keep guns off the street.

I guess we'll see if the ends justify the means.

Posted by: Cap Hill Dave | June 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Dumb ruling! Get ready for DC to take on the mantle of "murder capital" of the US (again).

Posted by: jr | June 26, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Welcome to the Wild West, courtesy of a redneck hillbilly nation. Gee....I am SO much happier now that my "FREEDOM" and right to take another life is intact. Lord knows that is SO VERY important. I was soooo "deprived" all this time not being able to own a gun! Yeah, who cares about education and healthcare for all. Wait, we can't stop here, though...I think it's our right to own military style weapons, high powered rifles and bullets that penetrate bullet-proof vests. After all, only criminals have access to those (plus, I just gotta have Bambi's head on my wall), so we gotta protect ourselves.....
People, an eye for eye only makes us blind.

Posted by: cynthia | June 26, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Handguns and the accompanying culture of violence are madness. It has to change. Which generation, which Court will have the courage?

Posted by: j.o. | June 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

A Armed society is a polite society.

Posted by: Larry | June 26, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

So much for DC statehood... this could of been avoided, oh well. Just remember this was Democrats curbing the citizens 2nd Amendment rights.

Posted by: Jibreel Riley | June 26, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, drop a tactical nuke in a city or the town next door to yours. Um, do you realize that, aside from the political ramifications of such a stupid move, it would kill your own guys as well as any insurgents? Both of these reasons are why we haven't used them in Iraq.

Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated, unfortunately, that it only takes a small number of lightly-armd people to take on a superpower's military. While I wish us nothing but absolute victory in Iraq, the fact remains that a small force can counter a far, far larger and more powerful force on the modern battlefield.

Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, that is a very basic right afforded to everybody equally and the justices made a very good decision in US vs. Heller.

The 2nd amendment is affirmed in that, individuals have the right to bear arms.

Have a good day.

Posted by: Dr. Matthew Postel | June 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

It's a great day for law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves.

Does this mean that the MD trigger lock law is also unconstitutional?

Posted by: tina | June 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

clearly the gun ban has not worked. Our city is one of the most violent in the country. The criminals here don't worry about a ban. Why should we. we need a way to punish people who DON'T follow laws, not people who do.

Posted by: DC_life | June 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"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

I doubt things have changed much, if any, since this was written.

Posted by: hessler | June 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I love the sight of right-wing nuts standing waist-deep in their own hypocrisy! This decision was raw judicial activism, not remotely compelled by the text of the Second Amendment. Oh, they'll bob and weave and twist and turn and draw pathetic distinctions. But this makes clear what has always been true: conservatives like conservative judicial activism and oppose only liberal judicial activism, which means they have no principled objection to judicial activism. I hope the gun rights were worth the exposure of hypocrisy that comes with them!

Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I like the guy who wants to captain his own air craft carrier.

He has a good point, that close interpretation of the 2nd amendment in todays world would be as absurd as allowing private citizens to own bazookas and tanks.

However, I like where he is going with his non-profit group. If he gets an air craft carrier, I want a nuclear submarine.

Posted by: Cap Hill Dave | June 26, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I find it disturbing that this has even been in question. There is no such thing as a collective right, or states' rights, or the concept that government has any rights at all. The Constitution never refers to, and never conveys rights to, any part of government at any level. Government entities are either prevented from exercising power, or that power is specifically delegated to it.
- All rights are individual in nature.
- People (individuals) have Rights, Power, and Authority.
- People delegate some of their power and authority to government so it may function.
- Rights, like responsibility, cannot be delegated

Today is a good day for freedom and liberty.

Posted by: FreedomAndLiberty | June 26, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: William R. Bauer:
Congratulations to Mr. Injustice Scalia for his lasting contribution to making this one of the most uncivilized countries on the face of the earth. It is embarrassing to be a citizen living abroad and to have to explain the internal workings of the US to the more civilized world.

Mr. Bauer, perhaps you should consider living abroad permanently and not returned to this benighted uncivilized country. Perhaps you could considering gifting your US citizenship and passport to one of our million legal immigrants every year.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

It's great that the Supreme Court supports our bill of rights!

Excellent!

I'm a law-abiding FFL holder in Texas. This is great for America. Just remember, the first thing Hitler did when he took over Poland was go house to house taking away the Poles firearms.

Posted by: Randy C | June 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame it took the court this long to acknowledge what has been right there in front of their face the whole time.

It is a greater shame that 4 of the justices tried to deny American citizens their rights. Shame on you Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens.

Posted by: Dan | June 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

OK so does that mean that I can carry a gun into the Supreme Court Building? How about a state legislature building? Until I can carry a gun into their place of work, it is hypocritical to say they can carry their gun into my place of work.

Posted by: Peace | June 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Like it was ever hard to get a gun in the DC/Metro area to begin with.

When you border Maryland and Virginia having a handgun ban is just pointless.

Posted by: Silver Spring | June 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Gun bans are stupid, but so is the guns anywhere attitude I see displayed here. I live in Oregon and lived in Sweden, where gun ownership, including handguns, is the norm. Firearm related crimes in Sweden are at rock bottom levels because owners are required to LOCK THEM UP unless they are under their immediate control. Virtually every gin owner in Oregon does this as a matter of cmmon sense. Using one to defend your home is perfectly okay, as is target shooting or hunting. Firearm safety classes are required to get a hunting license or even to purchase a gun. You can carry one if you have a permit, but must pass a special examination and take a very thorough course. Likewise, criminals and people found mentally unsound cannot own guns. All of this is just common sense, it is what we politcially liberal gun owners have advocated for years and, now, it is, or soon will be, the law of the land. As a result, watch firearm related violence rate DROP.

Posted by: MikeB | June 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

They should just ban Ammunition as an explosive.

Posted by: Karl | June 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Cops carry them because it makes them safer. I wonder what magical, Jedi-like skills a D.C. police officer possesses that a citizen does not have or cannot learn? I suppose, the logic is, because your paycheck is written by a government agency automatically makes you immune to violent tendencies, drug addiction, alcoholism, domestic violence, temptation, and any other form of vice.

Yeah, right.

Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says nothing about guns, it 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." A strict constitutional constructionist should interpret this in 1780s terminology, i.e. a musket or flintlock type weapon, perhaps also bow and arrow, or knife, spear. There were no machine guns, or high powered rifles in 1780s. If supporters include those, then why not nuclear arms. I should then have the right to obtain nuclear arms for my self defense.

Posted by: Krazy | June 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

5:4 yikes. More liberal socialist judges pissing all over the rights of citizens and the constitution.

At least 5 got it right.

Posted by: Mland | June 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who has actually read the 2nd Amendment should realize that individual gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right and therefore gun bans are always UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

However registration is another matter entirely.

If you want to continue banning guns that is fine but first you must repeal the 2nd Ammendment before you can legitimately pass a gun ban law.

Posted by: King2641 | June 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."

SCOTUS got it right. Definitely a victory for the Constitution.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The ignorance demonstrated in many of the comments posted here is amazing.

We have people simply lack reading comprehension, people who let their fear of inanimate objects direct their thinking, people who think that this SCOTUS decision will turn the streets into the movie version of the wild west (which never really existed) and the most astounding, (and funny) opinion of all, that the police somehow have a duty to protect you!

Posted by: David | June 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

McCain the flip-flopper

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html

Posted by: The Dude | June 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

[quote]
Like it was ever hard to get a gun in the DC/Metro area to begin with.

When you border Maryland and Virginia having a handgun ban is just pointless.
[/quote]

I don't know about MD but Virginia gun dealers haven't been allowed to sell to DC residents.

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I am a District resident with children in the school system and I supported the ban. I fail to see how this will make the residents of DC safer. I think if DC residents support the ban, we should be able to keep it. I understand that for many commentors, this is a matter of principle, but I'll bet haven't been a victim of a gun crime and they're kids aren't at risk in the schools. Its clearly NOT a home safety issue since the ban never applied to rifles and shotguns, which are adequate for home protection. Supporters of handgun ownership have to accept responsibility for tragedies like Virginia Tech, Columbine and all the others. Lifting this ban will have life and death consequences for DC residents.

Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

In the years 1941 to 1945, over 6 million Jews were murdered in Western and Central Europe in concentration camps by the Nazi regime. Historians agree that the total number of guards and staff at the concentration camps was only 40,000 Nazis. So how could 40,000 Nazis murder 6 million Jews? Answer- the 40,000 Nazis had guns, the 6 million Jews did not. Learn from history people- a dis-armed population is not a safer population, it is merely a mass of victims.

Posted by: Jimmy | June 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

What I find hilarious, is that the gun totters posting on this board think they can handle a gun to defend themselves better than they guy pointing a gun at them. I've got news for you: You're not Jason Bourne. Odds are, you will not be able to pull, aim, and fire your firearm to effectively dispatch the criminal holding you up before he blows your head off. However, the probability of a being held up, being shot in a cross fire, your kid blowing his head off, your kid being shot by your neighbor's kid, and a host of other preventable tragedies has increased. Have fun with that.

Posted by: ch | June 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Please also quote the rest of the amendment, thank you.

Anyone who doesn't think both the phrase about the well-regulated militia and being necessary for the security of a free state were also important doesn't have the mastery of our language that the founders did.

Posted by: The Dude | June 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Yikes said: "What a sad day for interpretation of our Constitution. '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.' Apparently the first two clauses were an add-on that bear no meaning. Our language is completely bastardized."

Yikes, I suggest you research the origins and developments of the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment in particular contained therein, and the way in which the Bill of Rights was finally able to be ratified.

There were formidable arguments between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, and framers of the Constitution who would trust the public with firearms and those who would not, as to the wording of the Second Amendment.

The wording of the Second Amendment as quoted by Yikes was only the resultant final wording that could be agreed upon to be ratified. Language was proposed in other drafts that more clearly spelled out the gun rights intended by framers who trusted Americans to own guns, but this language had to be struck in order to get the Bill of Rights ratified.

Today, the SCOTUS got it right.

Posted by: NavyFlyer1325 | June 26, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes this Court does the stupidest things imaginable, from the 2000 gift to unmeritorious and disastrous Bush to making it virtually impossible for employees who've been discriminated against to make rightful claims to gutting the heart out of punitive damages for corporations whose behavior only ever changes if the bottom line is affected. And now this! It has to be said: the dark ages, which were returned to this country in 2001, are still with us. It's enough to make one scream. Or cry.

Posted by: Disbelieving | June 26, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

kiyaker says: "Thus no change in the (DC) murder rate that is higher than in Iraq."

I support gun rights but this is an idiotic statement. Iraq remains a lethal hellhole, for all your efforts to wish that reality away.

Just shut up about Iraq, I don't like to be reminded that my position on guns makes me allies with creepy Bush war supporters.

Posted by: B. Kaufmann | June 26, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Gun bans are stupid, but so is the guns anywhere attitude I see displayed here. I live in Oregon and lived in Sweden, where gun ownership, including handguns, is the norm. Firearm related crimes in Sweden are at rock bottom levels because owners are required to LOCK THEM UP unless they are under their immediate control. Virtually every gin owner in Oregon does this as a matter of cmmon sense. Using one to defend your home is perfectly okay, as is target shooting or hunting. Firearm safety classes are required to get a hunting license or even to purchase a gun. You can carry one if you have a permit, but must pass a special examination and take a very thorough course. Likewise, criminals and people found mentally unsound cannot own guns. All of this is just common sense, it is what we politcially liberal gun owners have advocated for years and, now, it is, or soon will be, the law of the land. As a result, watch firearm related violence rate DROP.

Posted by: MikeB | June 26, 2008 12:07 PM

------------------------------------

Here, here. Well, said.

Posted by: swalker3 | June 26, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

The NRA militants are well armed, highly motivated, and well funded. They have infiltrated almost every sector of American society. They are single minded in their one desire - to arm every man, woman, and child in the U.S.
Mentally ill, that's no problem - "How many guns do you want?"
Stark raving mad and foaming at the mouth? Grab a gun and take out your demons on your neighbors. Getting bullied in high school? You need a gun to protect yourself. Roommate lost the remote? Why, that deserves a bullet to the head.
Now, it looks like they are on their way to accomplishing their mission.

Posted by: Hal Conner

Hal...you have major issues

Posted by: John | June 26, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I can't recall a day in D.C. when i didn't hear gunshots.Heck the DCPD was going to put up sensors that hear gunshots to triangulate where the shots originated.
Across the river in Arlington i can only recall one in 4 years.

Posted by: Will | June 26, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

This will get reversed when a DC resident with a concealed permit gets his/her gun past the metal detectors at The Supreme Court and....well, I think I've made my point....

Posted by: jesabol | June 26, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

So, where do these strict "Constitutionalists" who agreed with the majority find "hunting and self-defense" anywhere in the Constitution?

I am not opposed to gun ownership but their opinion is kind of a joke.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

after a string of good decisions by the court over the past few weeks they go and make a really really bad decision today... this is a shame

Posted by: outlawtorn103 | June 26, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

GOD BLESS AMERICA LET FREEDOM RING!!!!!!!!

Posted by: John | June 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

All this breast-beating is quite funny and it reminds me why I don't liked being called a liberal even though I am generally on the left of the conventional political spectrum. Quit whining and do something about it!

I don't particularly care for guns. However, given the excessive amount of violence in the District, I would certainly like to have legal access to a handgun to protect myself if I had the poor fortune of having to live there again. Criminals have never had a problem getting guns, either in DC or in countries where ownership is tightly regulated. Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens have them? While the concept of a well-regulated militia as envisioned by the ratifiers of the Constitution might be quaint to some, the people can always amend the Constitution if warranted.

Posted by: John K. | June 26, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Judging from the venom in many of the posts of people supporting this ruling, I guess we begin with character assassination.

Many people who are for the DC ban are not against guns per se, only that gun rights are not enshrined in the Constitution. And scholars have interpreted this in both ways.

Randy C, if SCOTUS had upheld DC's RIGHT to ban handguns, it would NOT ban handguns themselves. So you who live elsewhere could keep your guns -- and I can keep my rifles where my family lives.

That is why I say this is about control of DC rather than guns.

And for those of you going on about Obama (stupid Hussein terrorist comments etc):

a) Obama (unfortunately) supports this reading and
b)Your precious current administration was/is divided on this issue, Cheney is happy, Bush maybe not so much.

Why? Bc of what this may portend for the federal laws banning RPGs etc.

It's NOT partisan, just stupid. Do your homework first and stop trying to use this as a liberal/conservative issue.

Posted by: Michelle | June 26, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

The second amendment states we have the right to bare arms. Any law that goes against that is unconstitutional. So any gun ban is unconstitutional.
There have been many studies about states/areas that allow guns and others that don't, and invariably the areas that allow guns have a lower crime rate partially because criminals now don't know who has a gun.
Also, just having a gun in plain sight can deter crime as well. Studies have also been done regarding this. Utah is an open carry state(meaning anyone of age can carry an unloaded weapon, meaning no cartridge in the chamber, so it would require two mechanical actions to actually fire the weapon), and just seeing someone carry a pistol responsibly makes me feel safer cause I know that they are a law abiding citizen who has read up on the laws and know how to do this legally. Plus, if a criminal were to see that someone is open carrying, that would deter them from committing a violent crime knowing that someone around them could stop it effectively.
If you ask me, all of you who are saying allowing guns causes crimes, you all need to do some studying and find out that they actually deter crimes.
Pull your heads out people and start using your rights, because if we don't use them, they will be taken from us, just like the DC gun ban that thankfully now has been shot down and can become an example to all other liberals who wish to take this right from us.

Posted by: Daniel Romney | June 26, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm a DC resident in one of the safer parts of town. There was a shooting about 2 months ago right outside my patio. The criminal could have walked right through my patio, shot out the glass door, and come into my home. My ADT system wouldn't have done much to prevent it.

All I could do was grab a bat, call 911 and pray he didn't come in. He didn't.

I want a gun for that situation. Until crime is down to 0%, I want to be able to protect myself, my family, my home. I have that right.

Glad SCOTUS understands that too. Excellent decision.

For those who decry "activist" judges- read the decision. Scalia makes it clear that the ruling goes only so far and he outlines its scope.

Posted by: RightPOV | June 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Jack Wrote:
I think this is a great decision. Stupid Americans will kill each other and leave only the good ones.
But ... the judges made a stupid decision, so the killings will go up to the highest level.
Oh, well, like the Romans, it was fun while it lasted.

Jack

You have no statistics to back up your claim. It is actually the exact opposite, Proof by all the other states that have even more lax rules and no so called increased killings. Maybe you like to be a helpless victim, we do not.

Posted by: Joe | June 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

[quote]Congratulations to Mr. Injustice Scalia for his lasting contribution to making this one of the most uncivilized countries on the face of the earth. It is embarrassing to be a citizen living abroad and to have to explain the internal workings of the US to the more civilized world.

Posted by: William R. Bauer | June 26, 2008 11:01 AM [/quote]

Please stay abroad since it is so much better for you than living in a country that protects peoples right to defend themselves. In fact, the very country that carries the big stick protecting the rest of the world, that without us and our personal liberties would be defenceless against Communism, Marxism, and Socialism. Oh wait, perhaps that is your problem? I'm sure whatever country you are in will provide a personal body gaurd to ensure your safety.

Posted by: Falcon | June 26, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

When will people realize that some people with guns kill or maim other people. It isn't so easy to hide behind the 2nd Amendment when you physically see a child who died because of your right to carry.

Posted by: Violent Society | June 26, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"The second amendment is the reason why no country has ever attempted a ground war on our soil."

Not true. In August 1814 the British landed in Maryland, routed the militia sent to oppose them at Bladensburg (The British called it the Bladensburg Races.), and burned Washington.

Posted by: Stefan Patejak | June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Smeehan, can you please tell me the number of those kids killed with guns that were owned by a law abiding citizen? Can you tell me how many of those murders where commited by people who were lawfully protecting their property from invasion? Don't lose sight of the problem. It's not the ownership of guns committing muders, its the illegal possesion of guns by poorly raised reckless youth. Remember the law of unintended consequence. If you don't raise your children correctly, this is the consequence. Don't blame the law, blame the lawbreaker.

Posted by: Constitutionalist | June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who lives in DC should be having a party.I remeber coming home one day,driving through S.E. DC and somone walked onto a schoolbuss and shot someone.Moms going to pick up there kids where freaking out.My wife was in the military and the short walk from the metro to her base was off limits becuase a military person was killed there.I can't recall a day walking through there that i didn't hear gunshots and seeing little kids scramble.The thugs all had guns.People that worked for me in virginia bragged about surviving gun attacks or almost shooting cops.Heck anyone in their right mind knows you don't walk around DC at night.The only somewhat safe place is the mall.Maybe now the DC police will drop their policy of only dealing with the worse crimes and blowing off anything minor.I will bet anyone the crime rate in that city drops in half or more by years end.

Posted by: cray | June 26, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Good, now DC residents can kill the child rapists that SCOTUS protected yesterday.

Posted by: Dr Roxxo | June 26, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

what a stupid country !
it is the end of an empire....

Posted by: Peter | June 26, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The right to bear arms is a clearly stated function of the Constitution. Any district or state or other municipal entity in the United States is bound to the Constitution. Trodding on the second amendment right is becoming more popular than trampling upon the first amendment right, which is being done with a staggering increase in frequency anymore. Our pursuit of political correctness is overwhelming our pursuit of truth, justice, and print and broadcast journalism.

Posted by: Dave | June 26, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Patti, this US citizen is happy that you emmigrated to the UK too. Enjoy being a subject, I'll take citizen thank you very much.

Posted by: Dawnsblood | June 26, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Bauer,

If you are so enthralled with living in countries more civilized than the United States, I suggest you stay where you are and take full advantage of that country's Constitution and Bill of Rights. We shouldn't have to explain our freedoms to anyone.

Posted by: Gary A. Mann | June 26, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

OK. Now let's close down all the gun shows. They are currently legal arms bazarres where illegal arms dealing is a daily event, where mexican drug lords buy there weapons en masse, and where criminals freely buy whatever weaponry they want out of bubba's camper parked in the lot outside the gun show.

ALL of the gun laws are a joke as long as gun shows operate unfettered.

Perhaps the decision will make enforcement and strengthening of existing laws possible since the activists can stop spending all of their time arguing against gun ownership?

Posted by: JBE | June 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

NavyFlier-
Stick to planes, flyboy. Stay out of law. What previous versions that were not ratified said is of no consequence to the actual, final, ratified version. The "resultant final wording" of those negotiations, complete with the conditions now ruled inconsequential by the court is all that matters.

Posted by: Mason | June 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

seems like most of these posts aren't from district residents, who, by and large, supported the ban. If you don't live here, why should you care so much about our 'safety'? We were happy with the ban. Now we've been screwed by our national government yet again!

Posted by: h | June 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"When will people realize that some people with guns kill or maim other people. It isn't so easy to hide behind the 2nd Amendment when you physically see a child who died because of your right to carry."

People who legally carry guns are not going to go around shooting innocent kids. The people who illegally carry guns are the ones who commit those crimes. If anything, people can now protect their kids from harm because of the right to carry a gun. And people are going to have guns no matter what you do. And those guns are going to kill people. This decision allows innocent people who would otherwise never shoot a gun the ability to defend themselves and others if they need to.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

The ban as many have said was pointless, only affecting the law abiding. I expect home invasions to go down, but as many have said crime on the streets of DC will not be affected, with the exception of car jackings, if the court sees an auto as an extention of the home.

Posted by: Frank G. | June 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to the majority opinion for standing up for individual rights. It's long past time that the Second Amendment, being a part of the Bill of Rights, is given the correct meaning in the proper legal, philosophical and historical context.

Posted by: Theo S. | June 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

Posted by: Rev. Dr. | June 26, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

quote: Congratulations to Mr. Injustice Scalia for his lasting contribution to making this one of the most uncivilized countries on the face of the earth. It is embarrassing to be a citizen living abroad and to have to explain the internal workings of the US to the more civilized world.

Poseted by: William R. Bauer | June 26, 2008 11:01 AM

-------------------------------------------
Mr Bauer,
You Sir are a fool. Please stay abroad and renounce your citizenship. Great countries need great men. You Sir fail the test...

Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Riddle me this, folks: Why is it that law-abiding citizens in Virginia can readily buy guns and legally use them to defend themselves and their families at home and yet Virginia has a MUCH LOWER crime rate than DC or Maryland, which have onerous restrictive gun laws???

When law-abiding citizens CAN defend themselves, criminals go somewhere else to ply their trade.

"Criminals are a cowardly, superstitious lot...." -- Bob Kane, 1938.

Posted by: TC | June 26, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

If a child dies because they got into there dads gun, that isn't the laws responsibility to prevent that, that is the owners responsibility to teach their kids not to touch a gun and to keep it safe and locked when not in your immediate attention.

Posted by: Daniel Romney | June 26, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The heck with violent crime, let's see how many kids get killed accidentally, spouses kill spouses, and so on. Let's measure the next five years vs the previous five

*****************************************
In every city that has a right to carry law, crime has gone DOWN, not up but DOWN!! Only a FOOL would believe guns laws are paid any attention to by criminals. In case you are not aware of it, it is the criminal who is committing the crimes.

Posted by: jjv | June 26, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

It's frightening to know that among the millions who will have handguns will be those with anger problems who will shoot first and think later. A dark day for those of us who know that guns serve one purpose . . . killing.

Posted by: Concerned | June 26, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

ch said:"What I find hilarious, is that the gun totters posting on this board think they can handle a gun to defend themselves better than they guy pointing a gun at them. I've got news for you: You're not Jason Bourne. Odds are, you will not be able to pull, aim, and fire your firearm to effectively dispatch the criminal holding you up before he blows your head off."

I am Jason Bourne, liberal, don't assume that just because you can't use a firearm that everybody else can't also. Any thug breaks into my house will be cancelled out. I have been shooting competitevley for 35 years, including 8 years in the military. I don't play "victim". I play "survivor." And there are millions more just like me in this country.

Posted by: Jimmy | June 26, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I agree we have the right to have guns in our homes. I am less sure about the right to carry concealed weapons. I figured we would have lots of gunfights in bars but that has not played out. Those with the permits have been very responsible. I defiantly do not think we have the right to have assault weapons. I really do not want to be in the middle of an arms race between criminals and the police. I can remember when the police had 38s not small cannons.

Posted by: bradcpa | June 26, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Didn't know there were so many gun-freaks in D.C. Anyone remember the Virginia Tech shooting? Expect more of those crimes, D.C.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The NRA militants are well armed, highly motivated, and well funded. They have infiltrated almost every sector of American society. They are single minded in their one desire - to arm every man, woman, and child in the U.S.
Mentally ill, that's no problem - "How many guns do you want?"
Stark raving mad and foaming at the mouth? Grab a gun and take out your demons on your neighbors. Getting bullied in high school? You need a gun to protect yourself. Roommate lost the remote? Why, that deserves a bullet to the head.
Now, it looks like they are on their way to accomplishing their mission.

Posted by: Hal Conner
-------------------------------

Mr. Conner, the real problem is that you are projecting YOUR feelings and fears on other people. What you're saying is that it might be a dangerous thing if YOU had a gun.

"We will not invade the United States with ground forces, because behind every blade of grass is a rifle." -- Admiral Yamamoto, 1941

Posted by: TC | June 26, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a DC resident, but I support lifting the ban. Criminals are becoming more brazen all the time, and I would fear for the safety of my family if someone broke into our home. Possessing the right to keep a firearm in our home, properly locked up, but ready to employ in such an emergency, at least gives us a chance against someone possibly trying to murder a family member. The police will be there--after the smoke clears.

Posted by: Geordy | June 26, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Falcon: how very red neck of you: stay out of 'our' country with your ideas. By the way you might also think about some spelling lessons or is that beyond your mental capability?

Posted by: hrrmar1 | June 26, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Statistically, owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by a gun in your home than not owning one. This partly comes from accidents, partly from robberies that get escalated into homicides.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

We have concealed carry in Virginia. There is little evidence of law abiding citizens causing problems with handguns. Nuts and criminals will get them no matter what you do. I am not opposed to registration or background checks, but DC has the highest crime in the region and this nutty handgun law.

Posted by: Jerry Springfield | June 26, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. I respect the right of people to not own guns, but they should be registered and have their addresses published to identify themselves as gun free homes so that criminals will know not to target them.

Posted by: Logic | June 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Said Larry:
A Armed society is a polite society.

Tell it to the Iraqis.

Posted by: Phred | June 26, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"Gun rights" advocates consistently cite self-defense as a reason to protect the ability to have a gun in one's home. I'd be very curious to see statistics on the prevelance of home invasions, and particularly on home invasions where the owners were home at the time and successfully defended themselves and their families with the use of a gun. I imagine this situation doesn't play out very often at all.

We have evolved as a society to recognize that while the 1st amendment protects such things as free speech, there are limits to what speech is protected so long as the scope is narrow to meet a specific need, for example libel, incitement to commit violence, etc) and I would argue that this is the way it should be.

Why do we evolve to recognize not everything is protected speech, but must blankly and absolutely protect the right to bear arms?

I agree that the 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to bear arms, but not all arms need be protected. The US has the highest rate of handgun violence in the world, and not suprisingly the highest number of handguns. I think the more appropriate response here is to interpret what are the legitimate uses for guns. Shooting people is not a legitimate use for a gun - in fact the right to shoot someone in your home for self defense is not absolute, only if your life can be perceived as threatened can you shoot to kill.

The District displayed a legitimate concern and need to ban handguns within its borders, whether or not it was successful is open to interpretation, however displaying a compelling need and lmiting the scope of the restriction to fit that need matches the standard we've set for the 1st amendment. I'm disapointed in the inconsistency of the court.

Posted by: Justin | June 26, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who are terrified by your fellow American's owning weapons and demand peaceful slavery over the dangers of freedom the best bet is to move to China or Russia.

Now on to elminating the Chicago ban.

Posted by: Larry | June 26, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Great, now guns will be running willy-nilly all over town. There must be something wrong with my guns here in TX - they only shoot when I want them to. Oh yeah, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

This is great! Now that SCOTUS has clarified the intent of the Second Amendment, I can now own a nucular weapon. I want to prevent all possible home invasions and a nuke is the ultimate deterent. I have a right to bear arms and a nuke is an arm and the Second Amendment can not regulate what arms I have.

When my neighbor's RPG is fired at an intruder, I hope the blast radius doesn't damage my rose bushes.

Posted by: I want a nuke | June 26, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"but Who's responsible from seeing that firearms are not brought into Federal buildings, and how well are they trained?"

Seriously, if you work in a federal building and don't believe that the security guards there can prevent a gun coming in after the ban is lifted, what makes you think they can prevent one from coming in now?

In addition, this ruling does not mean that everyone will be strapping holsters to their belt and carrying six-shooters. It means that people will be able to own registered handguns and keep them in their homes.

Should the DC council decide to adopt concealed carry language, then people will be able to carry after taking a proper course on the laws and safe use of handguns which will tell them where they can and can't carry their weapons. I don't expect DC to do this anytime soon, so don't wet your pants.

But in states where licensed carry is permitted, the vast majority of gun crimes (from actual shootings to simply taking a gun into an establishment where it is prohibited -- such as bars) are committed by persons who are not licensed. And conviction on such an offense is grounds for denying a future license for that individual.

Posted by: Left of the Pyle | June 26, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Oh....my....god.......

THE SKY IS FALLING!

Posted by: Marc | June 26, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Lived in NOVA and worked in DC for a number of years. The difference was 5 miles, one bridge, and a WORLD of attitude.

With all the wailing and handwringing going on about the SCOTUS decision you'd think the DC residents were utterly unaware that the adjoining state of Virginia has had legal firearms ownership, legal concealed carry, legal OPEN carry, for years.

No "wild-west", no mass deaths in various households, in fact a whole lot of safe communities that the criminals tend to avoid.

I've had to testify as a witness to two minor and two MAJOR crimes in my time and strangely enough they were all committed, bold as brass, in DC.

Who's safer again?

Posted by: Dutch | June 26, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"We have concealed carry in Virginia. There is little evidence of law abiding citizens causing problems with handguns. Nuts and criminals will get them no matter what you do. I am not opposed to registration or background checks, but DC has the highest crime in the region and this nutty handgun law."

How did the nut-job at VA Tech get his guns? Oh that's right he legally purchased them from a firearms dealer in VA. Those gun laws sure work well!!!!

Posted by: VA TECH | June 26, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

DC needs easier access to more guns like a hole in the head, literally! Our city has among the highest murder rates due to guns in America, and possibly the world. This won't help....

Posted by: Jindra Cekan | June 26, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The very onset of this law when enacted in the same year we were celebrating 200 years of freedom in 1976 I found very angry thought with myself.

I live in Michigan and the home of the second most dangerous place to live is Detroit. Yet a neighbor of Detroit is much safer than Detroit has ever been. Reason they have concealed carry laws. I am glad I don't live in DC or Detroit. Where I live folks shoot most everyday practicing, guess whose neighborhood is safer to live in mine or DCs?

Posted by: Edwin Swanson | June 26, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Ah, so certain portions of the US Constitution DO apply to the disenfranchised citizens of D.C. I would have picked different ones.

Posted by: No taxation without representation | June 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"We have concealed carry in Virginia. There is little evidence of law abiding citizens causing problems with handguns. Nuts and criminals will get them no matter what you do. I am not opposed to registration or background checks, but DC has the highest crime in the region and this nutty handgun law."

How did the nut-job at VA Tech get his guns? Oh that's right he legally purchased them from a firearms dealer in VA. Those gun laws sure work well!!!!

Posted by: VA TECH | June 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

It's about time that a ruling from the supreme court upheld the rights of the citizens. As to the posts here about how uncivilized the US is...these must be from the uneducated.

Those who do not want the law abiding individual to have guns either are criminals themselves, believe in the la la land where everyone is nice or just uninformed. There is not a state in the US that has not seen a reduction in violent crime when the gun laws are made weaker.

As to domestic violence. People kill people with knives, hammers, rocks, cars...etc. Maybe we should outlaw those.

Posted by: kend | June 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Seriously!

LOOK OUT!

THE SKY!


IT'S FALLING!

Posted by: Marc | June 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"We have concealed carry in Virginia. There is little evidence of law abiding citizens causing problems with handguns. Nuts and criminals will get them no matter what you do. I am not opposed to registration or background checks, but DC has the highest crime in the region and this nutty handgun law."

How did the nut-job at VA Tech get his guns? Oh that's right he legally purchased them from a firearms dealer in VA. Those gun laws sure work well!!!!

Posted by: VA TECH | June 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

I volunteer with a group made up mostly of clergy who are first responders to families of DC homicide victims. I have been VERY busy doing this as a result of the recent surge of senseless murders in DC. It is hard to watch young children crying pitiably for their beloved young uncle or father, not understanding what a murder means, and wanting him to play with them again. I witness this again and again, each one unspeakably sad. Weeping mothers bent over in grief from the handgun murder of their dear child are hard to console; they know they will never see their child again. I invite the supporters of handguns to join a program like ours, as we will need plenty of new volunteers to provide grief counseling and comfort when the murder statistics inevitably rise, as this ruling guarantees. One visit is not enough - the depths of sorrow need to be seen in theme and variation again and again to be truly understood. It breaks your heart. Assume your responsibility, gun supporters; perhaps your new understanding will change your mind, and hopefully your heart as well. Offered in sorrow -

Posted by: smeehan | June 26, 2008 11:52 AM

FUNNY, I HAVE HAD TO COUNSEL PEOPLE MOLESTED BY CLERGY. MANY CRIMINALS WERE MOLESTED, OFTEN AT THE HANDS OF CLERGY.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives like to say gun control has not worked. There never has been any gun control as long as you can go to a neighboring state, acquire guns and bring them home. A large number of the guns in NY city come from Virginia.
Gun nuts also say guns don't kill people, people kill people. The logical extension of this is that we are a nation of murderers because the gun deaths in this country are greater than the gun deaths in all of Europe for a year. If a plane flew over Rome, Paris, London, etc. and dropped millions of guns into these cities, there would be gun deaths within an hour. Allowing ownership of guns to promote safety is like screwing for virginity.

Posted by: freethinker | June 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The D.C. Government has it backwards, as always. The bad guys have all the guns they need already, and someone who is willing to kill another is not sweating over gun laws. Only the unitl now-defenseless victims were affected. Fenty and company will be back in court over and over again as they try to find wormholes in this ruling. The stupid statement about only allowing revolvers to be registered is prime for challenge. It's not the 1800's any more.

Fenty, et. al., stop penalizing the law-abiding people who cower in fear of criminals while an incompetent and ineffective Keystone Cops police department does nothing. Hurray for the Supreme Court and its wise ruling.

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed at the number of idiots posting comments here that have absolutely no clue.

First off, DC won't become the wild-wild-west, but it will become a bit safer. Why? Because not only criminals will have gones now, citizens will.

Second: DC Still is the murder capital of the United States, even though they have had a 30 year ban! How many years does it take to prove to you that something is ineffective and needs to be changed?

Third: Those that selectively interpret the 2nd in a different light than the 1st are fooling themselves. The 2nd is there to protect the 1st.

Finally, as previously mentioned, in every single major city that has implemented a Concealed Carry Law, crime has gone down! Those are verifiable and proven facts that anti-gun proponents are blind to by choice.


I suggest making a National Concealed Carry law, allowing citizens whom are fingerprinted, trained, educated, law-abiding, and sane to carry concealed weapons. It makes sense and increases safety.

Posted by: John from Illinois | June 26, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"Didn't know there were so many gun-freaks in D.C. Anyone remember the Virginia Tech shooting? Expect more of those crimes, D.C."

Sorry, but no cigar. Virginia Tech - and virtually every other mass killing - all took place in "gun free zones". Criminals love them, 'cause they guarantee unarmed victims!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I am in the Military. I could have gotten a house in DC. I chose to move to VA because of the gun laws. I own a few guns, I have gotten my wife a small pistol for her to use, and even have taught my Mother-in-law how to shoot. I work all hours. So if someone staked my house out, they could break it. I feel perfectly safe now, because they do know how to shoot a gun.

Here is the article about requiring every head of household to have guns.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

The article states that the crime rate has gone DOWN in that town. Not up, like some people think.


1. It says a blanket ban on popular self-defense guns, like handguns, are unconstitutional. - This means, DC Chicago, NYC will have to allow guns.

2. It held a trigger lock and disassembly requirement, which makes the firearm useless for self-defense, is also unconstitutional.

3. It does allow for a locality to require a license to possess a firearm in the home, but requires that such license be forthcoming and not denied arbitrarily and capriciously.

4. It says that carrying a gun in a person's home is protected, but is silent on carrying outside the home. (That's because the Heller case didn't address carry outside the home.)

5. It says that carrying CONCEALED firearms can be restricted or prohibited.

6. It says that long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill are OK.

7. It also says that prohibiting carry in "sensitive" locations like schools and government buildings are OK.

8. Conditions and qualifications can be imposed on the commercial sale of arms (like requiring a background check, apparently). Such conditions and qualifications not being overly restrictive is not addressed.

9. "Dangerous and unusual weapons" are not protected (they consider machine guns to be such a weapon since most people do not own them).

So the end result is a mixed bag. People in DC (and hopefully soon,
Chicago) can now have a loaded gun, including a handgun, in their home for self-defense and can move said gun around freely within their home.

It allows for a license requirement to have such a gun, but requires the license be forthcoming and not denied on a whim.

It does not protect concealed carry in any way nor does it require permits to do so not be arbitrarily and capriciously denied. This is a battle that will have to be fought another day and one that is quite possibly winnable.

Bans on carry in schools and government buildings and perhaps other "sensitive" locations are constitutional. Because "sensitive" is not clearly defined, this is going to be a headache.

We will continue to have the purchase of firearms loaded down with qualifications and conditions.

That is the simple break down. (VCDL)

Posted by: Ray | June 26, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Just what we need. Hundreds of inexperienced gun owners with their brand new legal guns, shooting at anything that goes bump in the night.

Posted by: n_mcguire | June 26, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

DC has no gun stores for the general public. A DC resident can't come to Virginia and buy a gun. They now need some gun dealers and some ranges and NRA instruction. Get to it Fenty! Mr. Mayor buy yourself a Glock and set a good example.

Posted by: kayaker RN | June 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat, generally liberal, who owns several handguns and shoots them regularly. I also have a concealed carry permits from Virginia and Utah, and over 40 hours of defensive handgun training. In order to get a CCW in either state, one has to have training, be fingerprinted, pass a background check and register with the state, precisely what most moderate citizens support as a regulatory regime for guns in general. I think this ruling will have little practical impact in DC, but it does affirm the basic right to self-defense, a key to personal liberty.

Posted by: Vienna VA | June 26, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

CWK wrote: "Congratulations, NRA. Now DC criminals can have something else to break into peoples' houses to steal: handguns."

News flash to the uninformed CWK -- the NRA not only did not argue or sponsor the case against the DC ban, btu actively worked against the case going forward. CWK proves JFK correct -- too often people have the "comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Criminals..by definition..do not follow the law; therefore, legislation restricting the use of firearms for personal protection only hurts law abiding citizens.

Don't believe me? Research other parts of the world where they have entire gun bans or extremely strict laws and show me where they have less crime. I can almost guarantee, you will see more crime in places with any form of firearm bans. Mexico is a great example.

At the time of this posting, I am glad to see that ~63% of the people voting in this poll have not been downbred to and extreme level of stupidity. I only fear that this 63% is ever decreasing.

Congratulations on the SCOTUS ruling.

Posted by: Charles Brussel | June 26, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

DC needs easier access to more guns like a hole in the head, literally! Our city has among the highest murder rates due to guns in America, and possibly the world. This won't help....

Posted by: Jindra | June 26, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

After having lived in a very restrictive state(NY)for most of my life and now living in VA,which is open carry, no registration required for possession, and a very accessible permit for concealed carry as well, I applaud the SCOTUS decision. DC is just like NYC, where the only people who have guns are law enforcement and criminals and the average citizen is left defenseless to cower in fear for their life. Bloomberg and Fenty will just have to get over it.

Posted by: 1433plc | June 26, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm...

Here is my question:

Why would an individual, who is willing to violate laws preventing rape, murder, robbery, etc, be concerned with violating a law stating that one can not possess a firearm?

You see, a criminal doesn't mind violating the law. Why? Well, because he is a criminal. That is what criminals do. Criminals violate laws. As a matter a fact, that is the VERY definition of a criminal. "Criminal (noun): An individual who commits, or has been convicted of committing, an illegal act or actions." See?

Firearm laws only remove the firearms from those who are law-abiding. You know, the ones who follow laws, including the ones about rape, murder, robbery, etc. Firearm laws simply leave the honest to be the victim, and the dishonest to get away with murder.... literally.

Posted by: Jesse | June 26, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I'm just a good ole southern boy who doesn't keep up with politics much. But I do know how to read (thanks to a teacher) and I do live free (thanks to veterans of this country). The folks that are against citizens carrying legally have never stood over someone taking their last breath because there was no one to defend the weak ( Virginia Tech ). Most would have a different opinion after that. For those that think we live in a different time from our forefathers...they are correct. The forefathers did not have to suffer through 9/11. In reference to our Police Officers, most are good caring people. Unfortuately they are under paid and under staffed. They can't be in all places all the time. God Bless America and the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Since DC has one of the highest crime rates in America, I would be willing to bet the crime rate drops once the good guy can fight back.

Posted by: Ray | June 26, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

The 2nd amendment interpretation could have gone either way, in my opinion, which is why the ruling went 5-4.

But the bigger issue I would invite people to consider is this: Are thousands of gun deaths annually worth the "liberty" or "freedom" that the 2nd Amendment allows us? When I've been to Europe, where in most countries the access to guns is extremely limited, I've not read about gun violence like there is in the United States. The United States, with all its gun "freedom" loses thousands of lives that those without this "freedom" never lose. So, again, I ask the question: Is this "freedom", this "liberty", worth all those lives?

Posted by: Michael Kunz | June 26, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Call 911! The police will help us!

SOMEONE PLEASE STOP THE SKY FROM FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Marc | June 26, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Why be able to defend yourself? Even in the best of circumstances, the police are minutes away when seconds count.

Posted by: Vienna VA | June 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

The right to own a gun is strictly written in our Constitution.
We won this battle. However, there is a clear meaning in the 4 judges who voted "no".
They have every intent to ammend and destroy our Consitution.
As for you sick liberals, why don't you go live in another country where guns are outlawed, like China.

Posted by: HC Phillips | June 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Good news! I don't understand gun control people. D.C. gun ban resulted in more crime then ever and innocent citizens being harmed and killed at a rate so bad the criminals there should have been listed as terrorists. I have the right to own a weapon. If the democratic lefties who are mouring this decision don't want to own a gun, then don't. In America we have the freedom to and the freedom not to.
Don't take away my freedoms because you don't want it for yourself or your own family. The right to bear arms is one reason this country is well-protected from enemies. The whole world knows that if you attack the U.S., pretty much everyone you run into will be able to stop you dead (literally) in your tracks. Have a nice day!

Posted by: Elizabeth | June 26, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end of governmental arrogance and the tyranny that follows it.

Posted by: freedomlover | June 26, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Congrats to the Supreme Court. Now the inability to defend yourself from liberal politics that places weapons only in criminals hands is over. And wouldn't be a treat to see the murder rates and violent crime rates drop in the uncontrolled city of DC.

Posted by: MOCO Republican | June 26, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Kapow! Smack! On Target. If not quite the bullseye, good enough for government work.

Posted by: Dave Skinner | June 26, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Hey Patty in England, why are the Brits having such a problem with knives now? And after that, will they ban ball bats and scissors? The crime in Britain is atrocious and they can't even defend themselves.

Posted by: D Lloyd | June 26, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

All you non-owners who feel safer without guns, and will rely on law enforcement for your safety, remember this--When someone breaks into your home, intent on doing harm, and the seconds count---The police are only minutes away.

Posted by: VA victory | June 26, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people continue to think that allowing law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms somehow threatens them. I am licensed to carry a firearm and do so every day, to protect myself and my wife and the things we've worked hard for. I take training classes, pratice with my guns at least once a month (more than most LEOs, by the way) and am not a threat to anyone if they mean me no harm. In every state where concealed carry is permitted, violent crime drops and gun owners are among the most honest and law-abiding members of society. Do some reaseach before you condemn self-defense and gun ownership.

Posted by: Bill in TX | June 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that when something doesn't go their way, the handwringing gun grabbers immediately begin crying the "Activist Judge Blues". Sad.....

This is a great day for all freedoms enumerated by The Constitution.

Posted by: Norton | June 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

To Michael Koonz: Don't tell me about thousands of deaths due to guns because you are comparing the actions of criminals to law-abiding citizens. Very few incidents are accidental. The D.C. crime rate increase over the years is DIRECTLY connected to the gun ban that turned citizens with no real problems into prisoners/hostages in their own city. You are one of those people who would dismantle our consitution becuase of your "lets protect the poor criminal" attitude and destroy this country. 50 years ago you and people like you would have been called traitors.

Posted by: Elizabeth | June 26, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Having read these postings, I find the misinformation and ignorance of many to be scary. For those who think US citizens should not have the means of self defense, move to England, Australia, China or some country who agrees with your thoughts. If you rely totally on the police for protection, SURPRISE! The police are only tasked with taking reports, notifying next of kin and cleaning up AFTER a crime, not preventing it! We fought one war for our freedom, using individual citizens with THEIR OWN guns in 1776 against an oppressive and tyrannical government, and we could do it again!

Remember this: a person with a gun is a citizen, a person without a gun is a SUBJECT!

The Supreme Court got this one right!

Posted by: Bill from Virginia | June 26, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

n_mcguire, is DC really that full of complete morons? Is that what YOU would do with a gun or are you the elitist type who just thinks everyone else will?
Jindra, you're right, DC criminals do need a hole in the head and this might actually help.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Bill from Texas makes a valid point. And people with handgun training also know that you only shoot when something is worth dying for.

Posted by: Vienna VA | June 26, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

If a burglar gets into your house will you really have enough time to retrieve your gun from a well-concealed from kids place? Similarly, if you get caught by surprise in the street at gunpoint is a fraction of a second enough to pull your gun and self-defend? Shooting someone trespassing your backyard is not self-defense either. I don't think this will decrease violence in schools and other public areas. However, there will be certainly a large flow of guns in the streets. I don't think I will feel comfortable walking in the streets even with a gun. It's like being in war zone - you don't know who will make the first shot..

Posted by: Russian | June 26, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

***I volunteer with a group made up mostly of clergy who are first responders to families of DC homicide victims. I have been VERY busy doing this as a result of the recent surge of senseless murders in DC. It is hard to watch young children crying pitiably for their beloved young uncle or father, not understanding what a murder means, and wanting him to play with them again. I witness this again and again, each one unspeakably sad. Weeping mothers bent over in grief from the handgun murder of their dear child are hard to console; they know they will never see their child again. I invite the supporters of handguns to join a program like ours, as we will need plenty of new volunteers to provide grief counseling and comfort when the murder statistics inevitably rise, as this ruling guarantees. One visit is not enough - the depths of sorrow need to be seen in theme and variation again and again to be truly understood. It breaks your heart. Assume your responsibility, gun supporters; perhaps your new understanding will change your mind, and hopefully your heart as well. Offered in sorrow -

Posted by: smeehan | June 26, 2008 11:52 AM ***

Hey Smeehan, you dolt, you have just proven DC's restrictive and illegal laws did nothing to prevent gun violence better than I ever could.

Posted by: Falcon | June 26, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

We gun owners won this battle but I fear we will lose the war in the end.

Posted by: LW | June 26, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I have a good friend who shot and killed a burglar who broke into my friend's house at midnight. Two years ago in Georgia. My friend's fiance was with him at the time. She snuck upstairs to call the police, and he hid in the corner with his handgun. One shot to the chest. The burglar had just been released from prison for sexual assault. Police found a condom in the burglar's pocket. My friend and his fiance are EXACTLY the ones who this decision is all about.

Posted by: Self Defense | June 26, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

are you suggesting that a gun is better than a condom for protection. Guess I agree

Posted by: Walmart | June 26, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

To gunsrgreat! and those who think like him (paraphrasing):

Chances of a successful home robbery/murder in a home with handguns compared to a home with no handguns:
Comparing only homes with guns v.
homes without guns.
Homes w/guns: 0%
Homes w/out guns: 100%


Posted by: Oatka | June 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

today was a vicory for all americans whether you own a firearm or not , whether you like firearms or not . this is what the bill of rights was designed to do. we all as americans have these rights , and we are protected from our goverment taking them away . all of them, not just the ones that certain individuals like or dislike

Posted by: austinb | June 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I have had to use a gun to defend myself and my family from a vicious attack. My newborn son could have been seriously mauled by a huge drug dealer's dog. My own dog was being torn apart before the attacking dog turned on us. If it were not for my ability to bear my gun, we may have been seriously injured or killed.

We have a right to defend ourselves from harm. This ruling does not give anyone the right to shoot anyone else because they got cut off in traffic or because they had a fight with their spouse. This ruling reaffirms our right to keep and bear arms for ourselves and our country.

This ruling gives some of the power back to "the people" and helps to prevent tyranny.

Posted by: JoeH | June 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

What i don't understand is that if ban's work so well...why don't the politicians just ban crime? Then people will stop committing crimes.

Instead of "gun free zones" just make "crime free zones".

Posted by: Prophet | June 26, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Congrats to The People of DC; Welcome aboard the start of the road to freedom.

Posted by: Blaine G. Tacoma, WA | June 26, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"in DC, the criminal is still the only person with a weapon on the street' ?

I guess the guns of the 3,700 lawfully-armed Metropolitan police officers don't count? Nor the weapons of the many other police agencies who roam DC packing heat? (Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police, the FBI, Metro police, Naval District Washington Police, U.S.Capitol Police, Secret Service, and U.S. Park Police). That's a lot of law-abiding weapons in the face of criminals, yet we still have gun violence. Guns don't kill people, but neither do they keep them safe. How many crimes have been thwarted by gun-totting civilians?

Posted by: russolini | June 26, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Greg- you asked if we believe violence will increase by reinstating freedom to DC. Well, there is one possible reason why- but it should not bother anyone- when the newly armed, terrorized American citizens of that cheap fascist city defend themselves against the criminals who have rampaged unchecked for decades, there will be a little extra violence... But like I said- who cares? They should be told that if they see a criminal who EVER committed crime against them, by all means, fire at will!! Save us the expense of arrest and prosecute and eternally feeding them. Also:
Identify, Locate, Arrest all proponents of gun control for they are traitors to our way of life and are the cause of rampant cime, and therefor are guilty of same. Let justice Trickle down. When the little folk see the big pigs getting hanged for mass murder, they surely will know they too will hang if they commit crimes against the American people!! Then, render the oil from them. like with whales in the old days- boil the oil out, and the energy problem is cured... no drilling? OK: Boil dems for oil- they are only cheap scum incessantly whining thieving fascist traitor murder pigs anyway!!

Posted by: ralphy | June 26, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

This is, indeed, a great day in the history of our country!
I am swelling with pride!

Posted by: Keith Bourgeois | June 26, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

For all the gun fearing people, wake up. Educate yourself instead of living in the fear sheltered by ignorance. Go to a gun range, ask to be taught how a gun works, and learn to shoot it. You will soon realize holding a gun in your hand doesn't turn you into a murdering criminal. If it did, then it's "YOU" that goes wrong, not the gun. I consider myself a liberal in every practical sense. I do, however, highly value my right for self defense; unlike a lot of liberals I know. I own guns, I educate myself about them, I do target practice, and I learn to trust myself to properly handle them.

Oh and for those who think we are some crime infested country among the industrial world because of our gun ownership, sorry to burst your ignorance bubble again. I have lived in Japan for almost six years; a country where legal gun ownership is virtually non-existent. People were getting mugged, assaulted, or killed by criminals everyday.

Posted by: Justin | June 26, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

The wild wild west ... I don't think so. DC ~600,000 residents
Fairfax County ~ 1.1M resident
DC - 170+ homicides
Fairfax County - 13 homicides
DC - Handgan Ban
Fairfax Virginia - No Handgun Ban

Are these the same people that said that Virginia would become the wild wild west after the enactment of non-discretionary issuance of concealed carry permits in Virginia?

Are the few licensed gun owners in DC shooting up the District and creating the wild wild west that exists in the District already?

The District's gun violence problem is a symptom of far more intractable problems. Gun bans are only political window dressing to provide politicians cover.

Posted by: WXC | June 26, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

The DC Gun Ban would have worked to lower crime if DC had the power to remove all guns from everyone in the world and then un-invent the gun. This would be the only legitimate argument for gun control as it would be the only argument that would control ownership of those causing the crimes...the criminals. If you control gun ownership of citizens who aren't willing to break the law and don't control it for those who would do violence, then your control is flawed. I would suggest an armed, educated populace is an asset to societal efforts to curb gun violence. You will never stop the development of a criminal. They will find a tool to carry out their objective be it a gun or a hammer. The necessity of guns to be available to the educated and responsible populace is of utmost importance. While several of these educated citizens may turn to crime and use the gun for evil, the overwhelming majority will respect the firearms power and wield it responsibly. More responsible gun owners make it less likely that a rogue citizen may be able to slaughter a previously unarmed group of people without equal opposition. Personal protection is the approach that was taken on this decision, but the remaining emphasis must be put upon the necessity for a populace to have the ability to protect themselves from tyrannical governments that may wish to remove rights that are assumed to exist empirically. Rights that are not granted by the Constitution but are recognized by it to exist without condition as a god-given right. Guns are not dangerous if the user is not dangerous. It is the dangerous user we must remove. not the gun. A gun is only the means of protection or oppression. Ultimately, in both situations, the wielder of the weapon is responsible for his or her own actions. The gun is never an excuse for poor decision making.

Posted by: Karlthomas | June 26, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"The DC Gun Ban would have worked to lower crime if DC had the power to remove all guns from everyone in the world and then un-invent the gun."

Wrong. The crime rate would increase if you removed all guns from the world. Criminals have absolutely no qualms about using other means to violently assault the defenseless. A disarmed society is a defenseless society.

If you want to fix DCs crime problems, do something about urban poverty, crappy schools, illiteracy, drugs, and gangs.

Posted by: Mike in AZ | June 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

The most violent cities and the highest number of gun deaths occur in cities with the strictest gun laws.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

That is, your sentiment was good but the analysis is wrong. Crime would exist independently of the existence of firearms. That's just how people are.

Posted by: Mike in AZ | June 26, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

The most violent cities and the highest number of gun deaths occur in cities with the strictest gun laws.

Posted by: John in Indiana | June 26, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and ... for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

- Karlthomas (as relates to the constitution be upheld)


"People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and ... for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

- Michelle Obama (as relates to non-existent patriotism between 1982 and 2008 )


Those who would oppose to uphold the Constitution in favor of security from criminals are unpatriotic and are citizens living in a country that is founded on a document that is of no consequence to them. If the constitution does not fit your particular views, then this may be the wrong country for you.

Posted by: Karlthomas | June 26, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

To those of you D.C. residents who object to the ruling, remember that it does not require you to obtain a firearm; that is your CHOICE. Just don't get one.

Funny how some people demand the "choice" to kill the most innocent, while denying others the choice to defend themselves.

Posted by: JimRed | June 26, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"Congratulations to Mr. Injustice Scalia for his lasting contribution to making this one of the most uncivilized countries on the face of the earth. It is embarrassing to be a citizen living abroad and to have to explain the internal workings of the US to the more civilized world."

..And yet... you choose to live here instead of in the "enlightened" areas of the world. Why is that?

Personally, I'm embarrassed by someone so elitist and prejudiced as yourself. Cheer-e-o!

Posted by: Adcurt | June 26, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

WEll it is easy to tell the gun owners from the ignorant people. That's not a slam look it up. It's the people how don't know jack about guns or training with guns. All you know is what you have seen on TV or read,, sad but true. And if you don't like what this country was built on or stands for guess what it's a free country you can leave.

Posted by: Todd | June 26, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Those who think the DC gun ban reduces crime need to look at nearby jurisdictions with relatively liberal gun restrictions. According to their theory, these jurisdictions should have greater crime rates due to the greater legal availability of firearms, particularly handguns. Clearly, the king of per capita violent crime is DC, where lawful citizens are prevented from defending themselves.

Mix gun control with an idiotic drug war, an anti-small business climate and a horrible public school system and you have metro DC.

Posted by: Tom Walls | June 26, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. William R. Bauer:

Please stay over there.

Posted by: Robster | June 26, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

This is very bad news for people living in Maryland. If DC residents start to protect themselves, DC criminals will look for easier targets.

Posted by: Realist | June 26, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Finally! It has been tragic that the same liberals who refuse to incarcerate criminals, who refust to punish those who make a career out of crime, are always at the forefront in denying citizens the means to defend themselves.

Any intelligent reading of the Amendment left no doubt, it is a guarantee of an Individual Right!

Posted by: John E. Lane | June 26, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Something else for all those fulminating about the court decision. The same Supreme Court has ruled that the police have NO obligation to protect you and your family from criminals. None at all. They're not even obligated to respond. If an armed intruder breaks in and the police fail to get there in time to prevent your injury or death, that's your problem, not theirs. So please, let's drop this ridiculous shibboleth that the police will protect us from criminals. Their job is to mop up the blood and go looking for the guy who did it. Sometimes they even catch them. The ONLY person responsible for protecting you and yours, is yourself.

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"Guns take lives, they don't save them." -D

Last I checked a gun can't kill anything, the person it behind can.
So I think a more appropirate quote would be:

Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill PEOPLE.

Maybe the focus should be educating people about guns instead of making them into something they're not.

Posted by: h | June 26, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

DC enacted their law in reaction to high crime rates. It was never intended to be the model for the rest of the nation to adopt.

If people want to hunt, move to the countryside. There is no need to hunt within a city limit.

If people want protection, wouldn't a non-lethal but physically debilitating weapon make more sense than one that can kill by mistake?

Posted by: Riddleronthefoof | June 26, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

To Elizabeth, who posted at 1:23 p.m.

First, the last name is Kunz, not Koonz.
Second, the solution I am suggesting is not an easy one. The cat (guns) came out of the bag long ago, just like nuclear weapons. But the world did not say, well, let's just give everybody a nuclear weapon. Much of the world, including the United States, has attempted to limit and even reduce the availability of nuclear weapons. Why? Because in the "wrong" hands (or sometimes even in the "right" hands), they kill thousands of people. Working for the reduction and elimination of nuclear arms is not easy. Nor is working for the reduction and elimination of handguns. The cat is already out of the bag. But rather than just say, "Hey, let's all just have nuclear weapons and scare the heck out of each other...both the "good countries" and the "bad countries", we've worked to limit access to nuclear weapons. I am suggesting that, although it is a difficult road, that we limit access to guns. In the countries where it is limited access, they don't have the gun deaths that we do in the United States. If that makes me a traitor, well, my first allegiance is to the Creator, not to the Constitution. I do believe in following a higher law when the two conflict.
Peace.

Posted by: Michael Kunz | June 26, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"And if you don't like what this country was built on or stands for guess what it's a free country you can leave."

A free country is one in which people are able to criticize and question laws, governments, and social and political norms. Making people "leave" if they don't like certain aspects of their government sounds rather...unfree. So yes, the Court seems to have reasonably upheld the 2nd Amendment, and the 2nd Amendment IS part of the law of the land, but that doesn't mean people don't have the right to critique the Constitution, even if it was "what this country was built on." This country, as you may recall, was built on rather unsavory things like slavery, too, and I think we can all agree it is a good thing that there were brave individuals and groups willing to criticize that particular social, political, economic and legal norm. So hooray for freedom and liberty, including the freedom to question and critique even our most fundamental presuppositions. An act of questioning does not amount to treason.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

William R. Bauer:

Look at recent European history: how is that civilized? How's the Jewish population over there, Bud- recovered yet from one of Europe's finer examples of civility?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I am truly amazed at how many people thinks that this is such a great decision. All of a sudden DC has rights for something but they do not have the rights when it counts for elections, did anyone forget about Taxation Without Representation. I guess too they just hope that all our teenagers and young adults kill each other, wake up people Guns kill!

Posted by: Cindy | June 26, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The justices did nothing to make the people of DC safer. The citizens have elected officials and supported law enforcment for 32 years to keep this law in place. The justices had no basis to overturn the will of the people in this community. More people will die as a result of this law, and if they follow suit in other cities. Hopefully they will stress the reasonable restirctions they cited moving forward to keep bans on machine guns and felons from owning dangerous weapons.

Posted by: Bob | June 26, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Hal Connor - it sounds like you're the one with the issues.

There'a an accepted psychological phenomena known as "projection" - it's where you attribute your own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or desires onto others; imagine Jimmy Swaggart railing about prostitution for example.

It sounds like you're providing a great example of this occurence.

I've encountered this many times while legally carrying my pistol - strangers will ask me if I'm afraind of "going nuts" or shooting someone over a road rage incident. And over 19 years in dealing with the public on the street, I've also seen that most people shoot each other over crime related events, often involving drugs, thefts or gangs.

Being adequately trained and able to control my responses, I reply that I'm not worried about how I'll respond to a situation. I understand exactly what is involved when one produced a pistol. What worries me is how others respond.

I worry about you.

Being armed is an individual decision, and I hope you choose to never exercise it.

Shooting someone over a lost remote?

Maybe you should seek professional help.

Posted by: Tango | June 26, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

About time. Maybe the D.C. politicians will get their heads out the sand and inact some good practical gun carrying guidlines. It would defeat the spirit of this ruling if citizens/residents are not given the opportunity to be licensed to carry outside the home.

Posted by: Shaka Thorne | June 26, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

As others have noted, Mr. Bauer please stay where you are. Those of us in "flyover country" are happier without you.

PS. Can you take a few more people with you?

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

to Bob- this was a decision about individual rights. While due respect should go to a community's desires, our system protects us against the tyranny of the majority. Institutionalized racism would probably be still in vogue were it not for constitutional protection of individual rights.

Posted by: Vienna | June 26, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Posted by: Jim | June 26, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm thankful that the Supreme Court has clarified this rather sticky section of American law and helped to remove some of the doubt about what the different clauses in the second amendment really mean.

I do have one question, though - clearly the second amendment was inspired by the notion that it was necessary to arm one's self from the English invading one's home. I confess that I'm a bit worried. You see, my neighbors are a lovely British couple in their late 50s. Does anyone have any idea of how much firepower I'm going to need to repel them and at what distance they can come before I can reasonably justify my belief that they intended to quarter with me?

Posted by: Clovis | June 26, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I think that if the individuals who wrote the 2nd Amendment could have had a look into the future, they would have had second thoughts about the right to bear arms.

while I feel that there should be some gun control in DC, a ban is not the answer. Where does it stop?

Posted by: lionelhutz | June 26, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

what a great victory for heller an DC
it is about time the anti's shut there
pie holes and move on

Posted by: rob | June 26, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Interesting question -

Now that handguns are legal in your home, does that mean that I can bring my traveling companion up from home in Florida to a hotel room in DC - assuming that I can get it registered (how will that work)?

Posted by: GHF | June 26, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I don't own a gun. That being said watch the video attached to this link, a lesson on human nature, and explain to me again why law abiding citizens do not have a right to own a gun and defend themselves.

http://cbs11tv.com/local/garland.double.murder.2.755040.html

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I think a majority of the fear of guns stems for simple ignorance of them. A gun is a tool, like any other, capable of being used properly or being misused. Familiarity with firearms should be a requirement for all adults, even if you never intend to use one. Simply being able to approach a situation with a firearm and understanding the universal safety rules will take alot of the mystique away from these oft-maligned weapons.

1: ALWAYS assume a weapon is loaded.
2: NEVER point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot or destroy.
3: ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to shoot.
4: ALWAYS keep the weapon on safe until you intend to shoot.

I had only shot once before I joined the Navy and grew up in a household without guns, but once I return from being posted overseas, I fully intend to purchase firearms and continue practicing with them. I applaud SCOTUS' decision.

Posted by: IS2 Peters | June 26, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Adcurt- get out of our free country you cheap, incessantly whining thieving fascist traitor murder pig democrat! You help cause murder and mayhem with your disarm the victim crazy crap! GET OUT.

Posted by: ralphy | June 26, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

As a police officer, S.W.A.T. team member, and a member of my community, I am glad our court system has seen fit to allow citizens this right. Our department response time for home invasion is often over 10 min. watch a clock for 10 min and think what could be done to you or your family in that amount of time. S.W.A.T. response time is much slower. To think it is our job to protect you is not realistic. Just food for thought.

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I've never been a fan of guns. I hate that we live in a society where they are used so frequently. I've never been trained in using a gun, so I don't think I would be comfortable owning one. My dad used to own a small grocery store and was held up at gunpoint several times. It was scary for me to hear about when I was young. My dad was never a fan of guns either. His dad took him hunting, but it didn't take. After being robbed a few times, my dad put a sign reading "management has means of self defense" on the front door of his store, he was never robbed again, and shoplifting also went down. He didn't actually own a gun, but a potential thief didn't know that.

This isn't enough evidence to say that guns save lives, because no incidents came about, but my dad was never again in that position of fearing for his life at gunpoint.

I'm trying to understand both sides of the issue and I see alot of fear from each side: gun rights people may be afraid that a personal attack is always imminent, and gun control people afraid that gun-owners are not responsible enough to prevent endless accidents and impromptu shootouts at the mall.

From the point of view of the gunowner, I understand that they're not all paranoid nuts, and many would rather never ever have to use their weapon for self defense. But crime is a reality, family is precious, so why not be prepared.

But from the point of view of someone on gun control, I really can't see how one justifies the anger or fear towards a lawful gun owner. Do they really fear their fellow co-workers, neighbors, friends that much that they think accidental deaths and mall shootouts are more of a threat than the criminal violence that is already out there?
I'm not trying to be a wiseass, just trying to understand what the fear is.

Posted by: quaker | June 26, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I will bet anyone the crime rate in that city drops in half or more by years end.

Posted by: cray | June 26, 2008 12:37 PM

Cray...please be ready to rescind this statement when it doesn't hold true. Thanks.

Posted by: dcres | June 26, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Adcurt: get out of our free country! Your cheap incessantly whining thieving fascist traitor murder pig democrat crazy notions of disarming victims is the reason why crime soared so! (along with other liberal garbage brained schemes to help the friends of democrats at the expense of Americans). You don't like it here? GET OUT

Posted by: ralphy | June 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

To those of you anti-gun activists: Please to be telling me, when was the concept of FREE WILL declared dead ? Does the simple availability of firearms now mean that your neighbors will come unhinged, and they'll start knocking over liquor stores and breaking into your homes to rape your dogs ??

My wife bought me a screwdriver, electric power-washer, and painting equipment- doesn't mean I've tackled all of those home improvement projects.

Posted by: Joe Henry | June 26, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I say, a better day in DC, now. DC concealed carry (CC) is still a bristly issue for me, especially. I suspect DC's new gun laws will, sadly and ridiculously, be no different than MD laws; which SUCK. Many anti-gun jurisdictions/states are also frequently complete nanny-states, feeling existent citizens there be, "protected" (from themselves). Yet actually, true rights and protections, have frequently been disregarded. In fact, some are, too frequently taken away, sadly. Look, if I'm checked and legally authorized to CC in one state, or several, just because I cross a bridge/border I shouldn't then have any rights removed; nor do I become some lesser human, suddenly dangerous, a criminal suspect, etc. Nor should this happen just because DC is some, "district." Right (, komrade)? Besides, I've never known borders to ever stop evil: it is everpresent and mobile. Odd thing is though, examine violent crime rates in relation to crossing a bridge between SE DC and Arlington, VA. Or PG Co., MD, and Alex. City/Fairfax Co., VA. Gee, I wonder if DC/MD criminals know folks in VA may be carrying, and CAN defend themselves? Have DC/MD criminals been dissuaded/repelled from VA? Seems so, in many respects. I digress, that's a whole other issue (even though it proves some of my points). If/When I go to DC, I'm aware the criminal element knows I am, as are all law-abiding folks, unarmed. Criminals whom armed (and many are, DUH, I'm/they're not stupid) always seek, and KNOW they have an advantage. Criminals are inherently predatory by nature, they care little about anyone/thing but themselves, and their wants, needs, desires, etc. Right? Plus, and sadly, over time so much of the criminal element has so severely devalued human life/lives. Hence, we have the evil and depravity we see, every day. I'm not apologetic to anti's for exercising my RIGHT (AFFIRMED now, thank you). It is anti's personal choice whether to equalize/enhance their own personal security (having/carrying guns), or not. As an American, it's my/all OUR choice, too. In a world where respect of/to each other, and each others lives/choices/opinions/RIGHTS, seems to have been SO lost. All I ask of others, and gov'ts, is to RESPECT me and all mine. Not just at election time, either. This is not something too much to ask. However, and also ANOTHER OF our American right, I choose to go where I wish, or NOT. Because so much nonsense exists in DC, and from my prior experience working to protect DC, I choose NOT to go there, if ever I can avoid it. Remember, the Constitution is in effect in ALL of USA, and crossing borders does NOT dissolve it, nor remove rights. Nor should it prevent me from, or take away my rights/ability/tools for protecting my life, liberty, and my pursuit of happiness, and peace. Luckily, and THANK God, and by my training and care, my firearms have never hurt anyone in 30 years, except paper targets & backstops. I pray it stays this way, too; that is, until/unless someone attempt harm me or mine. Then, I pray my skill, ability and tools will serve me well. Remember too, any my abilities and tools used in my own defense may protect/save others, whether incidentally, or in the future (by stoppage of threat). What's wrong with that? I know I'm eternally grateful for the existence of police. However, they're minutes away, when seconds count. Maybe if more folks realized/felt this, become more cognizant of their 2A rights, self-reliant on their personal security, and exercised all, DC wouldn't have the problems it does, now. "We the People...," shall see.

Posted by: ExMedic | June 26, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Why am I the only intelligent person here? Look, last year 18,791 people were murdered in the US. Of those, 14,913 were killed by handguns. And of those, 8,508 were killed by people who had no previous criminal record. In other words almost half of the murders were committed by people who weren't "outlaws" until they used a gun - it was the easy access to guns that made them outlaws. Saying that "if you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" is like saying "if you outlaw drunk driving only the outlaws will drunk drive" - that's the point! If someone owns a gun they should be arrested and charged as an outlaw.
Hopefully the next adminstration will realize that the best way to get rid of guns is not through legislation but through regulatory measures - have the EPA regulate the use of lead in bullets to the point that bullets are effectively banned.
Why can't we live in New Zealand or some other sensible country?

Posted by: Loz | June 26, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Cindy

A gun has no will to kill. A gun has the inability to kill.

Guns are inanimate chunks of metal or polymer that have no means to kill.

It is the person that kills...the means by which killing is performed may involve a gun...

But a gun is not evil and does not commit evil unless in the hands of an evil person. There are millions and millions of gun owners that do not feel compelled to kill.

Those who kill have the ability to kill with any means available.

A gun without someone behind it is just a gun and would continue to sit unmoved, never feeling compelled to murder. You want gun control? Gun control is only effective if it is adhered to by the criminals. Thus, successful gun control equates to a necessity to remove all criminals from possession of guns, not all guns from criminals. A removal of criminals is the issue.

Cindy,
Your preference to remove guns equates to a fundamental disrespect for the constitution. If you prefer to interpret the constitution differently, perhaps you might find another country with laws and rights similar to your beliefs more appealing.

Posted by: karlthomas | June 26, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Hello Quaker- always happy to meet a friend! Not much of a practitioner myself- but we all have flaws. My ancestors were.... anyway- a gun owner perspective: God made man. Therefor, we have the right to defend our life. Whether or not attacked, the right exists. The second amendment merely specifically mentions it against the type of tyrranical thinkers as teh communist lefty pig democrats. Self defense against one person, or an invading army, and all attackers in between. The crazy liberals and their thought masters are just that: crazy. They think disarming victims equates to justice, and protecting the guilty is somehow justice... well, they can get out. Really- we see their only value to the USA is if we boil them for the oil their bodies carry... just like with whales...

Posted by: ralphy | June 26, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

This decision affirms the right of the common people to defend themselves as individuals. Anyone who says they'll now feel "less safe" is only speaking from childish emotion and has no idea what they are talking about. If those of you who want to ban guns want to bray like sheep, hang your heads low, and depend upon the providence of others for your protection, you be my guest. I wish you well. I however still believe in the rights and freedom of the individual.

Posted by: Paul Helmroid | June 26, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Today is a good day in America. To all those in D.C. who think this isn't going to help you, then you obviously don't care for yourself or your family. Feel free to not get a gun for protection. You get what you deserve when some thug with a gun kicks your door in and all you have to defend your family is harsh language. See who wins that fight. Rule #1 in a gunfight is to have a gun. Criminals already have them...do you?

The smart ones in D.C. will take this opportunity to embrace the freedom to defend their family now, and I hope every law-abiding citizen in D.C. obtains a handgun and learns how to use it. It's time to give criminals a reality-check and let them know you aren't going to sit back and be a defenseless victim anymore.

Great decision today SCOTUS.

Posted by: Tantrix | June 26, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Too bad for gun-control advocates. I guess now you'll have to resort to LEGAL methods to restrict gun ownership, such as amending the Constitution of the United States of America.

Of course, you could try to topple the federal government by force- coup d'etat. But we all know you'll fail because you're armed with... nothing.

Posted by: Sean W. | June 26, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Loz:

You might want to take a peak at the crime statistics for England and Australia, "civilized" countries that forcibly took all firearms out of the hands of their citizens. The bad guys still have guns, and the disarmed citizens are lying dead in pools of blood by the thousands. As Yogi Berra said, "you could look it up." BTW, flights leave Dulles for New Zealand daily.

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

It makes me laugh that so many people are upset with the SCOTUS decision. It is true that those who do not know history will continue to ignore it.

The skinny is: every time gun ownership has been denied, innocent people end up dying; every time gun ownership is allowed, crime has reduced (or at worst, not changed).

The US Citizen remains the most ignorant, many commenting here claiming that inanimate objects kill people.

Posted by: Educated Citizen | June 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"Peek," not "peak." I can spell

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Newsflash People! D.C. was already the Murder Capital of the United States! it's not like it's going to get WORSE...

Posted by: Bobby Brown | June 26, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Loz,

You can live in New Zealand. You have that right.

But the constitution forms the rights and laws of this land. You may either live under the constitution and whine about its shortcomings or vacate to another country that has laws more consistent with your own.

Short of a rebellion, you are stuck with the centuries old constitution. I would imagine that a rebellion against such a long standing document would be difficult, as it has many supporters. More likely, a rebellion would come in the form of protection of the constitution...much as was displayed with this very case being brought to the SCOTUS.

So yes...New Zealand is your best bet.

Posted by: Karlthomas | June 26, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

If the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the future it would simply have read "The right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It wasn't inspired by the need for a militia, or worries about the UK. It was inspired by the recognition that free citizens are more secure from all forms of violence, be it the violence of tyrrannical governments or the violence of a common criminal, if they can choose to be armed.

I am puzzled by people who imagine that their irrational fear of 'what firearms owners might do if allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment right' justifies violation of said right. Isn't this the same argument that racists in the old south used to justify the Jim Crow laws? Can't let black people vote because of fear. Can't let them serve in the US armed forces because of fear. &c.

Deep down I think there is a basic divide in America between those who respect civil liberties and those who try to find excuses to undermine them.

Posted by: Mike in AZ | June 26, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Washington D.C. has to many gun related homicides and now I can finally see the light...it's gonna get worse. Now criminals can easily attain a gun through friends or relatives. Well now D.C. police will have another issue, Stolen Guns or supposedly. Now all they have to do is report the stolen and plan out thier crime. Thanks D.C., Mayor Fenty, and everyone who agrees, you've now made it easier for criminals to commit crimes.

Posted by: Lauren | June 26, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

It's funny how the most angry and hate filled posts came from the anti gun crowd.

This was a good day for law abiding US citizens.

Posted by: Richie | June 26, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

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

You've been given the freedom now, if you refuse to take advantage of it, all I can say is good luck to all you non-gun owning slaves in D.C.

Posted by: Tantrix | June 26, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Just so everyone is aware of this a police officer has no obligation to protect you,,,,also when do the police show up in you town ...every crime scene I've seen they show up after the fact.......
if you don't care enough about yourself and your family to act on your right to protect them thats your problem but dont't take my rights

Posted by: BWM | June 26, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

GREAT! Congratulations to the good people of D.C. Now with the proper training (NRA) and a fair and equal issuing procedures The Nation Capital City will be a safe place to leave and enjoy.

Posted by: Rafael Pabon | June 26, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Cindy,

Do you honestly think those 14,913 deaths would not have happend if "handguns" were banned? That the killers, first-time or not, would have said, "Oh, its illegal to own a small, portable firearm that does not qualify as a 'long weapon,' so I'd better rethink my meth-induced rage and come up with a constructive way to deal with this situation."

Tackle the real issues that cause crime: drugs, poverty, the breakdown of civic virtue, nanny-state programs, etc. Do that, and you could flood the streets with M4's and Mk. 19's and we'd still be peaceful. Continue down the path of victimization, intrusive government and the abdication of personal responsibility and you'll have to ban guns, knives, bats and fists to stem the bloodshed.

Posted by: IS2 Peters | June 26, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Interesting blog, anti-guners whining like its the end of the world..

pro-guners cautiously optimisticat best.

One side lamenting clear defeat, the other not feeling a clear victory.

the sides so far apart...

Posted by: ancient one | June 26, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm a DC police officer, and I can tell you that will only help us. Mayor Fenty's plan will ensure that only law-abiding, trained residents will be allowed to acquire a handgun for their personal defense.

In case you weren't aware, the District has been under a police emergency for several months, and we cannot effectively police all areas with the limited resources we have. Drugs and violent crime are at an all-time high. If law-abiding citizens are able to protect themselves at home from criminals- it's one small step in the right direction.

For those that worry that law-abiding citizens will overnight turn into gun-toting criminals, relax. There was already a huge problem of legally acquired guns finding their way in across the bridge from Virginia. Good people don't suddenly turn into monsters because the tools to do so become more available.

My job just became easier.

Posted by: Kent | June 26, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Lauren:

Bad news, dear. The criminals were already doing all that and more before the court ruled. If you're going to commit an illegal act, why bother with setting up a fake gun theft? Does that somehow exonerate you?

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"And of those, 8,508 were killed by people who had no previous criminal record."

And of those who had no criminal record, roughly half were instances of self-defense. The universe is an objectively better place for it every time a violent criminal dies.

Around 41,000 people die in automobile crashes in the US each year, and around 3.6 million are injured. Why aren't you agitating to ban the ownership of automobiles?

Posted by: Mike in AZ | June 26, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

To those of you who now feel 'less safe'

Go buy a gun and learn how to use it. It is your RIGHT as a citizen of this country.

Who was it that said:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it"

Oh yeah, Thomas Jefferson...

Stop being sheep and deal with the responsibilities that come with your freedoms.

Posted by: Blaine | June 26, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

ABSOLUTELY! It is a shame that our Constitutional rights, clearly stated since the beginning, are continually assaulted by activist, self-centered Federal Judges legislating from the bench. Such judges should be tried for treason when found in error, for their actions.

Posted by: NickinYakima | June 26, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"OK so does that mean that I can carry a gun into the Supreme Court Building? How about a state legislature building? Until I can carry a gun into their place of work, it is hypocritical to say they can carry their gun into my place of work."

You can in Virgina -- state legislature that is.

to Quaker: "But crime is a reality, family is precious, so why not be prepared." That's exactly right. And re: the fear of the gun control crowd - it's a simple a power grab. They can't stand that not everybody subscribes to the notion that the government can and will protect them. A gun-owning neighbor is a visable reminder that not everyone agrees with them.


Posted by: NoVAHockey | June 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Bobby Brown,

DC is NOT the murder capital of the US. Last year it was Camden, NJ and I belive it id detroit this year. Hell, even Baltimore has more murders per capita than Dc. Its not that bad there.

Posted by: LionelHutz | June 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The one thing I can say here as a liberal Democrat that is proud, is with today's ruling that affirms the right of an individual to keep and bear arms.

I find it quite sad to see the emotional and knee jerk responses some have posted, how some now feel less safe, that there will be more shootings, that the country will become the wild west. This is absolutely absurd on so many levels that it defies all common sense.

To the emotional response of feeling less safe. Is it not better to know that law-abiding citizens who are armed are able to provide a measure of defense for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Is it not better to live in a community where now criminals are the ones who will have to be fearful?

To the kneejerk reactionaries claiming there will be more shootings. Factual data has shown that despite the ban, the criminal element have continued to acquire and use guns against law-abiding. I agree with the states that have concealed carry laws and the studies that have found a reduction in crime. Maryland itself is shamefully in the top list of dangerious states, with our neighbors consistently showing a safer society.

To the historians claiming a return to the old west. The irony is that the old west had more people armed and carrying and history has shown the ignorance you now possess, undoubtedly influenced by Hollywood. Individual citizens are now affirmed their rights to keep and bear arms so that they may live to the ideals America was based upon, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I find it quite distressing some of my liberal friends have gone to far and not realized that as we have seen Bush trash our rights, "we" now decry an affirmation of a fundamental right.

The law-abiding will form a society that will no longer let criminals and criminality, no matter the level, overrun our lives and force into living with daily fear.

Is that not what we want as liberals, as Americans, for our society to be free to live to those words I quite clearly stated? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Obama '08!

I applaud the Supreme Court for getting this decision right, as a liberal, but above that, as an American.

Posted by: Liberal in MD | June 26, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm not pro gun; clearly we have enough gun violence in our society. But I'm pro constitution and feel every citizen should be protected under the law and have a right to protect themselves. I don't think everyone should be allowed a firearm. Clearly we must have some restriction in place. However, if I live on the District side of Southern Avenue my neighbor across the street in Maryland enjoys all the right under the constitution including "The Right to Bear Arms" as well as full representation in Congress while I as a D.C. resident are left to rely on other for my protection. The city also says it has the right to protect it's citizens because it is not state. However the total number homicide in the city per year has only dropped six times below the 192 murders in 1977 according to crime reports through 2006. The average number of murders in D.C. from 1978 to 2006 is around 288 per year 96 more than before the law when into effect. Does this law really work? The numbers say no.

Posted by: LRE | June 26, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

the focus should be on the root problem: gangs control the illicit drug distribution in the urban areas. Without any regulation, they need guns to protect their territory. It's no different than Chicago in the 1920s. Imagine those legislators passing a law that bans guns in Chicago to deal with Al Capone's war against rival Bugsy Malone. Ridiculous.

Deal with the gun and gang problem by regulating and controlling drugs.

Mike Smithson
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
www.askLEAP.com

Posted by: Mike Smithson | June 26, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

The majority opinion contradicted itself in quite a few locations. If the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and the first 20+ pages state that these arms are for all people and should be the kind the standing army/militia has, why would full-auto weapons be banned? That's what the military uses. Also, why would licensing be allowed? If you have to apply for the right (meaning it can be denied), is it a right at all?

What should have come of this? Overturning all gun control laws as unconstitutional. What came of it? Not much. At least is wasn't a loss of our rights and was just not a real gain.

What is the Second Amendment really about? Preventing tyranny from our own government by making them fear public uprising if they oppress us too much, preventing their door-to-door raids and infringement of our rights, and also allowing us to step in in times of need to secure the nation from invaders. How afraid will they be when they have grenade launchers and full-auto M16s and M4s and we have slow, bolt-action deer rifles and pistols?

Obama is already saying he agrees with this decision and supports "common sense gun laws" to take away "assault rifles" and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. If the SCOTUS had done the job right, he would have no legal leg upon which to stand in his anti-gun crusade. It's a decent ruling but falls seriously short of the mark anyone who knows what the Founding Fathers intended would find pleasing.

Posted by: EngineerGA | June 26, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

For those who tout the line of "Spouses killing spouses, kids shooting themselves with the guns their parents leave around, etc etc"

Is it that in a particular situation, this is what YOU think YOU would do?

In an argument with your wife, or husband, is your first reaction to kill him/her? Maybe the problem, then, isn't with guns.. Maybe the problem is with YOU.

Also, on the note of parenting..

Are you seriously so inept at being a parent that you can't teach your kid?

Maybe, then, the problem is yet still unrelated to guns, but is instead a clear representation of YOU.

If you're a parent, responsibility should be something you're very familiar with. However, those who say such things as domestic murder, and disobedient kids.. Maybe you should focus on yourself moreso than the rights of everyone else. We're not like YOU, we can handle our own affairs without your weightless, poorly thought out, and utterly distasteful attempts to intrude upon our lives.

Take care of your family, and stop worrying about everyone else. If you think you might get shot, buy a damn gun and learn how to use it. Teach your spouse how to use it. Teach your kid how to use it. Be so familiar with it, that it isn't even a big deal at all anymore. You know the ins and outs of your firearm just like your fork or knife or belt or pair of pants, et al.

You know that, unless you pull the trigger, that firearm isn't going to do anything.

And when you do pull that trigger, the mechanism which causes an impact on the primer will cause a chain reaction inside of the cartridge fueled by the clever workings of chemistry and physics, which will then launch a projectile down and out of the barrel at a speed subject to record, with implications 100% mathematically reproducible and as easy as as breathing to understand if given some thought.

From there, it will punch a hole in whatever its trajectory is in line with.


What the recipient of the hole is, is entirely up to YOU.

Be it your husband, because he forgot to buy pancake syrup.
Be it your wife, because she forgot to buy pancake syrup.
Be it your kid, because he has no idea what the hell he is doing, because YOU are so inept at parenting that unfortunately, this one of many presumable actions that your kid probably had no idea what to expect.. It was only a matter of time. Maybe he'd do a bunch of drugs, get someone pregnant, set the house on fire, or whatever else you failed to teach him.. Unfortunately, this particular venue, one of the most important, was neglected by YOU, and your kid was injured as a result. (again, because of your inept abilities at parenting these things happen.)


Now, seriously.. Calm down, you're entirely capable of being trusted with any range of tasks. Live up to it, and quit being so afraid of responsibility that you cheat your child out of the most enjoyable life possible.

Get him a gun at a young age, teach him how to use it. It'll be a gateway for a lifetime of learning the valuable lessons the world has to offer, so then he may pass it on to his kids, and so on, and so forth.


GROW UP!

Posted by: Rational | June 26, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for violent crime, burglaries, and home invasions to take a HUGE, swooping nosedive in D.C., Boston, New York, and the other oppressed areas. When we were discussing concealed carry here in Kansas, all the idiots predicted "blood in the streets", and "murders over traffic accidents". Well, now we have concealed carry, but we're still waiting on those predictions to come true. Crime rates would have to stop falling first, I'd think. It was the same way in Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, our neighboring states.

You folks that don't understand that the second ammendment is the one protecting the other ammendments will probably see the light, once you're able to take a moonlight stroll through central park without fear. .....Or do you actually LIKE cowering in fear?

Posted by: Travis | June 26, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

HEY gun grabbers
you lost, get over it
now move on and find something else to piss and moan about
you can clearly now see how assinine your agenda has become and it is now neatly come to an end as the highest court in
the land has told you to STFU
you won nothing here today
MOVE ON MOVE ON MOVE ON
BUNCHA MISGUIDED LOSERS

Posted by: not an anti gun asshat | June 26, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm reading these comments, and seeing exactly...what? Owning a firearm makes you some form of barbarian? You want firearms to only be possessed by law enforcement?

Congratulations, you just wished yourself into a "police state". Which leads to less liberty, freedom, and other things which excite the citizens of this country into a fervor if restricted. The only thing the ACLU DID NOT protect was the ownership of firearms!

And if owning firearms makes you a barbarian, then call me a knuckle-dragging Hun. However, when you're being attacked by miscreants, villians, and thugs? I will still help you.

Posted by: Carl | June 26, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

OK, here's the deal 2nd amendment wackos: If you are going to be "strict constructionists" like Scalia or Thomas are (when it suits them) then the meaning of "arms" in the amendment must be construed to mean those arms in existence when it was passed (Scalia and Thomas always use these traditionalist arguments to say we must interpret the Constitution based on the status of things in 1789, so fine, let's do it). Now, I think that arms in those days meant flintlock muzzle- loading rifles and perhaps a single shot pistol (maybe some of you wacko gun types might know better), but definitely automatic weapons, even semi-automatic pistols, missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. etc. did not exist. So I say fine, if you want to be a strict constructionist, then knock yourself out finding and buying circa 1790s "arms" and enjoy exercising your "right to bear 'arms'" If you are not so much a "strict constructionist" as conservatives claim to be (again, when it suits them) and are instead going to make the argument that "arms" means anything that you can kill something with, then I want to buy a tank. Oh, what's that you say, of course you can't buy a tank that's too dangerous? Show me where it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed "unless the weapon is deemed by others to be too dangerous." What's that you say? Oh, you mean we need to trust judges to make a reasonable interpretation of the what the Constitution says? Oh, I see, so you want "activist judges" then to read something into the amendment to keep me from buying a tank? Right... see, conservative nut jobs rail against judges until it suits them. They see things in black and white and fail to realize that life is the gray area in between.

Posted by: go buy a musket | June 26, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Carl, because if the government were ever to turn against the people, your handgun would really deter that tank from leveling your home... Or maybe you could shoot down the stealth bomber with your hunting rifle before it takes out your neighborhood... pretty lame.

Posted by: lame argument | June 26, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Travis is right on target as is Rational. I own a lot of guns. I have had a lot of disagreements with my wife. Not ONCE have I felt the need to kill her. Or brandish a gun at her, or anything else that is insane, illegal, or both. Owning a firearm does not automatically predispose you to kill. Yet fully half of the comments above predict that virtually every disagreement and personal slight will be dealt with at the point of a pistol. As Cosmo Kramer would say, "That's cuckoo thinking." What's odder is that ostensibily intelligent liberals and other firearms opponents firmly believe that posession of a gun instantly wipes out all moral and ethical strictures against the unjustified use of deadly force against another. Their position is essentially, if you pick up a gun you have to shoot someone with it. No option. Like the ancient Samauri who supposedly could not resheath their swords unbloodied. Total nonsense, insupportable, and, when analyzed rationally, just plain nuts.

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

When the first gun shops start popping up around the city will see what kind of fun we're in for.

Posted by: Kelly MTP | June 26, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

If someone can actually manage to put together a nuclear weapon, I'd be impressed enough to let them have it. Seeing as entire countries have labored for decades and still don't have them (Iran, Iraq), I think that your average citizen isn't too likely to put together a fissible device. As for the tanks argument, well, sure, but explosives aren't arms, so all you'll have is a 60 ton heap that you don't know how to drive and gets two gallons per mile.

Posted by: IS2 Peters | June 26, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

I think some of the commenters are not aware that SCOTUS has ruled that Federal, State and Local authorties have no duty to protect you and are not responsible for any harm that befalls you.
As a result, the individual is responsible for his own protection.
Also, as a previous poster stated, even though Virginia has liberal gun laws with a must issue policy for concealrd carry and a near universal open carry law the death/injury rate from firearms for Virginia is markedly lower than for DC.

Posted by: Concerned | June 26, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how often people forget that the Second Amendment was written while the United States of America was trying to form itself into one country and break away from England, its Mother country.
It is based on language from the Declaration of Independance that was written with the purpose of uniting the colonies and giving us a legal right "on paper" to assembly and to create an army, something that England said we didn't have the right to do.
I doubt that while our forefathers were busy trying to secure our legal creation of a country that they could have known their intentions would become so TWISTED over time.
So now a random person can legally carry a gun while food shopping in Washington, DC, huh? Our forefathers must be rolling in their graves...

Posted by: valamondo | June 26, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The Suprem Courty threw out 200 years of hisotry and presidence in this country. The 2nd amenement has always been a collective right, not individual. They completely ignored that fact today and the residents of DC will pay. BTW, violent crime absolutely DID drop after the ban went into effect, and every study has said there there is no reason to think that the ban has not had a positive effect in reducing the murder rate in DC. The people wanted it, our elected officials wanted it, it reduced violent crime, but a politically activist court decides to rewrite history. Its a shame.

Posted by: bob | June 26, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

To go buy a musket:

Are we then to use your logic to state that freedom of speech is only allowed verbally as there were no phones, computers, etc. ?

Are we then to use your logic to state that freedom of the press only applies to the printing press? There was no internet then.

Are we then to use your logic to state that freedom of assembly can only apply to town type gatherings?

Your ignorance and sheer stupidity has you not stuck in the past, but stuck on stupid.

Posted by: CC in MD | June 26, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Go Buy A Musket

Presumably you are not a lawyer. Or perhaps you are in which case you are the worst one on the planet. The Constitution is not a snapshot in time forever frozen. If it were, there would be no paper money because the Constitution only authorizes the "coining" of money, meaning metal currency. The groundless, hollow argument you advance has been made over and over. Learn what "strict constructionist " really means, then please resubmit your homework before the end of school tomorrow.

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Umm, in case people don't remember, the current number of homicides in DC is less than half of what it was in the mid-1990s. The number of homicides has gone up and down significantly over the 30 some years of the DC gun ban. Apparently there is no direct link between the number of homicides and the fact that law-abiding residents have been unarmed. The answers to crime are never that easy.

Posted by: russolini | June 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr. Heller.
I can't wait to hear if your writing a book on the experience. I think this is a historic day for our Country and our rights.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Posted by: Thor - Texas | June 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

This is addressed in the ruling:

"Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Posted by: To Lame Argument | June 26, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Bob:

So if what you say is true, why would every other amendment in the Bill of Rights specifically refer to individual rights except the second? We'll give you time to formulate your answer

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

IS2 Peters:
I beg to differ, what is a tank, if not a giant gun on wheels (or treads)?

Posted by: go buy a musket | June 26, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey bob...

June 21, 2008...two people shot to death at a basketball court in Southeast...

Care to explain how the DC gun ban worked to prevent that?

Criminals will continue to arm themselves and do as they please, while you would fight to keep the law-abiding from arming themselves in an effort to prevent crime from coming to their homes.

Posted by: CC in MD | June 26, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Many may not realize it but the more restrictive the laws are (for those who follow them) the higher the criminal problems (armed robbery, murder, assault, rape). If you don't know who has a gun will you think twice about picking them out as a target for violence? Statistics show that the higher the legal gun ownership rate the lower the crime rate. Don't believe me? Check out what happened in Australia and England when the restricted/banned ownership by ordinary citizens. When you do that only the crimals have weapons and then everyone becomes a potential victim.

Posted by: Teresa | June 26, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

To the misguided claiming that simple small arms would do nothing to stop an occupational force, and thus the anti-tyranny argument is moot, I submit to you exhibits A and B: Iraq and Afghanistan. Or do you think that Joe Sixpack wouldn't be as handy with his AR-15 and fertilizier/fuel bombs as his Iraqi counterpart is with a Kalishnikov and surplus mortars?

Posted by: IS2 Peters | June 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

First of all, there are no direct flights between Dulles and New Zealand. Secondly, I wasn't saying that we should move there, I was saying that it would be better for this country if we became a territory or protectorate of New Zealand or some other country.

Posted by: Loz | June 26, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

What really makes me sad is the staggering number of innocent people who died while this ban was in effect because they were forced to be defenseless by their own government. All those who were involved with the ban have blood on their hands.

I'm glad they overturned it, but look how many people had to die for it to happen. Hopefully this will lead to the 2nd Amendment getting the respect it deserves in other Communist parts of the country like NYC, NJ, IL, etc.

Posted by: Tantrix | June 26, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I agree with this decision.

Posted by: artmann11 | June 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Loz | June 26, 2008 2:28 PM:

"... 8,508 were killed by people who had no previous criminal record."

Intelligent? I don't find it so much so, when stats get quoted willy-nilly, without better examination, study and research.

For example, some questions for Loz:

How many folks killed were actual perpetrators, shot by their innocent victims, whom just defending themselves/property/others?

How many killed were perps not previously caught? (or, 1st offense documented?)

(Oh, and since Loz brought up alcohol, drunk-driving) How many killed were alcohol-related shootings, in some way, or drunk themselves? Or, how many intoxicated shooters? (Frankly, I see alcohol as a bigger societal problem than guns, or tobacco, may EVER be. Dom. abuse, assaults, suicides, etc., not to mention, related generational dysfunctions.)

How many shooters/victims were found later to be mentally unstable? (ala Cho?)

Also, since statistics have entered into this, and hence misinterpreted ("Liars figure, figures lie"), or misused to prove some point, you place other countries in higher standing than US: check stats on countries that enacted gun bans (UK, AUS, etc.). Invariably, crime has soared! And not always/just gun crime, either. Knives, bats, and many other inocuous, ubiquitous items are used. My point is, criminals in gun-banned countries now have a higher index of suspicion that victims are DISARMED. Again, criminals are more vicious and uncaring for life, than they ever were.

Loz, if you are so unhappy in US, and think it's so much better elsewhere, why don't you move there? Me, and noone else, can/is stopping you. The Constitution guarantess this right. No? I say, thank God.

Discussion about this is good, no doubt. It can open and expand minds. That is, IF those minds are reasonable, respectful, and willing to open and expand. Mine is. Several others here are not. Where my tolerance wanes is when denigration, disrespect and intolerance of others' valid points/opinions occur. Some may disrespect and denigrate me for exercising my 2A Rights, and that is their own 1A Right. However, in many ways the 2A guarantees 1A, lest it be quashed by fascismn & totalinarinism. We (the US) are not there, YET; but this blog shows examples of both. "Think as I, or you're stupid, unintelligent, etc., and need to be destroyed!" I find this disgusting and sad, for those doing this destroy their points and credibility, and they don't even see it. I've said my piece, maybe opened/expanded some minds, hopefully. Hence, I'm OUT.

I do wish all a good (2A) day, peace, and try to behave. It's only American, after all.

Posted by: ExMedic | June 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Loz,

I dunno. Sounds like a traitorous statement to me. Plus New Zealand smells like rancid sheep testicles.

Pretty though.

Posted by: Anti-Loz | June 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

It's about time some common since came to play in this game of one's self protection. Thank's for a good logical out come and I for one hope there are many more to follow as our gun laws need fixing bad in some places like Chicago for starters. Not to meantion how bad some of our Democrats want to take our guns away, well looks like it's not an option any longer. Obama is one that needs watching when it comes to our civil rights because he would be first in line to take away our guns if he could. You would think being of several blood types he would be the oposite but make no mistake about it, he is against anyone having guns for self defence. Double standards come in to play being it's okay for him but not for us, that's against everyones Civil Right's in my book.
Skip
Virginia

Posted by: sKIP | June 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

GoBuyAMusket:

A tank would fall under laws regulating:

Explosives: tank shells contain enough raw explosives to go beyond a simple "fire arm."

Heavy machinery: I can't own and operate a 30 ton bulldozer without a permit and license, why would I be able to own and operate a 60 ton tank?

HAZMAT: Depleted uranium penetrator rounds, anyone?

I was being flippant in dismissing your slippery-slope argument in my earlier post. As someone who has gotten small arms training, I can tell you that well-aimed single shots are pretty much the deadliest weapon out there, so fears of automatic weapons and explosives are pretty unfounded.

Posted by: IS2 Peters | June 26, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Don't need time. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that starts off linking the right to membership in a militia. They did do that accidently. The framers intended it to be a right connected with the right of the group, not individual. The NRA has done an excellent job removing that language.

As far as gang violence, gun control can absolutely reduce that. Require background checks at ALL firearms purchases, and get rid of gun show loopholes. Limit the amount of firearms you can buy at one time, shut down crooked gun stores, let law enforcement know about crime gun stats that ATF keeps. This ruling today legitimized the right for communities to enact these regulations and more, but of course the NRA is announcing lawsuits to strike down reasonable common sense gun laws around the country, such as the machine gun ban.

Posted by: bob | June 26, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

This ruling was needed. Had the Court allowed the ban on handguns to remain, it would have opened the floodgates for other municipalities to draft ordinances to circumvent other Ammendments of the Constitution they happen to disagree with. The constitution is a contract each citizen has with the United States. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to protect the constitutional ammendments from being truncated, vitiated or circumvented by local municipal authorities. The crime rate is horrendous to be sure, but having an arbitrary ban on handguns will not prevent criminals from committing crimes.

Posted by: Dave | June 26, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

To CC in MD and Johann:
Exactly, I agree that those examples are stupid. Clearly you fail to comprehend sarcasm. That's why I'm for an evolving interpretation of the Constitution. It is "strict constructionist" judges that always use the argument that we must look to the founders' intent as if times don't change. I agree that taken to its logical (albeit, I agree, very extreme) conclusion, the strict constructionist argument is quite stupid.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"The 2nd Amendment is the only one that starts off linking the right to membership in a militia. They did do that accidently. The framers intended it to be a right connected with the right of the group, not individual. The NRA has done an excellent job removing that language"

So, you were there when they made this mistake? Hope you're writing a book about your experiences at the Constitutional Convention. Hey. You're not John McCain, are you?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Iamalways amazed atthe amount of ignorance and stupidity one can find ion these posts. I will not nameanyone in particular but here it is in plain english for those who still don't get it.

The 2nd ammendment is NOT about hunting, or sporting purposes,or protecting children, or protecting the states right to form militias. It is clearly as a protection against tyranical government. This is why we fought a war of independence and the founders were well aware that without guns we could not have fought and won. Without the 2nd ammendment all your other rights would not be worth the paper they are written on. Remember the call from Myanmar during the last disturbance? The caller asked for help from the world because they were being killed and they did NOT have guns to defend themselves against the government. To think that tyranical government is not possible in this country is naive at best.

Posted by: Xavier | June 26, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

You know, some of the spouting off on this thread from those with anti-gun stances, illustrate perfectly that not only have the 2nd and 1st Amendments been toyed with, but indoctrination is alive and well in the US as well, and well accepted by those who are weak minded or naive enough to not question the government's teachings. I'm sure that if we had these people in the majority back in the 18th Century, we would still be a bunch of colonies belonging to the Brits.

I say this having been raised by a mildly anti-gun mother and a father, while not anti-gun, who did not hunt or own firearms.

I learned to question, and learned the truth. Nobody taught me; I was free to explore truths and assertions myself.

The conclusion I drew is that firearms must be in the hands of the law-abiding, or none at all. We cannot control them to the point of "none at all," and we'd be unwilling to disarm our police and military at any rate, so we must arm the law abiding.

Heck, even the traditionally truncheon toting Bobbies in the UK have been issued firearms - AFTER the anti-gun laws were passed, firearms crime went up.

Posted by: Josh | June 26, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Sorry it was a typo. Meant to say it was NOT an accident that they phrased it the way they did. The framers purposefully linked gun ownership to the milita right, and collective.


I want to say again, gun crimes went DOWN in the time after the ban. The reason there is as much of it now as there is is the completely lax enforcement in surrounding areas, such as Virginia, which has gun shows any criminal could walk into and buy a assault rifle for cash with no questions asked.

Posted by: bob | June 26, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order."

Adolf Hitler

Posted by: Adolf Hitler | June 26, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Look out! Wild West! Killing after fender benders! Husbands killing wives! Squirrel hunting outside the capitol!

THE SKY...............IS................FALLING!

Posted by: C.L. | June 26, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Someone commented that guns are for the police to defend the streets. Baloney- the cops have no obligation to protect or defend an individual. The police exist to enforce laws.

It should be painfully obvious that the gun ban in DC, Australia, and England didn't prevent the criminals from having them. Criminals don't obey laws; period.

Posted by: Phred | June 26, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Bauer (and anyone else in favor of taking away my guns),
You are QUITE welcome to renounce your US Citizenship. If there are any legal fees that must be paid, I'll be happy to pay them for you. I'm ashamed to see such people as you a fellow citizens!
James "TJ" Tennyson, DDS

Posted by: James Tennyson, DDS | June 26, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Its this simple. More guns on the street, more violence anyway you put it.

People that are pro guns, are people that haven't had a child killed by a gun or had any encounters with a high death rate of their siblings and peers by the use of handguns.

People that are against guns this have or should be.

This is coming from a person who has been raised in a handgun with permit allowed state that and have recently moved back to the district. This will not slow down crime, only create more senseless violence.

One thing that should be mandatory for one who will own a handgun, should be a course taken so they can be educated on the new laws and rights of what you can do or what you cannot do.

Posted by: Marcus | June 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Which gun owners or perhaps private militia is to decide that the government has reached a leve tyrannical thet requires that they, using their arms, free us from that government? Who then will govern if the revolution is successful and how will they be chosen? Which militia or person should we non gun owners be forced to swear allegiance to after the gun owners have overthrown what is believed by them tyrannical? I think we non-gun owners deserve to be educated as to what we need to do to remain alive after the revolution I do not think the gun owners know what they are talking about when they brag they are going to use there weapons to prevent tyranny by the elected US government.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

The court has ruled. Live with it.

Posted by: luangtom | June 26, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand how someone can be so stupid as to think that a lawful person, given the opportunity to protect him/herself by owning a handgun, becomes a threat to a community. Where is the logic in that type of thinking? I bet your thought pattern would change if you were being robbed, raped, or murdered. Your neighbor might just save your life, since you are unable or unwilling to protect it for yourself. How many rapes are stopped by a cop nearby? For the police to be able to protect everyone, all the time, we would all need our own armed personal cop. Don't forget that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Also, anyone who is embarrassed by our great country because of our great constitution, should move to a country that they feel comfortable with. We don't need you here.

Posted by: N.F. | June 26, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

You anti-gun people are such moonbats.

Judicial activism from the majority? Please...

How about the 4 dissenting judges can't read plain and simple English, such as "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".

I suggest you moonbats go and read the 157 page decision, as I did this morning, before you start blabbering about what you THINK you know.

Molon Labe!

Posted by: Dave | June 26, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"...which has gun shows any criminal could walk into and buy a assault rifle for cash with no questions asked..."

Really? I've always wanted an assault rifle, but always thought I had to send $200 into the Federal Government and undergo an extensive waiting period to own one. My mistake!

Would you be so kind as to direct me to one of these gun shows where they sell selective fire rifles which take mid-power rounds? Assault rifles must have selective fire (semi or full auto, or semi auto and burst fire) and fire a cartridge which is more powerful than a handgun round, but less powerful than full power hunting rounds. Usually they're in the varmint round class, like the .223 Remington in the case of the M16.

Please do your research before spouting off about assault rifles. Only the military and a select few elite law enforcement agencies regularly use them. As well, full auto fire is less effective than one round for one trigger pull, as the recoil has you shooting at the sky by the third round on many models.

If you know how to legally own one of these without the BATFE stamp, please, get back with me!

(dripping with sarcasm, folks)

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, instead of the thugs shooting each other with illegal handguns, they can shoot each other with legal ones! Lovely, then the people who can finally "protect" themselves (even though they probably live in a neighborhood where they don't need one) can. All of the other states can handle or not handle guns in anyway they want but DC has too many things going on to have readily available, legal, loaded guns available to just anyone. And yes, I know that illegal guns are readily available as well, so don't tell me something I already know...

Posted by: Fifth District AB | June 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

And after the revolution, what if the Martians come and invade the earth? Will the Martians govern? And what if they run out of fresh goat cheese at Whole Foods? Will civilization collapse?

Let's try to keep this discussion in the realm of reality. The people you need to fear are with Blackwater, not some ordinary citizens who choose to own a firearm. 100 guys with .45 pistols will have a hard time taking over the United States when faced by several thousand soldiers fully equipped wtih modern military weapons. So rest easy, poor non gun owner. No one will make you sign anything.

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Dave, c'mon, name calling? 200 years the court has ruled opposite, and you don't thin people should be surprised/outraged by the decision.

Lets look at some of their 157 pages today:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

It goes on and on. To be honest, it struck down the DC Ban, but this was a victory for gun control organizations who have pushed for common sense laws that the court now sees as constitutional.

Posted by: rolling eyes | June 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Was it just yesterday that we learned an upset employee just took a gun and killed his boss and a couple of people around?

Long live American aggression -
the greatest value of this anti-civilized society!

Posted by: Maria, Ohio | June 26, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Maria:

Sadly, there was no one in the plant able to stop him because firearms are banned on company property. But the good news is, the police arrived well before all the blood dried.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Dripping with sarcasm, you are one of those guys that doesn't recognize that there is a class of weapons known as assault rifles huh. It was pretty clearly defined in the 1994 assault weapon ban, and you know it. We are talking about semitautomatic rifles with high capacity clips, capable of firing at a fast rate, accurate at long distances, easily reloadable and built for combat purposes. You can certianly buy a AK-47 at a gun show with no questions asked in virginia, as well as .50 caliber sniper rifles, which are deadly form over 2 miles away and cpable of taking down an airplane. Exactly what we need to allow in our nation's capital.

Posted by: bob | June 26, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"This was before a public safety infrastructure was developed. Now we have police, fire/rescue, and the striking down of this gun ban shows the lack of faith we have in a common entity of protection. Why not work at increasing the police budget to compensate and gradually phase out the prevalence of firearms? Why should the individual worry about their protection when their is a system in place to manage that? Only time will tell I guess." by kballa

PLEASE, "public safety infrastructure"?!? SCOTUS has ruled that the police have NO duty to protect the individual. Personal protection, and protection of your loved ones is not only your RIGHT, it is your DUTY.

I have used a gun to defend myself twice in my life. In both instances, I was in a PUBLIC (ie-I had a right to be there) place conducting my business. In both cases, members of local "youth groups" decided to attempt to rob me. Both robbery attempts failed because I was carrying a concealed handgun. Both attempts ended without anyone being injured or killed. You can argue that I was in a bad neighborhood in the first instance (bad area of Philly, I still had a right and need to be there); the second attempt happened in a local supermarket south of the small town where I live--NOT a bad area to frequent.

Please look beyond the "gun" issue and look at what the federal government has done to our civil rights (PATRIOT act, etc.). Affirmation of our civil rights, as ACKNOWLEDGED by The Constitution, is what this case was really about.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Bob, machine guns are NOT banned by the federal government nor are the earlier mentioned tanks.They are regulate, registered and heavily taxed. But unless your state has banned them, you can own one, or more. All NFA rules apply. ;)

Posted by: ancient one | June 26, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

The 2nd Amendment is RIGHT. If you cite stats to support your claim against gun ownership because they kill people, then why don't you ban cars? They kill more people each year than guns. And owning a car and driving on a state road isn't a RIGHT. You want to save lives? Ban cars will end global warming! You'll save millions of people. (Yeah, right.)

No, the issue here is a RIGHT. Which was rightfully protected by the Supreme Court.

Just because an individual does not agree with gun ownership does not mean they should be willing to give away that RIGHT.

Posted by: ZENXO | June 26, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Yup, the police by legal precident have no responsibility to protect you or anyone.

And please Maria, to talk about civilized society when children who are raped will have to suffer all their life with that trauma while the pervert waste of a human being is being supported by our communities to live in jail...

Posted by: CC in MD | June 26, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Anyone know the statistics on how many people die per year that are alcohol related vs. guns? Hmm......

And some of you naysayers who drink, in any amount, have the balls to show forth your hipocracy against gun owners.

Wow!

Truly amazing how stupid some can be.

Posted by: Charles Brussel | June 26, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

You cannot purchase an AK 47 without a class c license. Semi-automatic weapons that look like, but do not function like AK 47's can be purchased. They are not "assault rifles" as the military would define them, only as the law defined them.

Posted by: getting bored with this | June 26, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm a D.C. resident and applaud this ruling. I am not a gun owner, nor do I plan on buying one anytime soon, but the majority opinion makes it clear that D.C.'s woefully ineffective handgun ban was also unconstituional to boot. The opinion is a great primer on constitutional rights in general...I heartily reccommend everyone read it.

Posted by: James | June 26, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

If you're afraid of being shot in DC, I have a better idea than carrying a gun. Buy a ticket out of town and go live in the woods where you don't need to worry about being attacked by criminals on the streets! The problem with people in this country is that they live in fear. In fear of being attacked by criminals in the city or Al Qaeda's powerful Army and Navy and Airforce. Oh yeah, they don't have any of those. You have a better chance of being killed in a natural disaster than killed by a criminal or terrorist. I don't get how the right can be pro life, but pro guns, war, etc. Isn't this a bit contradictory?

Posted by: walla2sl | June 26, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

It's wonderful that this quasi socialist republic that we endure got some come-uppance. This was long overdue.

Posted by: bbwk80a | June 26, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

To misinformed BOB. NOT just anyone can purchase at gun shows in VA. Federal and state paperwork along with back ground checks are required. There are sales that go on in the parking lot. However, that can happen anywhere. GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT!!! Tired of misinformed people beating up on Virigina. Move to New York!

Posted by: Mike | June 26, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The really great primer on Constitutional Rights is the Federalist Papers. Orignal intent and RIGHTS are clearly defined by the men who framed our Constitution and correctly affirmed by today's Supeme Court ruling.

Posted by: ZENXO | June 26, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

A great outcome in the court! what some people don't seem to understand is that crime will always be there, and there is not a police officer to guard each home. It's time you government apron string holders wake up! It's up to you to protect yourself. seems that where guns are leagel the crime rate is lower,Hmm D.C. has had a gun ban for 30yrs and yet still has the highest crime rate in the US imagin that.

Posted by: mike | June 26, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Mike,

You are 100% wrong. Unlicenesed firearm dealers are NOT required to do a background check or fill out paper work at Virginia gun shows. It was challanged last year by the families of the Virginia Tech victims who begged the state legislature to require all people who buy firearms go through a background check. It never made it out of committee. I live in Virginia too, and the members of the state senate and assembly should be ashamed.

AS far as AK-47's as long as it is not fully automatic you can purchase them at gun shows.

Posted by: bob | June 26, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

As has been said before...criminals will always be the illegally armed predator and citizens whose rights are dismissed are the prey.Time to allow the citizen to be able to protect life and property legally. What would go through a criminals mind if he couldn't be sure he would be shot instead of the usual other way around? Let's put fear into the criminal!!!

Posted by: BIGJOHN | June 26, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

William R. Bauer,
Denounce your citizenship to this uncivilized nation. It will save you any further self-proclaimed embarassment and well as air fare. But wait, you are enjoying our First Amendment. Lament as you will, but I believe you will find my comments an affront to your opinion; that is a dividend of freedom that certainly has a hefty price, which I infer you have bore no burden. Enjoy your canapes.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

DEATH kills more people than anything. Outlaw DEATH - or at leaast make it illegal for Americans to die... Charge democrats with failing to die.

Posted by: ralphy | June 26, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey Bob? Why don't you educate yourself a little instead of hitting every BS Brady Campaign talking point? The first hint was your use of the word "semi-automatic assault rifle" without having a clue what that is - versus a fully automatic 'assault rifle'. The second clue was your use of the word "clips" instead of magazine. The third clue was your statement about 'assault rifles' being accurate and long distances - I'll take a scoped deer rifle any day over a machine gun for long distances. Oh, and last but not least, .50 cal rifles. Do you have ANY clue how difficult it is, and the shooters level of marksmanship, in order to hit a target at 2 miles? That's 10,560 feet, or 3,520 yards. And please cite for me ONE instance of a .50 cal taking down an airplane.

Machine guns are not banned - they are regulated. Any 'civilian' with enough money and a clean background can get one. I know because I have one (legally)...

So again, please EDUCATE yourself and quit responding on your EMOTION and what you HEARD from the Brady Bunch.

Posted by: Dave | June 26, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I look at it this way. If this gun ban was violating DC residents' constitutional rights, then surly taxation without representation does too. I say use this Supreme Court Decision to argue for full Statehood for the District and to get full representation in Congress.

Posted by: SPS | June 26, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Arlington County: walking distance from the most violent areas of one of our country's most violent cities. Resides in a state with 150 THOUSAND current concealed handgun permit holders. No permit, registration, etc. required to openly carry a handgun. Number of years going back from 2007 for TOTAL homicides to reach just the number of DC's firearm homicides occuring last year? Over twenty.

For the commentator deciding to leave DC after 6pm each evening based on today's ruling: join us in Arlington with your retail and dining dollars. We'll protect you.

Posted by: Matthew | June 26, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Dave,

Hell, "machine guns" is a frequently tossed-about misnomer, too; I doubt too many people are worried about criminals lugging around a heavy, belt-fed weapon. They see a ridiculous Tec-9 machine-pistol and, being ignorant of firearms, scream "machinegun!" instead of learning first what it is their assinine laws are regulating.

Posted by: IS2 Peters | June 26, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

This decision truly disgusts me. Were we a civilized nation we would certaintly grant the representatives of our totalitarian government a monopoly on firearms ownership. For shame America, for shame!

Posted by: Michelle | June 26, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

SPS

DC does not have statehood because the the early Federal govt and States feared having the Captial located in any state would create leverage against another state.

You have representation. Can you say Eleanor Holmes Norton?

Posted by: ZENXO | June 26, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

The right protected in the Second Amendment is essential to the US Constitution.
If we did not have to right to protect ourselves, the following could have been removed a long time ago:-
1. The right to freedom of speech - yes, your right to post here what you like.
2. Your right to vote. This country could easily have been turned into a military dictatorship, or single party dictatorship - take a look at Zimbabwe today - how happy would you have been with Mugabe as your uber ruler and a 16,000% inflation ???
3. You can vote without fear of retribution or intimidation.

Are Americans ready to give all this up?

Thank you SCOTUS for re-afirming the rights of the people.

Posted by: Chuck - FL | June 26, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

For all of those people questioning what does it do to the assault weapon ban, here is the answer: its in the opinion.

The ruling is actually very narrow. It recognizes the second amendment as a codification of a common law prexisiting the constitution. That right allows for an individual to own a firearm which is of the type used for hunting or self defense (the type of activities allowed a the time of codification) within the confines of ones home. Not the street, not public places, the home.

The Court recognizes that because of the nature of our current society AND because it does not conflict with the common law right as codified in the second amendment, a state (political body, including the federal government) may regulate firearms. But the regulations can not be so onerous as to invalidate the right as outlined.

Simply said, 1920s machinegun ban, still valid. Requiring back ground checks to prevent the mentally ill and criminal from obtaining weapons, still valid. Keeping military grade hardware out of the hands of the regular population, still legal. Not issuing carry and conceal permits, legal. Preventing someone from owning and keeping a pistol in their home, unconstitutional. The ruling is that narrow.

Posted by: Actually read the Opinion | June 26, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

ZENXO:

Pssst. She can't vote on legislation. Not the same as the other states, ya know

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

You poor scared little sheep! when will you realize that there is no shepard protecting you? I read on these posts how there is no way you could defend yourself from a criminal,well it sounds like you have already given up on freedom so why not just curle up in your little ball and suck your thumb and hope someone will save you.

Posted by: james | June 26, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Statistics show that the majority of guns in the home are used against someone in the home (including domestic shootings, accidental shootings, and suicides) and that they do not make any significant impact on reducing local crime rates or defending oneself against violent crime.

There were already enough illegal guns in the city before; now we're just going to add to that by increasing the access to another means for people to kill one another.

While I agree that the ruling is a literally correct interpretation of the Constitution, I fully believe that that amendment needs to be removed. The US has the most liberal gun laws of any other nation, and coincidentally also leads the world in gun-related deaths. Shocker.


"Out of every 1,000 criminal incidents, guns were used in self-defense in 2 cases (0.2%). For violent crimes (assault, robbery, and rape), guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense."
- McDowall, David, Brian Wiersema (1994). "The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by US Crime Victims, 1987 through 1990". American Journal of Public Health 84: pp. 1982-1984.

"For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings."
- Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." The Journal of Trauma. 1998;45:263-267.

"The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home."
- Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.

"The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold."
- Kellermann, AL Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership." N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467-472.

"In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden. In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 in the United States."
- Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005, Canadian Crime Statistics, Australian Crime - Facts & Figures 2004, The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention - Criminal Statistics 2004, Statistics New Zealand.
- WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.

Posted by: KM | June 26, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"...you are one of those guys that doesn't recognize that there is a class of weapons known as assault rifles..."

Indeed their are. However, they must have full auto or burst fire capability to be considered such.

"You can certianly buy a AK-47 at a gun show with no questions asked in virginia..."

No, you cannot. It's a semi-auto lookalike. An AK-47 is a semi auto or full auto select fire weapon, and the demilitarized ones are no longer select fire. Otherwise, they could not have been imported.

"...as well as .50 caliber sniper rifles, which are deadly form over 2 miles away and cpable of taking down an airplane."

Strange. Only two miles? Most big game hunting rounds are dangerous to 5 miles or more. Most rounds I know of are capable of taking down airplanes as well. It's just dang hard to make hits on them. Ask any Vietnam war vet or WWII vet who armed AA guns. Full auto .50 calibers were hard enough to use and had a low aircraft kill ratio for rounds expended. You're telling me that a person could take a .50 caliber, 20 lb rifle, hoist it up, take a shot at an airplane while trying to hold it steady (targets really dance in telescopic sights you know... of course you do!) and squeeze off a shot which will not allow follow-through due to recoil? Huh uh. This is brainwashing. I really wish you'd get factual here. This is not fantasy land.

While we're at it, would you be so kind as to please define a sniper rifle for me? What's one look like?

Posted by: Josh | June 26, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

It is nice to see that the Supreme Court upheld the individual right of a citizen in DC to own a handgun, and defend their home. This is one freedom that sets us apart from the rest of the socialist world. In the UK armed criminals can do what ever they want, and lawful citizens have no right or ability to defend themselves. Without the individual right of a citizen to own a firearm, you HAVE NO RIGHTS. Government oppression always starts with the removal of citizens rights to own guns. Nazi Germany, USSR, and China have proved that one.
Now for those of you that believe the police have a duty to protect the individual citizen, I suggest you brush up on the Federal court ruling of WARREN vs. District of Columbia. ''NO Duty to Protect the Individual Citizen''. I guess all the liberals have forgotten about that one. If you think that government oppression can never happen in the USA, just look at New Orleans in 2005 after Katrina. Look at the illegal actions the Government, and the Police did. Nice job supreme court justices. Those of you that can not stand the rights that the USA gives to the individual citizen, move to Cuba, North Korea, or China. Lawful citizens owning guns for self defense, and protection of their property DO NOT THREATEN anyone except CRIMINALS.

Posted by: TJ NY | June 26, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Finally a sane decision. Only took them 32 years to overturn an unconstitutional law.

Posted by: Enigma | June 26, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

It's a shame that 4 judges show opposition.

Posted by: G-Money | June 26, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Michelle

The monoploy rests with WE THE PEOPLE.

Posted by: ZENXO | June 26, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

This decision is absurd. This guarantees the right of children to own machine guns. The bill of rights is outdated. What's next? Allowing criminals to own rocket launchers?

The only way we can evolve from a crime ridden terrorist breeding ground is to ban guns and wire tap more phones. This will put the criminals and the terrorists out of business for good.

Is it possible to impeach the Supreme Court?

Posted by: Michael | June 26, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

KM:

Wow. Talk about a bloodbath. 24 out of every one million American citizens died by gunfire in 2004. That means that 999,976 out of every million didn't. Thanks for checking in, Ms. Brady

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

A correct decision on all counts. Law abiding citizens will now be on an equal playing field with the criminals that don't obey these type of laws anyway. D.C. will now be a safer place to live.

Posted by: Jeff J. | June 26, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

IS2 Peter - you're absolutely correct on the MG term. If I tried to explain to him the difference between a MG and a SMG vs. a semi-auto I know he'd be staring at the screen all glassy-eyed with a headache. :-)

Posted by: Dave | June 26, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

For the libs who have posted and for their vapid concerns for safety, perhaps they should focus their efforts on banning the automobile. The automobile is responsible for more senseless deaths than guns. As usual, the Marxists are bleating, "foul, foul", yet they have no understanding of what individual self-determination really means, whether defending self while assaulted by thugs or opting to actually learn something in school. All hail the Marxists, perveyors of the new plantation in Amerika, the plantation of sheep bleating and whining instead of working and sweating for one's own sake.

Posted by: Mark | June 26, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Dave -

He's still skimming through the Brady site for rebuttal materials...

Posted by: CC in MD | June 26, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

To the gutless coward who didn't sign their name but wrote,

"ZENXO:

Pssst. She can't vote on legislation. Not the same as the other states, ya know."

They you should say Voting Authority and drop the incorrect representation mantra. Learn you facts!!!

I suspect the wisemen on the Hill figured out long ago that DC is a cess pool of financial corruption and thought it wise to limit how DC spent OUR money.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Michael said "This decision is absurd. This guarantees the right of children to own machine guns. "

Moonbat ^^^

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT MICHAEL?

Posted by: Dave | June 26, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

ZENXO,

How dare you suggest such a thing! I do so hope and pray that the federal government sends representatives out to get you, waterboard you and finally subject you to a secret trial.

You need to have more faith in our elected leaders. They have our best interests at heart. They protect us and look after us. You are an ingrate for questioning them.

I sleep well at night knowing that I have my friend, the government, looking after me and mine. I pity you, you neanderthal bastard!

Posted by: Michelle | June 26, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"The bill of rights is outdated."

Really...get out now!...Just leave the country you no longer call home. This is as un-american as anything I've ever heard in my life. Seriously...

This country will exits with the Constitutuion as its governing device until someone ends its reign. Just remember that it is those who support it that have the weapons. Those who would work to dismantle it must do so only through policy change...And I am on the record claiming that I will personally take up arms to make sure that does not happen.

The bill of rights doesn't exist in other countries so you are safe to leave. I will even purchase your ticket.

Posted by: karlthomas | June 26, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

DC still hasn't figured this out. Criminals are like electricty and take the path of least resistance.

Alexandria just saw, what was it, their third murder this year?? DC has how many? 60? 100?

Only a river and a bridge seperate them. So why the difference? Because those of us in VA are allowed to arm ourselves and protect ourselves from the criminals. They aren't coming here because they don't know who has guns and who doesn't. And being the cowards that most of them are, they hate the idea of getting shot.

An armed society is a polite society.

Posted by: Dusty | June 26, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"

This decision is absurd. This guarantees the right of children to own machine guns. The bill of rights is outdated. What's next? Allowing criminals to own rocket launchers?

The only way we can evolve from a crime ridden terrorist breeding ground is to ban guns and wire tap more phones. This will put the criminals and the terrorists out of business for good.

Is it possible to impeach the Supreme Court?"

Dude, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE tell me that you're being sarcastic!

You want to talk about terror... give someone absolute power over you.

Posted by: Josjh | June 26, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I am not gutless. In fact, my doctor says my gut is too big

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court ruled that people in DC could own guns.

Children are people so they can obviously own guns.

Besides, I read that with a toothpick and a piece of aluminum foil one could make a single action revolver into a machine assault rifle.

Are you telling me that children can't figure this out?

IDIOT!!!!

Posted by: Michael | June 26, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

To clear up something that has been brought up, a fully automatic weapon or "machine gun" has been illegal for citizen to own since the 1934 and in particular the 1968 gun control acts and the 1988 import ban (each had some ownership provisions). The only way you can own a fully automatic weapon is if you owned it before 1968, and have registered it with you local sherrif AND the ATF AND have paid a $200 tax on each weapon.

SEMI Automatic wepaons fire one round (bullet) each time the trigger is pulled. Most firearms designed in the last 75 years work in this fashion. Be it a revolver, a pistol, any number of rifle and shotgun designs (military "styled" or civillian use) work in this fashion.

While some state and local governemnts have or have tried to regulate these under scary sounding names like "assault weapons" Federal law has always allowed semi automatic firearms, EVEN during the 10 year "assault weapon ban", which banned only certain cosmetic features of certain firearms, and hense why it was allowed to expire in 2004.

Posted by: Brian | June 26, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Go hide in your caves for a while Mayor Fenty, Chief Lanier and Acting Attorney General 5cent.

You, all three of you have been denying all District citizens their constitutional rights.

I will not stand for this behavior if elected!

John Smallberries Esq., Republican
DC Council Candidate AT LARGE

Posted by: John Smallberries Esq., Republican Candidate, AT LARGE | June 26, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

The naysayers really need to brush up on their history of the American Revolution and the reasons behind that great war. Or perhaps they need to learn it for the first time.

Posted by: Rick | June 26, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

The bottom line is 32,000 Americans will die this year from guns. 34 will be murdered today with a gun, and nearly 50 more will commit suicide or accidently kill themeselves or someone else with a gun. It is isckeniing that people on here are suggesting that is an acceptable number, and mind boggling that some people suggest that gun control is to blame. There are too few laws on the books, they are not being allowed to enforce them, and the NRA and gun lobby and spineless politicians are too blame. This is not what the founding fathers wanted, and its not what the people of DC wanted.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Whew Michael...you had me worried there for a minute! :-)

And for Brian, you're ALMOST correct...

"To clear up something that has been brought up, a fully automatic weapon or "machine gun" has been illegal for citizen to own since the 1934 and in particular the 1968 gun control acts and the 1988 import ban (each had some ownership provisions). The only way you can own a fully automatic weapon is if you owned it before 1968, and have registered it with you local sherrif AND the ATF AND have paid a $200 tax on each weapon."

MG's or SMG's have never been ILLEGAL - they have been regulated. A 'civilian' CAN own a MG or SMG with the proper form 4 approval and payment of the $200 NFA Tax. The Sheriff or Chief Law Enforcement Officer is required to "sign off" on the form before you submit it to ATF, though if you have an uncooperative CLEO you can go the Trust or LLC route and bypass the fingerprints/photos/signatures.

Pre-1968 has nothing to do with anything. A MG or SMG must have been registered prior to 1986 and must currently be on a form 3 or form 4 for legal transfer.

Just for clarification... ;-)

Posted by: Dave | June 26, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The bill of rights doesn't exist in other countries so you are safe to leave. I will even purchase your ticket.

Posted by: karlthomas | June 26, 2008 4:32 PM

---------------
karl, I would like to got to Bermuda. Is the offer still standing?

John Smallberries Esq., Republican
DC Council Candidate AT LARGE

Posted by: John Smallberries Esq., Republican Candidate, AT LARGE | June 26, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"The bottom line is 32,000 Americans will die this year from guns. 34 will be murdered today with a gun, and nearly 50 more will commit suicide or accidently kill themeselves or someone else with a gun. It is isckeniing that people on here are suggesting that is an acceptable number, and mind boggling that some people suggest that gun control is to blame. There are too few laws on the books, they are not being allowed to enforce them, and the NRA and gun lobby and spineless politicians are too blame. This is not what the founding fathers wanted, and its not what the people of DC wanted. "


The founding father's didn't want 150,000 people to die from alcohol related car crashes annually either. What is the bigger problem. Ever had a drink before?

The hipocracy is astounding.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"Besides, I read that with a toothpick and a piece of aluminum foil one could make a single action revolver into a machine assault rifle."

I'm a gunsmith and I'm still trying to figure this one out!

There's no way to make it full auto, and no way to extend the barrel to make it a rifle at any rate...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: | June 26, 2008 4:47 PM: I'm a gunsmith and I'm still trying to figure this one out!

------------

You need some crazy glue too. Hope this helps.

John Smallberries Esq., Republican
DC Council Candidate AT LARGE

Posted by: John Smallberries Esq., Republican Candidate, AT LARGE | June 26, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

loz wrote: "Why am I the only intelligent person here? Look, last year 18,791 people were murdered in the US. Of those, 14,913 were killed by handguns. And of those, 8,508 were killed by people who had no previous criminal record."

The source of these statistics? The FBI has not yet released the UCR for 2007.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

After we lick the problem of coronary artery disease, cancer, accidents, and a whole raft of other medical conditions, then we can focus on firearms deaths which kill 5.6 people per 100,000. Heart disase kills more than ten times that amount. Prents deliberately kill their childern by feeding them fast foods, wives murder husbands with steaks and sour cream on their baked potatoes, automakers kill thousands by making cars capable of traveling at killing speeds, and unuregulated lightning takes a deadly toll as well.

So if we're going to tackle one causes of death, let's take them in order. Where does your anti-heart disease group meet?

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I do believe in the right to own guns for the purpose of hunting, but no one needs to hunt with a handgun unless they are hunting people. Fenty has a right to be concerned about this ruling. As a DC suburb native, I will not be going to DC and spending my money as much as I did before. As for those saying this is a great day in America, it is sad to think we've regressed so far to the days of the revolution. Just another day under the Bush presidency I suppose. Hopefully America will see a need to come into the 21st century soon.

Posted by: Concerned | June 26, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Personally, as bad as the 2nd ammendment is, I find the 4th and 10th ammendments to be even more dreadful.

The only way we can evolve as a people is to centralize all power in this country. By bestowing all power to the executive branch of the federal government we can be assured that the children and the elderly will be safe.

As we evolve so must our constitution and bill of rights.

Posted by: Michelle | June 26, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Gunsmith:

Use a left-handed toothpick, and cut the foil from the edge. It will all become clear immediately

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"Which gun owners or perhaps private militia is to decide that the government has reached a leve tyrannical thet requires that they, using their arms, free us from that government? Who then will govern if the revolution is successful and how will they be chosen? Which militia or person should we non gun owners be forced to swear allegiance to after the gun owners have overthrown what is believed by them tyrannical? I think we non-gun owners deserve to be educated as to what we need to do to remain alive after the revolution I do not think the gun owners know what they are talking about when they brag they are going to use there weapons to prevent tyranny by the elected US government."

Sir or madam, whomever you are you stilldo not get it. The purpose is not to create a revolution and gunowners do not brag about creating a revolution. The point here is that the government would be less likely to become a tyrany if the people have the means to oppose it thus creating a balance. The framers were distrustful of government and with good reason. gunonwers do not want a revolution, we want the means to keep it form happening or descending into tyrany.

Look, I carry a gun everywhere and I have nad to use it to defend myself several times yet nobody has been shot by me....the fact that I had to pull it out caused the crooks to run away and nobody got killed, but if I had not had my gun I would be dead becasue that was their intention. So you see I carry a gun so nobody has toget shot.

Posted by: Xavier | June 26, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Finally, the meaning of "the people" does not change three times in three amendments!

I own firearms as did my father, his father, and his father before him. The same on my mothers side, my wifes side and all their relations. And guess how many have been used in a crime? Zip, zero, none!!!

Without a firearm in the house I guess I could wait for the local police to show up in an emergency. But then again they may have driven 20 miles to the next town to backup their officer (singular) when needed.

NOW at least I have a fighting chance.

Posted by: Mark | June 26, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I will say yes if you denounce your citizenship and relinquish all other rights afforded to you by the American Constitution. I will be willing to purchase the ticket on that premise.

my e-mail: karltfisher@gmail.com

let me know when you want to leave and where to send the ticket. I will purchase once you have assured me you have relinquished all rights afforded to you by this country. I would prefer to have this contract made legal via our attorney's if you will allow.

Posted by: karlthomas | June 26, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Yes! I agree with the Supreme Courts decision. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is clearly defined in the 2nd amendment. No federal, state, or local laws should be allowed to violate the 2nd amendment, or any other parts of the constitution in any way whatsoever.

Posted by: hunkylynch | June 26, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"When will people realize that some people with guns kill or maim other people. It isn't so easy to hide behind the 2nd Amendment when you physically see a child who died because of your right to carry."

No it isn't. My gun protected my and my daughter from a 150 pound plus charging dog!

Posted by: Paul C. | June 26, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"Gunsmith:

Use a left-handed toothpick, and cut the foil from the edge. It will all become clear immediately"

That was my problem. I was using a right-handed toothpick.

Sad part is, there are people on here who will actually take this tripe seriously.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I agree with *kiyaker*.. The criminals still win. I thought this was for concealed carry outside the home.

Posted by: GEO | June 26, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

it is hard for most people to view themselves in a position to protect themselves and their family. Those people expect and demand that the government keep them safe with policy and legislation. Both of these things scare criminals into not being criminals anymore. What were we thinking needing personal protection...the government will save us.


and to the lady who believes we need a strong central government... I think that is the reason this country exists....to get away from a strong central government. It is in the many state governments that checks and balances are made. Hitler had a strong central government. Sure, we need that...

Posted by: karlthomas | June 26, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Ok if you have a flint lock like they had when the 2nd ammendment was passed. All other guns should be banned or they should be registered like autos starting at $1000 for a 22 up to $5000 for a magnum, Glock or similar weapons.

Posted by: m steve | June 26, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Steve:

Will there be a special rate card for criminals? How much do they have to pay to register their guns and thus be in compliance with the law like the law-abiding population? Wait. They're criminals. Never mind.

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Go buy a gun stated:

OK, here's the deal 2nd amendment wackos: If you are going to be "strict constructionists" like Scalia or Thomas are (when it suits them) then the meaning of "arms" in the amendment must be construed to mean those arms in existence when it was passed (Scalia and Thomas always use these traditionalist arguments to say we must interpret the Constitution based on the status of things in 1789, so fine, let's do it). Now, I think that arms in those days meant flintlock muzzle- loading rifles and perhaps a single shot pistol (maybe some of you wacko gun types might know better), but definitely automatic weapons, even semi-automatic pistols, missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. etc. did not exist. So I say fine, if you want to be a strict constructionist, then knock yourself out finding and buying circa 1790s "arms" and enjoy exercising your "right to bear 'arms'" If you are not so much a "strict constructionist" as conservatives claim to be (again, when it suits them) and are instead going to make the argument that "arms" means anything that you can kill something with, then I want to buy a tank. Oh, what's that you say, of course you can't buy a tank that's too dangerous? Show me where it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed "unless the weapon is deemed by others to be too dangerous." What's that you say? Oh, you mean we need to trust judges to make a reasonable interpretation of the what the Constitution says? Oh, I see, so you want "activist judges" then to read something into the amendment to keep me from buying a tank? Right... see, conservative nut jobs rail against judges until it suits them. They see things in black and white and fail to realize that life is the gray area in between.

-------------------------------------------

Go buy a gun, I agree with you. We should be able to buy the firearm of our choice, whether it be a handgun, an automatic or a tank if that is your preferance. In fact, a tank fully loaded and aimed directly at the law schools might just remind all the lawyers turned politicians that we actually have too many laws which strip the citizenry of its rights. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll take my choice of firearm and defend myself, my family and my country from crime and tyranny until the final moment of my life! Long live the constitution!

Posted by: Constitutionalist | June 26, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

m steve,

read the documents. listen to the audio. This very thing was discussed. the fact that it could not be foreseen that machine guns would exist. Fortunately, the provision was made in the original militia clauses that the people should have the right to keep and bear arms that were comparitive in capability with that of the standing military. Thus, the standard issue pistol and rifle of the modern era are to be available to the people. Flint locks are available as well, but no longer common place. and there is no monitoring by the federal government of ownership of a flint lock. No registration, no restriction what so ever. Anyone could own one. But there are restrictions beig put on the contemporary weapons which is unconstitutional because when restriction are put on guns that are common to the military, then the weapons available without restriction are not comparative to the military arms. Thus, if this was a true upholding of the constitution, it would include fully auto weapons, grenades, and body armour(if the interpretation was made that this is a weapon) all of which are common to civilized nations' military forces today

Posted by: karlthomas | June 26, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

In the end your poll question, as so often happens in quick polls, won't allow for an easy interpretation of its data. It doesn't reflect that rarely is a Supreme Court decision a simple statement such as "this is wrong so you must all do or accept this." Rather, they are primarily statements of reasonings, to be picked apart and applied in foreseen and unforeseen situations. In this case the summary clearly states that the individual right to bear arms is not unlimited (I agree with that). The governments continue to have the ability to restrict gun ownership and use in many ways. But Justice Scalia specifically states that the Court isn't addressing the full scope of the 2d Amendment. And he appears unwilling to provide a standard other than some popularity standard as long as the reason for ownership is a stated or implied right (such as, in this case, an implied right of self-defense). So, yes I agree to an individual right to arms, but I'm disappointed on the failure of the court to further define the scope of limits on those rights.

Posted by: nhwku | June 26, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

To everyone who wants to ban guns and such, I have only two questions for you:

How much do you like the Patriot Act?

Do you really want George W. Bush (and future presidents like him) to be the only one with guns?

Posted by: Some Guy | June 26, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

If I had not just finished reading "Mao: The Unfinished Story" about his murderous campaign to establish Communism in China, I might have been unhappy with the Heller decision. One of Mao's routine tactics was to dis-arm the people of China, so they could not defend themselves against his tyranny, and I am convinced that one important Constitutional protection that we Americans have against tyranny in this country is the right to be armed in our self-defense. I haven't finished reading the decision (45 of the 157 pages), but Scalia sure does seem to be carrying a grudge against Justice Stevens. What's up with THAT?

Posted by: Mark In Irvine | June 26, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Let freedom ring! The 2nd Amnt. says "OWN and BEAR" we now need more good rulings on what "bear" means and "that Right shall not be infringed". It is hard to believe that 4 Black Robes got this wrong and could not read and interrupt such simple phrases and concept. Their job is not to change our Constitution by Judicial Fiat..

Posted by: s wilson | June 26, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The posters who state the U.S. is a different place than it was 200 years ago really have no idea what the Second Amendment is about. The "free state" referred to is a country free from an oppressive government. If you think there are no such countries today, perhaps you need to be a woman showing her legs in Iran, or a white person in Zimbabwe.

Posted by: andy b. | June 26, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

"To everyone who wants to ban guns and such, I have only two questions for you:

How much do you like the Patriot Act?

Do you really want George W. Bush (and future presidents like him) to be the only one with guns?"


I love the Patriot Act and I'm very thankful to live in a country where we have fine leaders who protect us in this scary world. Our government and its representatives are the only people who should be allowed to have guns.

Posted by: Michelle | June 26, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

msteve

your mix of calibers, brands, and words describing cartridges confuses me. Am I to understand that a magnum is to be taxed heavily. What is a magnum? Do you think it is a gun, brand of gun, cartridge...what? go ahead, google and answer. I am interested how yo might interpret your new found knowledge..

A lack of gun education gives you no right to threaten my rights to own a gun. If you don't like that I have a RIGHT to own a gun, the revolt against the government who assured this right. But know that this right to protect myself is god given, and my will to protect the constitution is stronger than your 'will' to destroy it... 'will' aside, remember foremost that it is I who have the gun when you form your rebellion.

Posted by: karlthomas | June 26, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Michelle:

Please say you are being snarky. If not, does that woolen sheep suit itch? Do you really feel comfortable placing your full trust in a group of people who have repeatedly proven themselves to be incompetent at best, and blundering criminals at worst?

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Please define "snarky".

If it means either patriotic or sensible, then yes.

Posted by: Michelle | June 26, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many citizens have actually read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Those along with the writings of the framers of the Constitution make it very clear and very concise......the right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. At least 5 of our Supreme Court Justices are informed.

Posted by: JR | June 26, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, poverty stricken DC...
Most of the people on welfare couldn't afford a gun if they wanted to because they would rather buy groceries. So is there going to be a flux of guns in DC.

Here is my situation. I've grown up around guns my whole life. I was given my first pistol 22 rimfire at the ripe age of 6. Loaded guns were around the house, and there would be hell to pay if I so much as even brushed the dust off the front sight aperature. Well I'm all grown un now, the 22 I got as a kid is long gone now. But at the ripe age of 21, I bought a 9mm at a gun show in Southern California. It was a used law enforcement officers pistol. And then a few years later I decided I wanted a 22, to help me qualify in the military with than the 9mm that was cheaper on ammunition. So I bought that, and have used it pleasurably for years. I decided I wanted to compete, and purchased a semi-automatic California-Legal Rifle, the kind Police Snipers use. And I have won several tournaments at National Match Competition. When moving to VA, I drove across the US, because the airlines would not allow my Pit Bull or the Ammunition I had stockpiled.... {It is cheaper to buy in bulk, and anyone can tell you if you shoot regularly, 1,000 rounds can last maybe a weekend.}

So I have this job in DC, where do I move.... DC.. Gun Ban... VA... Open Carry or Concealed Carry with Permit. MD overly restricted gun locks wha the heck are those? Puhh! So I chose to live in VA.

My significant other and I had a wonderful experience, We went to the gun store and rented two different guns and calibers each time we went to the range and we selected the one we thought was best for me and for her. Then the next time we did the same thing to get to the final 4 choices then the final two and then believe it or not we selected the same handguns. SIG SAUR 226 in 40S&W. I took my hiring bonus to the Gun Store and it was like one of the best days of my life.
I said... "I'll take two of those... and one of them nickle plated" my ex needed to have some girly fashionable piece. We then took classes and shot competitively for about a year learning the ins and outs to pistol marksmanship. We didn't bother geting a concealed weapons permit, because open-cary suited us just fine. Well I went to Iraq, to serve our fine nation, and came back to a cheating significant other. OMG my life was crushed... Did I think of killing her with the Guns... no. I really felt like hacking her up with an axe... but thank God what I feel like doing and do are two different things.
Well, now with the medical issues from Iraq and Work... I needed to move closer to take advantage of the VA resources for the medical problems I have been dealing with. So I moved to DC... with my Guns of course! So here I am a Veteran who has fought for his country and I am fearful of one of two things.

1. One of my guns is stolen and I cannot report the crime.

2. Someone breaks into my home and in fear of my life, I shoot them. I will be put away for Murder, b/c I shouldn't have had the protection in the first place!

The other is.. yes I do carry concealed now, illegal as it may be. I figure if I were arrested for it, I'd be the one on the Supreme Courts Doorstep...

Yes I have heard gunfire since moving to DC a few months ago. And I'm intimately familiar with what that sounds like! But inside of that, if my life or the life, limb or eyesight of another were endangered by that of a malicious criminal. I would then become one myself and shoot the perp... Why would I become a malicious criminal... because I murdered some guy on the street for raping a woman, robbing a convienience store, carjacking...? And I would be put away by the fine citizens of DC, as a cracker-murderer. So to avoid the eminant sentence. I would walk away leaving the perp bleeding on the street not even giving them a second glance.
But now... I will no longer be a criminal!
I will once again be a citizen, I will register them, and follow the law, heck, I might even open up a shooting range in DC. to teach people who have been deprived for 30 years how these contraptions work, to put their freedom and power back into the palm of their hands. I can report if my guns are stolen... I can stay at the scene if I (God help me I never want to do this again) kill a malicious criminal. Let the truth be told for what it is. I can now live free.

Posted by: Not a Criminal Anymore in NorthWest, DC | June 26, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

A great day for Americans, but the wording on some of the opinion is too open to local BS interpretation.

What makes some people think "ONLY" a 20 something kid out of rave and beer bust days that goes to a few months of police academy and is issued his/her water walking slippers can be trusted with a hand gun?

I think at 60 with 27 years of military, and back ground checked by all 3 letter agencies in DC and held a secret clearance, I'm more than capable to be trusted with one and know how and when to use it. I can't stand the idea that these same "kids" with badges are allowed to carry anything from a squirt gun to a nuke in a suit case to any school, church, bar, or court house and be 100% trusted, while I could end up being charged like a ham sandwich and turned into a felon by one of them.

I am NOT a hunter, if I need meat I go to the local store, I am someone who knows what other humans will and can do each other if left unable to defend your self in the wrong circumstances in the wrong place.

The senate now needs to pass the bill that makes a concealed permit to carry from one state VALID in ALL states like a drivers license. And I mean ALL states that are considered part of the US! I also want to see the stupid restrictions on us that have a permit to carry done away with. If we have been background checked and verified to get a permit, than dammit we should sure as hell be allowed to carry our weapon with us where ever we go. I am all for checks and verify,and have no problem taking off my shoes if need be, but after that and I'm cleared,"DON'T F with me no more" and let me go about my business.

US Army retired E8

Posted by: HOODY | June 26, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Michelle:

Snarky means sarcastic or ironic. Wish you had been down in New Orleans to see the fine job our all-wise, all-seeing government did. Sure, people died trapped in flooded houses but there was plenty of Starbucks coffee in the federal command center. Yep, a fine job indeed.

As you bask in the warm glow of your government, consider this. The Supreme Court and most of the lower courts have consistently ruled over the years that the police have no affirmative duty to protect you from crime. They'll investigate it after it happens, but if a burglar breaks in and you dial 911, they are under no legal obligation to respond. And if you are killed or injured, and it happened because the nearest officer was taking a coffee break and decided not to respond to your call for help, there is nothing you can do about it.

Yes, by all means, place your faith in a government which has laws specifically excusing them from any legal obligation to protect you from anything.

Posted by: Johann | June 26, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Australia and England banned guns and their violent crime rate increased. Do your research folks. And what about the defensive use of the weapons and how many times it saves (often without having to fire a shot). Of course, the news media doesn't report those. How do I know? I was in law enforcement where I really got tired of mentally ill people and folks with addictions who refused to get help.

Posted by: Welshwoman | June 26, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

It is odd that some on the court will give rights to our enemies but then want to take rights away from our citizens. What's with that?

Posted by: J in KC | June 26, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

You know I'm tired of this B.S. PEOPLE OPEN YOUR EYES HITLER, STALIN, AND MUSSOLINI FORCED GUN CONTROL, the second amendment is not just about self defense its about protecting all of your other rights and keeping government in balance. Not to mention cars are involved in 39% of deaths each year compared to the .06% by firearms. STOP DRIVING DEATH MACHINES!!!!!(last line is sarcasm)

Posted by: The Arcticwolf | June 26, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

michelle,

You are either misunderstanding the constitution or have a fundamental dis-appreciation for it. I ask why you call yourself American? If you are simply misunderstanding the constitution, perhaps today's ruling will help you understand it better, but I fear that you still don't understand the Patriot Act. While I am completely for eavesdropping on would-be terrorists or those that would wish to do Americans harm, I am in full understanding that the Act is in direct conflict with the constitution. If I felt strongly enough that the constitution was wrong so much that I wanted to make sure we were able to invade the criminal's privacy, I would either move or attempt to over through the government. I would not believe that a document such as the constitution can be changed or updated. These were self-evident truths and whether I like it or not, it is unconstitutional. In this same way, whether I like it or not, the constitution guarantees that the inmates down in Guantanamo accused of crimes against this nation and against humanity are entitled to a fair trial. This is granted by the Constitution but acknowledged. It is granted by God. I believe they should rot for what they have done, but it is not constitutional to assume that they have done anything until it has been proven as such. The constitution is the framework of this country. It defines certain self-evident truths to acknowledge their existence, not grant them, thus, 'self-evident'. I am in favor of continuing to up hold a strict constitution. Those who would work to destroy it will have a much harder task destroying it than I will defending it.

In conclusion, it would be easier if you moved to an uninhabited island and wrote up your own bill of rights. I stress uninhabited, because just like America, you can be sure that forced to the task, most people will choose to defend themselves and fight back...and you won't have a gun.

Posted by: karlthomas | June 26, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

D.C Gun Ban Decision: Poll and Comment
On June 26, the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban. Do you agree with the decision?

Yes. 68%

Common sense winning out.

Posted by: ZENOX | June 26, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

This is a great day for law abiding citizens everywhere, the only sad part is it was a 5-4 decision just shows how much the justices put their personal agendas before the Constitution.

Posted by: Jason | June 26, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

As a bitter American who doesn't cling to but keeps a gun I'm going to sleep better tonight. I might even load the little guy...!

Posted by: dblknotspy | June 26, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

michelle,

my friend is reading over my should and wonders if you have ties(family, past citizenship) to a communist/socialist/fascist government. Your rhetoric appears to be that of one who would give all power to one person, as you stated that the executive branch(just one person) shall be the supreme authority. Do you not believe in checks and balances? I would urge you to consider a dictatorship where George Bush had no checks or balances and was posed with keeping "our children and elderly" safe...

I believe this form of government is working well for Cuba...Worked well for a little known country formerly known as the USSR.

Posted by: karlthomas | June 26, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

M Steve --

Please tell me that you just started hitting the keyboard and, by chance, your comment is just what randomly appeared on the screen...and that you didn't actually spend any time thinking about this issue and then came up with what you wrote.

Because it makes no sense.

That's like saying the First Amendment only applies to the words being used at the time of the revolution, and that you don't have freedom of speech via the telephone, fax, computer, or email. Or that any religions or manners of assembly not common in the late 1700s are not protected under the First Amendment.

Posted by: Mark | June 26, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Woo hoo! I'm gonna get me a submachine gun now! Let's shoot some (fill in the minority here)!

Posted by: Jay | June 26, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Jay, Jay, Jay! I've found that my AK will burn plenty of ammo one shot at a time. No need to go that far overboard!

Posted by: Bill Mosby | June 26, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

$50 says that the violent crime rate decreases due to this. Another $50 says some anti-gun people go around shooting people to "prove a point" as they love to do.

Posted by: Patrick O | June 26, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

The tired old argument about protecting yourself in your own home is about worn out. The NRA would make you believe that thousands of people are actually brandishing guns and shooting it out with intruders every year and winning. In fact there are very few of these incidents and far more situations where people try to find their guns and end up getting killed because the occasional intruder sees the sudden movement. In over twenty-five years in law enforcement I have never encountered a case where a homeowner successfully defended himself or his family with a gun.

However I can tell you over a hundred stories about people, who bought guns and stored them in their homes, but then accidently shot themselves, their family members, or neighbors. That does not even count the other hundred or so cases that I have personally handled where the brave homeowner, armed with his own gun, intentionally shot his neighbor, wife, son, etc, etc.

Posted by: JT | June 26, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Mayor Fenty, I am a black man and I too am terrified of some brown-skinned folks with their pants hanging down their behinds with their boxers showing. I live in Ward One D.C. and I have never been robbed or hurt by a white person in the entire Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. I can't say that about my own race of people. I have had a gun pointed in my face and robbed at Georgia Avenue, NW and Kenyon Street, NW by 3 black males. Once again, I was assaulted and robbed in 1997 on 16th & S Streets, NW by several black males. I am not saying all black people are criminals, but in D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, Newark, New Jersey, Richmond, Va., Norfolk, Va., New York City, Durham, N.C., Raleigh, N.C., Greensboro, N.C., Jersey City, N.J., Atlantic City, N.J., Atlanta, Miami, Los Angeles the majority of criminals are black. Getting an education is free in the United States, but many young black males and females will not attend school. Most read on a third grade level. I saw a special on HBO on last night about Douglas High School in Baltimore, Maryland. The school system in Baltimore City Public Schools are in terrible shape. The same goes applies to the D.C. public school system. Sometimes, I am ashamed to be of the black race and I can assure you, other blacks feel the same, but will not admit it publicly. LOL LOL

Posted by: IHateBeingABlackMan | June 26, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Although in the end, I voted "yes", I have strong reservations about the Heller decision, especially because the SCOTUS did not incorporate the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment, nor did it apply strict scrutiny.

How many more lives will be lost before the SCOTUS does what it should have done during the Jim Crow era?

Posted by: Etaoin Shrdlu | June 26, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Under the laws of the land, and according to all understanding of the word when the Bill of Rights was drafted, the "militia" was all adult males, today, it's all adults. The word "militia" never was a synonym for "national guard".

The American militia system has its roots in ancient English tradition, dating back to the Anglo-Saxon militia that existed centuries before the Norman Conquest in 1066. This militia, known as the fyrd, consisted of every able-bodied male of military age. It was traditionally used for defense only, and the sovereign could call upon the fyrd to fight if the men would be able to return to their homes by nightfall. Fyrd members were required to supply their own weapons, which they could use only in the service of the king.

Posted by: JPB | June 26, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

D.C -- especially since it is a FEDERAL city [The Federal is supposed to be beholden to the States, not the other way around; that was part of the checks & balances]-- should be bound to accept all acts of States -- especially given the following from the Constitution:

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

$$$$$$$$$


Chances of accidently killing a
child with a gun:

Homes w/Guns v. Home w/out Guns:

Homes w/guns: 100%

Homes w/out guns: 0

$$$$$$$$$$$

Posted by: gunsrgreat | June 26, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

According to many of the NRA supporters in here, guns are the only way to keep our families and our nation safe. To those of you who actually believe this, it is time to stop living in fear. Otherwise, you might as well just turn your guns on yourselves.

Posted by: Violent Society | June 26, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

they will really look like fools when the crime rate goes down.

Posted by: gunclinger | June 26, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Today was a good day. One gun ban down, many more to go. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about duck hunting. It is for personal and property protection. Both against thuggies and a tyranical .gov

I hear that Sarah and Jim Brady of the Brady Bunch, Chuckie Schumer, Diane Fineswine & Barbara Boxer (the dog) of People's Republik of Kalifornia, William Jefferson Blythe Klinton, Hildabeast, Barry Hussein Obamination, Frankie Launtenburg, Comrade Daley of Chicagograd-People's Republik of Illinois, Comrade Bloomerber of New Yorkergrad-People's Republik of Nueva York, etc. are all puking away at this. Remember libs what happened in 1994 after our gun rights were tampered with: the electorate had a "..temper tantrum.." (Peter Jennings- ABC News) and sent over 50 anti-gun congress critters and senators HOME.

I say send MORE of them home this fall, to include one anti-gunner Barry Hussein Obamination.

Posted by: HK- No Compromise | June 26, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

This ruling will have the effect of adding oil to a fire, things will only get worse. More accidental shootings, more crime, more people killing in the heat of the moment.

This is what my law enforcement friends tell me are the practical consequences. I believe them.

A sad day for America.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

If you support gun's rights, you support murder. Don't wrap your aggressive tendencies and savage behavior up in the flag.

Posted by: Just Admit It Already | June 26, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

"According to many of the NRA supporters in here, guns are the only way to keep our families and our nation safe. To those of you who actually believe this, it is time to stop living in fear. Otherwise, you might as well just turn your guns on yourselves."
-----------------
I've lived in many different circumstances with adversities ranging from having drug houses just around the corner to having property taxes raised because of a surplus of McMansions in the neighborhood. And I've never lived in fear whether or not I've had guns at home.

Save your advice for the truly fearful- folks like you, who can't stand to think that others may be doing something you don't agree with but who truly pose no danger to you.

Posted by: Bill Mosby | June 26, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

HK-No Compromise:

You must really like nicknames. Too bad that practice marginalizes any point you were trying to make. It is truly frightening but no surprise that someone with as little education as you wants to shoot people. When will people like you evolve with the rest of us? Neanderthal.

Posted by: I HATE HILLBILLIES | June 26, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

To all you hysterical bortch liberals having k-nipshizzes, I would love to answer each individually, but there are people who are worthy of a moment's attention. No it does not become slayfest, OK Corral or any of the fear mongering hype to worry folks into giving up their rights. Yes, maybe some criminals will have not heard there is a new occupational hazard (death by victim's self-defense) but, who cares about scum anyway? really? Someone would kill you to get two dollars to buy some crack- and we are supposed to care about them? Ok if they went for democrats only I would say subsidize their dealers... hahaha No seriously (that was a joke, to those of you freaking out beyond cogent tranquility)- if you do not have the ability to defend your very own self, you are only free to be murdered. What do you not understand about that? Why would you want free health care if you are only going to be dead on arrival anyhow? How stupid are you for continuing to vote for the dems, who only want you killed? you cried about patriot act, to fight the enemies of our country, and yet you want americans disarrmed and murdered, and also cry that you are patriots? You are crazy wack jobs who should be in a rubber room. ALl of you , squished in by bulldozers, pressed dry, and the remains boiled to get teh oil out...

Posted by: ralphy | June 26, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

hey you "just admit it already" you democrats are responsible for more American deaths than all of our enemies combined in our entire history.So SHUT UP. 40 million abortions, half a million murders in just the giant cities since inception of gun control allowing criminals to rampage while the criminal politicians stole more power and more power and caused more crime and ignored the borders and ignored fanatical islam- the enemies of the USA are the friends of the cheap scum traitor pig dems!! Simply demanding our RIGHT which was mentioned for special protection by, but not granted by, the constitution, is not murerous you evil twerp.

Posted by: ralphy | June 26, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

"You are crazy wack jobs who should be in a rubber room. ALl of you , squished in by bulldozers, pressed dry, and the remains boiled to get teh oil out..."

Squished by bulldozers??? Whose the real wack job, Ralphy?

Posted by: Pot Calling the Kettle Black | June 26, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Ralphy, what if I don't shut up? Are you going to shoot me? I bet you'd love that. You are too busy manipulating the 2nd Amendment that you forgot about the 1st. Just turn that barrel around and do us all a favor.

Posted by: Just Admit It Already | June 26, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe the crying over the possibility that D.C. may now have to treat its citizens in the same manner that the rest of the country takes for granted. Maybe now crime in DC will lower to that of the neighboring states and localities where guns have always been a part of life and crime has been low. Do you crying Liberals really believe that D.C. residents automatically have less self restraint, less will power, less self control than those of us who live peacefully with few firearms restrictions? It's time to treat those in DC as citizens, not unarmed slaves.

Posted by: brolin_1911a1 | June 26, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

An OP-ED here on the Washington Post states two things:

1) Criminals could care less about gun bans.
2) Washington D.C. is a proverbial "Dodge City".

From that he concludes: We should keep doing what we've been doing.

Some people think the law abiding citizens held hostage by gangsters for the last thirty-two years will somehow become a criminal now that they will be able to defend their family.

D.C. logic confuses me. But, re-electing a crack using mayor confused me as well.


Posted by: Avoids DC | June 26, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed at this decision. The Supreme Court actually upholding the Constitution? I am flabbergasted.

Maybe the murder rate in in our nation's capital will drop a bit now that law-abiding people are able to own the tools to defend themselves. No guarantee of that, but it seems a reasonable outcome to expect, based on evidence from other municipalities.

Maybe this will make people take a look at the *rest* of the Bill Of Rights, and wonder what the heck happened to it. Maybe this will remind people what the USA is supposed to be: the land of the *free*.

Posted by: bblackmoor | June 26, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I see that some poeple are arguing that the framers of the Bill of Rights were refering ONLY to the types of arms available at the time...hence folks should be limited to only those arms, ie flint lock muskets and pistols, long rifles, early cap locks etc. I know that I've lost some with these terms.
BUT, what that meant, was state of the art, fully modern weapons of the day. In fact, the common American long rifle was inherantly more accurate and usually better made than English "Brown Bess" muskets. American familiarity with their firearms also made them better shots and effective at longer distances than the British.
It is a major reason that the farmers and shop keepers of the colonies were able to defeat the strongest military in the world.
So, when you use the argument that they meant the weapons of the day (lost most of the anti-gun group by this point) Remember that this is a new day. As the days change the state of the art improves. And you just called for Americans to have the state of the art of the day weaponry.

So...Thanks

OH and I LOVE it when people invent statistics.. I have always enjoyed fiction all most as much as history

Posted by: ancient one | June 26, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Va tech is a gun free zone. he got his guns because no money was givin to fund the laws on men.ill.

Posted by: ggd276 | June 26, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I wouldn't mind regulating the First Amendment to the degree the Second Amendment is regulated, if not more so. Gun control laws make a perfect template for commonsense media control laws. Bans on violent "assault speech" would help fight the "gangsta" culture that is a root cause of violence. Some sensible limitations as to how the media could discuss high-profile murders like Columbine (think one-story-a-month laws) would help prevent copycat crimes and prevent every angry loner with a grudge from becoming an instant celebrity.

The difference between regulating guns and media is that the latter hasn't been seriously tried here, and but, unlike gun control, has been at least somewhat successful in other countries.

Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

now the people of D.C. have the rights to defend themselves and property I hope they take advantage of it and the murder rate drops as it should.... THE 2ND AMENDMENT WAS NEVER ABOUT HUNING..........

Posted by: JJB.. IOWA | June 26, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

The U.S. has tended to make laws that restrict the law abiding citizen from having a way to defend themselves, while the criminal, who disregards the law, was able to walk into a gun restricted store or parking lot and rob and rape without fearing any real use of force to prevent him from doing so.
Resulting in a lot of police reports but little justice in a lot of cases.
THANK YOU Supreme Court.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Exactly right, ancient one.

I can't wait until GAU-8's come onto the surplus market. Except that they keep re-upping those dang A-10s, so it'll be a while yet. Gives me some time to save up for the ammo!

Posted by: Bill Mosby | June 26, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing to hunt for inside DC and therefore there is no reason anyone should have a gun in the city. "An armed militia being necessary, (National guard, the government shall do nothing to restrict firearms"--We have the armed militia- thus we don't need individual guns.
It's the 2nd Ammendment, kid!

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

If you are liberal, just think of it as a "Right to Choose". I choose to carry a weapon . You are free not to. I won't force you, I promise. But it's my right to choose.

Posted by: Goober McNutly | June 26, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm amazed at the number of people who think they're safer because law abiding citizens are denied their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Maybe that perspective is another manifestation of people's unwillingness to take responsibility for their own wellbeing and livelihood, instead of turning to the government. Maybe it's because some of those who hold that belief want to control others. An armed populace cannot be compelled, only convinced. Even the most well-intentioned police agency cannot protect an individual from harm (and case law establishes no obligation to do so). Although one may not successfully defend oneself from a violent criminal, that person has a right to choose whether s/he wants rely on her/his own skill and courage as a last resort. Without a firearm, a victim is relying on the criminal's mercy and compassion--good luck!

Posted by: Lou | June 26, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Leon, at 9:17 pm- you incessantly whining twerps think that we now want to hear your hysterics? Shut UP. Hunting is not the reason the founding fathers put the god given constitutionally protected right to keep and bea arms. You don't want to defend yourself, family, neighborhood, nation? GET OUT- we only have room for REAL AMERICANS. GET OUT.

Posted by: ralphy | June 26, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

This ruling is good for the law abiding citizen & bad for criminals.
Those who predict "blood on the streets" have done so in every State that introduced Concealed Carry.

Only to be proved wrong each & every time.

Those who see a nation without the legal ownership of an effective means of self defence should look to the UK for the results: We have TWICE the violent crime rate of the US (thought fewer homicides)& "hot" home invasions run at 50% plus compared to 13% in the US.
I'd far rather live where I'm allowed the Right & the means to defend myself than here in the UK.

Posted by: Mike the Limey | June 26, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Since when do criminals comply with any laws let alone a ban on their work required utensil...

Posted by: stovetop | June 26, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

In my CHL class, my instructor used a phrase that really clinched it for me: "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."

Posted by: baseballguy2001 | June 26, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Bill Mosby,
Take up reloading before they decide to ban components instead of arms

Posted by: ancient one | June 26, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

This decision, while absolutely CORRECT, should never have been necessary. Our RIGHTS, which by the way are NOT GRANTED by the Constitution, are NOT subject to a vote by ANYONE.

Our Constitution was unique in the world, in that it was a pact between We, the People, and government, which granted government certain LIMITED authority to perform certain activities in our name and on our behalf. It was NEVER MEANT to be a limitation on the authority we, the people, retained, nor was it meant to GRANT one single "right." The Founders recognized that our RIGHTS come from our Creator (or Nature, if you prefer) and NOT from Government. Government is ordained among men to PROTECT THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF ALL. Not to GRANT them or WITHDRAW them. Thus, this ruling, while correct, should never have been needful.

Oh, and for those who think that the first clause of the Second Amendment controls the second clause, ask an English teacher about subordinate clauses. Nor can any one of the Bill of Rights be amended or repealed without invalidating the WHOLE Constitution. So sorry, but our RIGHT to keep and bear arms is ABSOLUTE.

Posted by: dcwusmc | June 26, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Using Mr. Scalia's logic, it seems that neighborhoods should just set up their own watchtowers with high powered rifles. If a gang banger unloads a clip on your street, then the watcher can take em down, or better yet just have all the home owners and renters along the street be at the ready from their living room and have them all unleash an unholy volley at the perpetrators.

America has sunk to an all time low. I can't even ask God to have mercy on us for this.

Posted by: mick romaine | June 26, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Mick I ask you ... when seconds count, a bad guy is in my house, (at night) and the police are minutes away, what do I do?

Posted by: baseballguy2001 | June 26, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Those who oppose the right to bear arms generally believe in the police to protect them. Ever try and depend on them for your safty? Ever call 911 with your safty at risk? Try working at a convience store unarmed all night. Try calling 911 and see what happens. Guess what? The seconds go by like minutes. Your heart races like derby horse.
I have worked in such a place, but I wasnt unarmed and helpless when I called 911.
911 is a reaction, not a prevention.

Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Great day for we true Americans!! The SCOTUS just affirmed what we Americains knew all along! The Bill of Rights is just that RIGHTS!! Not to be interpted, changed , negated or ignored!! Rights that do not change, can't be changed, should be reveared!! Thank God for the wisdom of our founding fathers!!!

Posted by: Greg | June 26, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

This issue is great. Unlike other issues, this one really shows how liberals are dumb. They can't even read a 4 word statement: shall not be infringed.

If you want to go somewhere without a 2nd Amendment, please get out of my country. Go move to France. Only the rich can have guns there, they don't trust the peasants with them.

Posted by: JB | June 26, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

mick romaine- your implication is that it would be wrong for a neighborhood to blast away criminal invaders performing violence, and lament that we have sunk somewhere... Um, so like, are you totally bummed out that you will have to WORK for you food and money now? Tough luck.

Posted by: ralphy | June 26, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

This is an excellent decision. Now, we can move forward with meaningful gun control without the NRA's hyperbole that any law violates an individual's right to protect himself/herself.

The Court leaves open laws to:

a. Restrict carrying a concealed weapons.
b. Denying licenses to felons and the mentally ill, which will permit continued use of background checks and wait periods.
c. Restrict automatic and assault weapons.

As I read the Court's decision, it upholds the right of an individual to have a weapon in his/her home for self protection. I assume they also permit weapons for hunting and other legal activities.

The NRA can no longer scream that the 2d Amendment is being violated by reasonable gun control laws. The licensing regulations can severely limit the circumstances under which an individual will be able to carry a weapon outside the home (e.g., job requirements [large cash deposits, etc] to/from hunting; target shooting; etc).

The "slippery slope" argument is now on the other foot.

Posted by: Chuck C. | June 26, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Virginia Tech ? where is that ?

Posted by: nil | June 26, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Chuck C
Yep it opens up the right to get rid of all those unconstitutional restrictions! Courts have already said the right to self protection goes beyond the home!! This descision say's we have the right to self protection! So yep the fun begins as you'll see with Chicago ,NYC, SF! SCOTUS has aready said the police are there to protect the individual so guess what that's my responsibility and oh by theway they have said I can use/carry a gun to do it!!!

Posted by: Greg | June 26, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Need to fix last post -SCOTUS ruled the the police "are not" there to protect the individual!!

Posted by: Greg | June 26, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

I want to play a game -LIBERALS? You ready?

O.K here's the game- since the SCOTUS has ruled the NON-US citizens have Constitutional rights! Does that mean all the illegal aliens now can own a gun? Are you worried yet? So this means all 20 million illegals have the same rights you and I have!! Still like those Liberal SCOTUS judges?

Posted by: Greg | June 26, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by Bob;

"I want to say again, gun crimes went DOWN in the time after the ban. The reason there is as much of it now as there is is the completely lax enforcement in surrounding areas, such as Virginia, which has gun shows any criminal could walk into and buy a assault rifle for cash with no questions asked."

If gun laws are so "lax" in Virginia and gun laws are the problem, then please explain why crime is so much lower in Virginia. Under your argument, shouldn't Virginia, with it's "lax" gun laws, have substantially higher murder rates than D.C., with it's "sensible regulations"?

The problem isn't the guns themselves. It lies with a criminal element and mentality that life means nothing and a criminal justice system that is altogether ineffective and tolerant of violent crime.

It's easy for politicians to fool the uninformed and naive(i.e. you)into believing that they're doing something by passing gun control measures that don't work.

And you can say as much as you want about crime going down after the ban, but you're dead wrong.Please do a little homework. It took me 8 seconds to Google it.The number of murders were higher in 23 of the 30 years after the ban took effect.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Posted by: Batman | June 26, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

what kind of alternate reality do you live in to not know that this is a welcome and long overdue change 4 law abiding citizens everywhere? bans like this only serve to help and protect the lawless. u can buy a used/new gun in any metropolitan city in an alley or from the vehicle of a trunk in under 30 minutes as long as u have the cash. the thugs that are skipping around gunning people down at will are not standing in line to purchase registered firearms that they're gonna use on someone and toss in the sewer.

thugs know most citizens are naked targets and treat them as such.

the low hanging fruit has just been elevated.

advantage, push.

it's your turn maryland.......

Posted by: gohan929 | June 26, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Do a little history research, and find 1 socity, country, etc. that has protected its citizens with a "ban" on weapons. It has failed miserably throughout history...because there is no deterrent, criminals will be doing their thing with the knowledge that we will not be armed, thus limiting our ability to defend.How about them apples? One city brags about a 6 minute responce time, while thats good, usually you have about 6 seconds or so, a phone, or your gun ? Yeah, we all know the answer to that. If you've ever been in the situation, you won't lie to yourself

Posted by: cryptic1 | June 26, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

You don't need a license to pray to your God. Nobody here had to get a license to share their thoughts. If you're anti-gun pass a constitutional amendment. Don't open the door to destroy the birthright of your freedom.

Posted by: msb | June 26, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Response to me by "I hate hillbillies":

"You must really like nicknames. Too bad that practice marginalizes any point you were trying to make. It is truly frightening but no surprise that someone with as little education as you wants to shoot people. When will people like you evolve with the rest of us? Neanderthal.

Posted by: I HATE HILLBILLIES | June 26, 2008 8:03 PM"

Too bad for you that your socialist, leftist, Communist, Democrap side did not win today. I hope you have many more losses.

FYI: I am VERY educated- I have a Master's degree. I also have a tour in Iraq under my belt, too. I also own over 25 firearms. I think I know a little bit about firearms, and I wasn't born nor did I buy them yesterday (although I bought 2 black rifles last week..). I also competitively compete in high-power rifle contests with the very firearms that the mal-informed, such as you, want banned.

MOLON LABE!!!

Posted by: HK-No Compromise | June 26, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

All of you against handguns, I hope you've never been under threat of an abusive spouse, or ever been raped.

Until you have been a victim of a violent crime, all the anti-gun folks have no room to talk in my opinion. A protection order document does little to comfort the women who are slain by their former partners.

I'm a former police officer and I support responsible gun owners.

Posted by: Kenny | June 27, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

"Guns take lives, they don't save them. It's said a lot but no one offers real evidence" Posted by 'D'

Guns don't do anything in and of themselves. Guns are a tool nothing more, nothing less. Criminals will always have them, the police will always have them, and law-abiding citizens should be allowed to have them. A police officer isn't sitting in your living room at 2AM when the above mentioned criminal comes knocking.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

I am not sure what is more depressing: The Supreme Court decision, or the majority of the comments here which support it. People need to get out of this country every once in awhile and look at it from the perspectives of the rest of the world. We are - rightly so - a joke when it comes to this issue. We have the most violent crime of any developed society and we wonder why. We wring our hands when we experience Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. as if we don't understand how this can happen. Is it really all that hard to figure out?

Why can't we learn some lessons from the UK regarding this issue? Let's place their stats next to ours and see which country looks better or feels safer? In 2001 The USA had 3.98 gun related homicides per 100K. The UK had 0.21. Why is gun control even an issue of disagreement for our society?!

And, we can't even read our Constitution correctly. Clearly the right to bear arms is a conditional right. Says so right there in the Second Amendment itself. And the condition? the need for militias. So, when did we last need a militia?!

Posted by: lonjax | June 27, 2008 12:36 AM | Report abuse

I love all these comments from suburban fat guys with small packages that have to own guns to feel manly.

On behalf of that demographic Justice Scalito, we thank you.

Posted by: Tom | June 27, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

If guns are such a threat to society why has the crime rate in gun friendly Virginia always been so much lower than in DC?

Posted by: Sam | June 27, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

In my career I have lived in seven different countries outside the U.S., including the UK. I have always felt safer in America than in any of these other places. In the country where I now live I am not permitted to own any type of firearm. For safety my family and I are supposed to rely on private security guards carring only night sticks and a corrupt and ineffective police force. Meanwhile, hundreds of people here are murdered every year by carjackers, cattle rustlers and other criminal gangs carrying military assault rifles, grenade launchers and other weapons they freely purchase on the black market. Even through the criminals know their victims can't resist they regularly kill in the course of their other crimes. I look forward to going back to the U.S. There I will feel safer because the criminals know I am able to fight back!

Posted by: Sam | June 27, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

I see alot of references to the Police being there to defend the streets, and it is simply not true. I work for a police dept and I can tell you 99% of the time, we don't even know anything has happened until it's all over with. Legally, the police have no obligation to protect, even though people spit out protect and serve like it's cool. Basically, we provide assistance to victims, investigation of said crime, and do our best to bring the perpetrators to justice. I am glad they finally made the decision to uphold the Constitution and our 2nd Amendment freedoms. Unarmed, law abiding people are easy prey for criminals. It's the same reason you don't let a de-clawed cat go outside...because he can't defend himself. All this talk of the wild west mentality has been brought up a million times over the years as different states passed carry permit laws, and all of the cries and worries never materialized. Today the supreme court gave the left wing antigun libocommies a very firm "Oh No You Don't!"

Posted by: Ky GunMan | June 27, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

Tom said:
"I love all these comments from suburban fat guys with small packages that have to own guns to feel manly.

On behalf of that demographic Justice Scalito, we thank you."

I salute your impeccable logic and ability to present your arguments cogently and succinctly. You are a credit to your point of view.

Posted by: Bill Mosby | June 27, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

All the criminals own illegal guns people, they will still have them both before and after the ban. Finally, our supreme court has made the right decision on something!!!

Posted by: John J | June 27, 2008 2:59 AM | Report abuse

Chuck C said: The licensing regulations can severely limit the circumstances under which an individual will be able to carry a weapon outside the home (e.g., job requirements [large cash deposits, etc] to/from hunting; target shooting; etc).

So you are saying that money is worth more than a person's life? If one should be allowed to carry a gun to protect large cash deposits but not one's life, then that IS what you are saying. So, tell me, how much is your life worth? How much is the life of your wife or your child worth?

Posted by: SK | June 27, 2008 3:13 AM | Report abuse

The situation in DC proves that gun control doesn't work any better than our drug laws or the alcohol prohibition of the 1920's. As for the murder rate of the US, the sad fact is that about 48% of all murder victims and about 52% of all persons arrested for murder come from one group that has had to suffer 250 years of slavery, followed by 100 years of Jim Crow, followed by 50 years of broken promises, dashed hopes, failed social programs, and political exploitation by the left. But, nobody wants to really address the poverty and hopelessness of inner city neighborhoods that are the true causes of crime. Remove those neighborhoods and their crime from the statistics, and the US has a murder rate for the rest of the country that is comparable to Europe.

Now, we know where the problem really lies, but I am not hopeful that we will do anything about it. Too many Democrats have made too much political hay from the existing situation, and too many Republicans just don't care about poor people. And, nobody wants to spend the money to really address the problems of the inner cities. They would rather blame inanimate objects and people who own them but never commit a crime with them.

Posted by: TexasFats | June 27, 2008 3:39 AM | Report abuse

| Violent Society wrote on June 26, 2008 7:31 PM | According to many of the NRA supporters in here, guns are the only way to keep our families and our nation safe. To those of you who actually believe this, it is time to stop living in fear. Otherwise, you might as well just turn your guns on yourselves. |

To which I say, those who are well armed have no reason to live in fear.

Posted by: SK | June 27, 2008 4:52 AM | Report abuse

| gunsrgreat June 26, 2008 7:27 PM | Chances of accidently killing a
child with a gun:

Homes w/Guns v. Home w/out Guns:

Homes w/guns: 100%

Homes w/out guns: 0 | To which I would like to point out that the chance of a child being killed by a car is 19 TIMES greater than that of being killed by a gun. Why not get rid of cars since they claim 19 TIMES as many lives as guns do?

Posted by: SK | June 27, 2008 5:02 AM | Report abuse

Comment from Norway. You guys are crazy, maybe not as individuals, but collectivly you come thru as nutjobs, to most of us in europe anyway.. I think you should follow the ex NRA leader, Charlton Hestons "advice", from his cold dead hands... (rip, by the way)
Or Chris Rocks advise, every bullit should cost 5000 dollars..

Posted by: Fredrik | June 27, 2008 5:39 AM | Report abuse

I will take back what I have said in the past regarding the Supreme Courts obvious inability to READ the CONSTITUTION! Whether you like it or not, it says what it says!

Now one must wonder why the opposing justices are allowed to commit blatant Dereliction of Duty and remain in office!

Should of been a SLAM DUNK with all nine in agreement!

Posted by: James Jenkins | June 27, 2008 5:45 AM | Report abuse

Greetings:

Along with this Supreme Court ruling, there also needs to be a drastic change in the morality of the populace here in the District of Columbia, in order to successfully rekindle the eternal flame of liberty.

We citizens have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, and the purpose of our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States is to severely restrict the power of government.

The Second Amendment exists to guarantee that we, the people, always possess the means to rise up and violently overthrow our government.

I found it wryly amusing that as soon as the Supreme Court announced their decision, Mayor Fenty immediately held a press conference announcing his intentions to continue deliberately circumventing the Constitution and further impose tyranny upon the residents of the District of Columbia.

We don't just need firearms in our residences, but also in our vehicles, and on our persons.

We must remember the commandment given to us by Jesus Christ, as stated in the Thirty-Sixth Verse of the Twenty-Second Chapter of the Gospel According to Luke.

Personally, I feel our society would be safer and more courteous if everyone was armed all of the time, everywhere they went.

Under those circumstances, it would be impossible for violent criminals and terrorists to operate in our midst.

Because of the tendency of elected and appointed government officials to violate their pledges, ignore the Constitution, or flout the law, privately owned firearms should not be registered.

Thank you.

Posted by: John Robert Mallernee | June 27, 2008 6:00 AM | Report abuse

... I am in Canada, so in the minds of many US citizens, I am dim-witted and ignorant of the issues. Perhaps I am both, but one thing I know for certain: this ridiculous court reversal, along with the on-going and insane love and devotion of guns for personal use, held by many of your fellow citizens, contines to place the US at the extreme end of the lunatic fringe in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Posted by: david f watts | June 27, 2008 6:53 AM | Report abuse

In the Post story of today, is this statement, "But the majority declined to set a level of scrutiny by which judges should evaluate the constitutionality of gun restrictions that governments may set." This shows that the battle is still not over and if the liberals win the election they will nominate more liberal justices and gut this ruling of today, because the main battle is going to be in the court's opinion of the level of scruting the courts (federal and state) must take of any law or bureaucratic ruling that seeks to restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms.

In other words, will a future Supreme Court case decide that 2nd Amendment cases should be decided based on the basis of (1) a "strict scrutiny," meaning any government attempt to restrict individual rights in this area is automatically to be held inherently suspect annd unconstitutional unless something like grave national security is at stake or laws and regulations that discriminate on the basis of race or spoken free speech; (2) or an "intermediate scrutiny" meaning any government attempt to restrict individual rights to keep and bear arms is to be held mostly suspect by the courts, with the government having to pass a high hurdle in order to restrict arms --like laws that discriminate on the basis of gender or symbolic free speech; (3) or an enhanced scrutiny meaning that governments have to face much less scrutiny and suspicion from the courts as they pass laws and regulations that restrict the right to keep and bear arms --like laws that discriminate on the basis of age or commercial free speech.

"We the People" won half a loaf--recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms, but not the other half, which is the level of scrutiny by the courts over any attempt to restrict that individual right. Obviously, it should be a "strict scrutiny." but if the liberals prevail in the presidency, Congress and eventually in the courts, they may set an individual level of scrutiny or even an enhanced level of scrutiny, thus allowing more and more restrictions by federal, state and local governments on the individual right to keep and bear arms.


Posted by: James Whitney | June 27, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

"...contines to place the US at the extreme end of the lunatic fringe in the eyes of the rest of the world."


Mr. Watts, so what? That fact, if it is one, doesn't faze me one bit. Americans are individuals. If you want to join a popularity contest, go ahead. Drone on brother.

Posted by: Lunatic Love | June 27, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse

I've read a lot here about a wide range of opinions concerning guns and people that own, carry, use, oppose, guns. I for one will continue to support the right of every citizen, where ever to own and keep their weapon. If a person isn't authorized to posess due to legal restrictions I omly hope they don't build a ZIP (remember) gun to do some evil deed. if they do I then hope someone is close and blows away the scum before they can do their act of claim to fame. DC citizens now has the right to protect their self from the scum that has ruled in the city for the last thirty years. Maybe you in DC should consider reinstatement of death for people who commit violent crimes. Work on the right to carry outsude the home so you have some real self defence. Give me the right to carry when I visit my Nations Capital so I can feel safe.

Posted by: Free Free Thank God I'm Free | June 27, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Dodge City here we come.
We could bring back dueling.
Shoot outs at the OK Corral.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

I predict home invasions drop in DC by at least 50% this year. I also predict the Washington Post won't write an article about it. However, I also predict the first drunken idiot with a lawfully obtained and registered DC firearm that shoots himself or his wife will be splashed across page one for three days.

Posted by: Joe | June 27, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

The decision was based on whether or not the second amendment refers to an individual right or a collective right (state sponsored only). One is hard pressed to argue the latter, when the same wording, "the people", as used in the second amendment, is also used in the first and fourth amendments. There is no argument that the phrase, as used in the first and fourth amendments, clearly refers to an individual right. Why then would the same people, using the same words, imply a totally different meaning or context to the phrase in the second amendment? It just is not logical.

Many people I talk to still think that gun ownership should be banned despite the ruling, and that's fine. But what you are really saying is that you don't agree with the second amendment. That it is obsolete and no longer applies in our present day society. So to those people I say, fine, then work on changing the constitution. But don't try to change the meaning of currently written text in order to suit your agenda or goals, when it is clear as to it's intent and scope.

Posted by: Bud | June 27, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

This ruling reaffirmed only half of the second ammendment. I would like to see proactive government sponsorship of training all people to handle the weapons aright. Thanks to the NRA and other groups! They encourage training in respectful gun ownership throughout the recent decades of government withdrawel from this responsibility, while our government only bickers over legality.
The leaders of our country, who truly love it and its people, ought to encourage responsible gunownership by fulfilling the second half of the 2nd with focus on training through increased availability of classes and competitions nationwide.

Posted by: Xaver. | June 27, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Wow!! There sure are some choice comments made when the Supreme Court (or at least those judges who ethically read the Constitution for what it says) finally come out and support the Second Amendment.

This is precious - "Why should the individual worry about their protection when their (there) is a system in place to manage that? Posted by: kballa | June 26, 2008 11:27 AM"

Is that choice or what???? Why would anyone want to protect himself/herself? The author evidently believes that everyone should be so dependent upon government, that even the basic drive to survive needs to be squelched. Let someone else protect you and your loved ones. Heck, we common people are too stupid and careless to be trusted with our own protection. Better to have a crime for "the system" to solve than to have prevented it in the first place. I just can't understand that kind of reasoning.

Gun-free zones have only been shown to empower the criminal and put the law-abiding citizen at tremendous disadvantage. Just look at DC, public schools, shopping malls. The list is too long.

It is interesting that the liberals/socialsts believe that all the rest of the amendments apply to individuals, but not the second.

As far as the rest of the world looking upon the U.S. as being uncivilized, why don't the people who believe this move to one of those other countries and really enjoy the full fruits of that country's civility?

Posted by: jbatc | June 27, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

If you follow the same logic that some of the more liberal thinking individuals have concerning gun ownership in the home, you would assume they don't have a fire extinguisher in their home because we have a fire department to handle our fire emergencies.

Posted by: common sense | June 27, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

To Bob,
Please leave Virigina.

Posted by: Mike | June 27, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

This is decision loses more of its "wow factor" every time you re-read it.
It has complex -- and often baffling -- logic, but it's conclusion is easy to state:
The Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning gun ownership for self-protection in the home.
That's it.
In many ways, the logic is similar to previous rulings on contraceptives, sodomy and abortion -- governmental regulatory power stops at the "welcome home" mat.
But was it a resounding victory for gun rights?
It set a low floor. One may have guns in the home. But the government can still put on restrictions on the size, shape, caliber, power, manufacturer, sale, purchase -- and the time, date and manner of those things.
While the court may have eloquently defended guns in the home, it's not exactly the same as those cases of private personal conduct mentioned above.
We take our sexuality and reproductive potential with us wherever we go.
But we have to acquire a firearm.
I predict that cities and states, and Congress, will move to put even great restrictions on the manufacturers, importers and sellers of guns.
There may be a constitutional right to keep and bear arms at home, but there is no concomitant right to manufacture, distribute or sell firearms.
You may have your rights at home, but how does that gun get into the home? It must down a long chain of intra- and interstate commerce -- through the regulated economy -- to the front door.
New regulatory efforts will focus there.
Look for proposals of gun show bans, gun store zone-outs, manufacturing prohibitions, confiscatory ammunition taxes, stiffer penalties for carrying a weapon in public/nonhome spaces, debates over the definition of home (your car, the court has already ruled, is not your home) and other novel ideas now that regulating home use has been clearly prohibited.

Posted by: Ego Nemo | June 27, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Bud:

So, "the people" in the first and fourth amendments means that only a collective group has the right to free speech, freedom to exercise one's religion, freedom of one to participate in an assembly, freedom of one to petition the government regarding a grievance, or barring the government against unlawfully search and seizing one's property?

Under your interpretation, no one would have the freedom to exercise their religion, practice free speech, petition the government against grievances, or rebuff a government's unlawful searches and seizure unless they were part of a collective group. Moreover, under your reading, the individual would have no personal rights at all. I'm quite confident the founders intended the rights quoted above be to the individual.

Posted by: Lloyd | June 27, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

For those of you who believe gun restrictions lower crime, why, in DC, have gun related murders actually risen, rather than fallen in the decades since the ban was enacted? According to the Post, in 1976, when the ban was passed, DC had 136 murders. Last year, that number rose to 145. I would bet that had the Post done more research, most of those murders were committed with illegally obtained firearms. So, the ban would have no effect, whatsoever, on those murders. Instead, the ban only effects law abiding citizens, and I would bet law abiding citizens aren't much of the vigilante sort.

Posted by: James | June 27, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

To those of you from other countries, we prefer to do what we think is right rather than try to be liked by everybody else in the world. I'm sure there's a thing or two we find crazy about the way you do things. And some of us say so from time to time. No worries.

Posted by: Bill Mosby | June 27, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

"Fetish"? "Uncivilized"? :)) What a bunch of idiots. And stop pretending you love children more than the people who realize that the bill of rights is a RESTRICTION on the government's right to interfere with people's rights.

And who ELSE is more civilized? Europe? Asia? Study their history. Far more brutal and violent than modern America. with 280+ million(!) guns floating around in America, the murder rate is extremely low when compared to other countries. Imagine any other country with such a high number and then you'll see how law-abiding most "gun nuts" are. Its the suicides that push "gun deaths" into a much higher bracket.

If you're a liberal and against racism, shouldn't you be more worried about unilateral disarmament..when only neo-nazis are running around with their powerful weapons? Its the stable, respectable citizens who should be leading the way with bringing sanity to the concept of gun-ownership. (instead of pretending that guns "cause mortality between citizens"..as someone put it here. :)) )

Posted by: Raj | June 27, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

We have very strict legislation controlling guns here in Canada - it doesn't amount to an outright ban, but it's close. However, Canadians don't feel they have less liberty and freedom as a result - in fact, it's a non-issue. I can tell you with certainty however, our murder rate is a tiny fraction per capita than yours. Go figure.

Posted by: Mark | June 27, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

If arming of honest citizens were so scary to law enforcement, why would our local police detective be giving these CCW classes and encouraging folks to attend? Why would he ask me, who passed his course a year ago, if I wanted to go to the range with the class and join in? Becasue he knows that an honest citizen with a gun is no threat to him or his fellow officers, nor to the public at large. Sneak theiving has not gone down, but confrontational crimes have dropped. The bad guys want your money and your valuables, but not bad enough to get shot for it. Nuff said.

Posted by: Enigma | June 27, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Canada, most fo your country is a wasteland and you have only a tiny fraction of the population we do. Add a few billion and see what happens when you can't defend yourself against any who want to take your money, your wife, or your life. Then sob and cry because your government let you down.

Posted by: Enigma | June 27, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

To anyone who feels "ashamed" or "embarressed" by yesterday's ruling - you are welcome to leave. In my view, if you don't embrace the second amendment along with all the rest, you're a sorry excuse of an "American". Get out of my country! >:-\

Posted by: Mark | June 27, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday's 5-4 margin is TOO CLOSE for comfort. Its in the long-term interests of the rural/white gun-owners, to realize that the economic blight affecting the inner cities and the black community have direct bearing on your own fundamental rights.

Here in virginia, the number of firearms-related deaths is twice as high for blacks; injury rate is NINE times higher. This should explain why DC has such severe gun laws, which came so close to derailing the rights of all citizens.

Vote for programs and policies that would help improve the living conditions of black folks, who face subtle and overt racism at every turn and the doors of opportunity SHUT on their faces. This has...(so obviously) a DIRECT bearing on your own rights.

Posted by: Raj | June 27, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

... Lunatic Love asks ... "So what?", and I will endeavour to explain to you 'so what'. The world beyond your borders cares. It cares because it is part of the global community and as such, decisions made by one member have a direct effect on the others. It is called 'community' and being 'in community'.

... you have shown your dislike of such a notion, through your claim that "Americans are individuals", and be assured, the rest of the world hears your plea quite clearly. Such an isolated claim would be an acceptable attitude if it were only a matter of preference. Unfortunately, the reality is much more complex. If it were merely a case of the professed isolation of one country - your own - in the midst of the wider community, it could be overlooked as a quaint anomaly. But the fact is the USA has given the lie to its cry for individualism by virtue of its overt intentional practice of extending its influence and authority beyond its borders, and its expectation of those 'other countries' which are beyond its borders to yield their own autonomy in favour of an accommodation of the desires of the USA.

... citizens of the United States would do well to learn that they can't have it both ways. They can either be individuals in the face of the global community, thereby abdicating any claim and right to influence abroad, or they can enjoy their enormous power and influence globally and take responsibility for the effects thereof.

... this all comes down to the case of individual gun ownership in that such issues do not respect borders; gun ownership laws become real and intensive at international border crossings, or with respect to international travel, or in the matter of social impact and influence transmitted by the media and entertainment industry, or through the impasse such issues bring about in international negotiations. The choice to be segregated and individualistic may be a defensible social position in theory, but in the age of a borderless world, it is quite impossible to defend in practice.

... by all means, make and break whichever laws you wish, in the belief those laws only have application within your own boundaries, but make no mistake: the itch you scratch on your own arm today will develop into a rash all over the body of many others tomorrow.

Posted by: david f watts | June 27, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

"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."

To me, this says: militias are vital to security. Militias are groups of individuals who can muster armed force. Militias, in order to be effective, rely on individuals who own guns, who know how to use them. Thus, individuals shall be allowed to own (and bear) arms so that these citizens may be available to a militia should the need arise. If people couldn't own their own weapons, they couldn't form a useful militia.

If the framers were protecting the rights of states to have militias, they would have written just that - "the State's right to form and arm an independent militia" would have been sufficient. No need to give rights to "the people" if they didn't mean to give them this right.

Posted by: rh | June 27, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Ha ha fruity libs!

Posted by: Tim | June 27, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

The constitution is a living, breathing document. As we evolve as a people so must our laws.

The 2nd and 4th ammendment alike put as at great risk. The framers of the constitution lived in a world where acts of violence were few and far between.

By repealing the 2nd, 4th and possibly 10th ammendment, we can ensure the safety of our families and loved ones.

It's time to bring this antiquated document (bill of rights/constitution) into the 21st century.

Posted by: Morton | June 27, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

So in view of two face liberal extremist
Democrat Gun Grabber Barack Hussein Obama
Pro-Gun Control Record and Lies therefore
like the late NRA President Heston said,
"Only from my cold dead hands" will you
Gun Grabber Barack Hussein Obama and all
you fanatic young Obamafools and old Democrat Liberal Obamabots take my guns
away from me. Vote No To Gun Grabber Democrat Barack Hussein Obama and every
Incumbent Gun Grabber Democrat in 2008!
NOBAMA! No Way Barack Hussein Obama!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | June 27, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

I could only stomach a few of the comments by those who obviously live in an idealistic world. Tell ya what; you pony up enough to guarantee me and every other law abiding citizen that no criminal in this country will have a handgun, and I MAY consider giving mine up. Until then, sit in your circles at the coffee shop and discuss how highly evolved you are while the real world exists around you.

Posted by: Phil | June 27, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Ralph,

I think that your distrust of the government is unpatriotic. The only way our children can be safe is by centralizing power and granting them a monopoly on firearms ownership. We as a people elect them and they will keep us safe.

Posted by: Thomas | June 27, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I seriously can't understand why any law abiding citizen would fear its own government, especially that of America.

If they want to listen in on my calls and emails, please, I'm not a terrorist.I have nothing to hide. I'm also not a drug dealer so why would I need an uzi? To shoot a duck?

The real world is that not everyone is out to get you. Our elected officials are doing their best to keep us safe and some of us do appreciate this.

Posted by: Laura | June 27, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Good someone other than the criminals (to include the DC Govermnent i.e. mayor, council, Marion Barry, Jack Evans and DC Gov. finance employees), can protect themselves. Come vist without a invite, goodbye.

Posted by: dossier | June 27, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Only TYRANTS are fearful of an armed citizenry. The crime argument comes only from those who do not understand very well that criminals are ALWAYS armed; they are called OUTLAWS because they break the law! The greatest danger to a free nation, is to be disarmed when the RUTHLESSNESS of despots besets the weak and innocent! Sic Semper Tyrannus!!! (motto - Commonwealth VA)

Posted by: TonyPony | June 27, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Where does E.J. Dionne get off saying the majority was false to its conservative roots and ignored original intent? I have read the opinion, don't know if E.J. did, and find the majority's historical interpretation of the meaning to be well-informed, especially when it comes to the pre-exisiting rights in England of individuals. The dissent's view, to a historian, just ignores too much.

For E.J., if he doesn't like the result, he attacks the bona fides of the justices, not the reasoning of the opinion. Small-minded.

Posted by: Foozler | June 27, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Look, regardless of what the constitution may or may not say, guns sometimes just go off and kill kids. We'd all be so much safer if people couldn't own them. The only people who should own guns are the police and the military.

A lot of the constitution and the bill of rights is outdated and flawed. It's time to do a little editing. The reactionary idiots will eventually get over it.

Posted by: Bob | June 27, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"The crime argument comes only from those who do not understand very well that criminals are ALWAYS armed....."

Because they just walk into gun stores, buy machine guns and cop killer bullets and then turn our cities into the OK coral. Maybe you don't understand how reality works.

Posted by: Marjorie | June 27, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

water is found in three states: Liquid State, Vapor State, and Solid State. Man is found in two (living) States: Free State and Slave State. So, the expression Free State in the 2nd A is used as a fully armed population being necessary to the security of FREEDOM, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We have 20,000 infringements on the books. It is no more difficult to solve than saying "criminally misuse an arm, and be executed." Then freedom is safe, crims are gone to better things, and we can get to the mundane and important, and frivolous...

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I personally support gun control on all levels. Protection from crime?

Why do you live in a ghetto? Haven't you done anything with your life? If you live in fear of people hurting you then maybe you should go to school and get a job that pays better then minimum wage.

I'm safe in my home. What scares me is the idea of my son going over to a friend's house and accidentally shooting himself with some idiot's shotgun.

Posted by: Janet | June 27, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

This just in!! Every poll that I've found, including that of the Washington Post, says that the majority agrees with the Supreme Court's ruling. So I guess you elitist leftist are out to argue that the opinions few should supersede the opinions of the many. That comes as no surprise coming from the only party with "super" delegates.

Posted by: Jake | June 27, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Marjorie- I just saw your insipide propaganda parrot comment. "cop killer bullets"- what brand makes that? Is it a patented design? Pure emotion driving drivel to confuse tiny brained simpleton scaredy cats like you. Well, guess what, it is a real word out there, and there are real criminals, Are you going to defend your SELF? Or continue to be an incessant whiner twerp even after the court has spoken? Shut UP.

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Watts,

Wow, that's pretty deep. Did you also know that a butterfly's flutter ultimately causes the tsunamis in this global community of ours? How should we address that issue?

Posted by: Lunatic Love | June 27, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Janet. To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less what happens in crime infested slums. If some degenerate wants to shoot another, well, fine by me.

My daughter goes to a private school where some students/parents hunt. I'm terrified that some kid may bring his daddy's uzi into school and someone will get hurt. I don't think that anyone should have guns except for the police.

Posted by: Renee | June 27, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Ralph,

Are you just pretending to be that stupid?

Cop killer bullets are hollow and full of explosives. They blow up whatever they hit. I don't know much about guns but even I know that.

The NRA has made them legal, for what? Hunting? They are the weapon of choice for gangs and terrorists. They put us all at risk.

Posted by: Marjorie | June 27, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

So let me get this straight BOB, you want a police state where we all sit around defenseless against the whims of our government because somebody may have an accident? If you extend that logic, we should ban cars, motorcycles, pools, and skateboards. More kids actually die using those then firearms. This isn't about the kids, you're just spineless

Posted by: nusster | June 27, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse


What is up with people continuing to bring up the Virginia Tech shooting!

The guy was insane, but a lack of funding prevented his name from showing up on a background check.

And now, lets look at this carefully.

In walks this guy and he caps the instructor right away...

Then he turns to the class and starts firing away. There are 30 people in the room now if just one of them were to rush and tackle the guy or if 2 were to throw their textbooks or laptops at the guy, we would be seeing a totally different outcome with maybe two or three injured and one or two wounded, not thirty bodies!

The fact is that America has become so passive. Those students cowered under their desks as he walked around fatally shooting everyone.

It is our inate responsibility to defend ourselves. on 9-11 the popular term "Lets-Roll" had meaning and I heard it in precarious situatons while under fire in Iraq.

There is a difference between people who cower powerlessly at the hands of another and those who haven't.

I'll also argue that many of the people in the US being obese is just an extension of this passiveness. If a woman is cornered to be raped, who is going to have a fighting chance, a fit woman who can rip the guys balls off and run away (after curb stomping his ass of course), or an obese 'cowbell' who can barely pick themselves off the floor or walk up the stairs without being out of breath.

Overall this is not about the ruling...
For those of you that don't like it, hey all you need is 2/3 of the states to pass an amendment. Which might be difficult being that over 30 have enacted concealed carry laws with a noticeable reduction in violent crime.

The ruling is narrow in scope, so know we know we can "keep" arms, but it is going to take me getting arrested when concealed Carrying to get a Supreme Court rulling of what it means to "bear" arms.

This ruling was only one implication of the rights being infringed, there are many more, and it will take case after case to bring all options to the Supreme Court to be reviewed.

I have read all of the posts up to 9:51 AM.
it amazes me that some could call this "legislating from the bench" each of the Justices takes an oath and they take it very seriously, It was close, but in the closeness it reflects the people of the US. the last few elections, congressional and presidential have been "close". This poll, although not "close" indicates the average Americans perception of what the 2A actually gives us.

Someone above mentioned that members of the government should be the only ones. Well I vote, in elections, serve in the Army Reserve, does that not make me a part of the government... Oh yes I work for Department of ____________ (Insert favorite nonviolent department here).

I am pleased that we will now have the crime statistics for all of these cities, Detroit, NYC, San Francisco, DC, Chicago. practically all at the same time. But how long will it take to say that crime is droping (likely), stagnate(low likelihood), or rising (unlikely bloodbath). So what conditions do we need to base the statistics on... How was the prior data collected? Do we need to account for an economy going down the toilet, alcohol purchases going up, or the racial composition of an area.

I'm a white man living in a black neighborhood I love my neighbors, they sit on their porches at night and in the morning say hello as I walk my dog, and have learned my name. Do they know that I carry protection, nope... do they need to know... nope...

I will not be a sheep, I will be a watchdog. God forbid I ever have to take another man's life, but also forbid that I am not in the right place at the right time to save one of my dear neighbors.

Not a Criminal Anymore
NW DC 20002

Posted by: Not A Criminal Anymore, NorthWest DC | June 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

A few points::

1.The Civilized world? What paper are they reading? Can't be paying attention to world violence! ie
- France is burning
- Israel daily bombings
- Rwanda mass murder
- Zimbabwe one man, one vote, get shot

2.Why do they think "help is coming"?
- Criminals and sickies break into your house
- Everybody doesn't live in gated communities
- Cops just show up to put on the "toe-tag"
- Most people have to defend themselves or die

3.The Wild West Is No Longer cause for self defense
- Yeah, now it's the WILD, WILD WORLD, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha
- Take a walk on 125th and Lennox

4.Armed Neighbors may SAVE my life, my wife and my property
- I've seen some really bad plastic knife wounds in my time

5.Lastly, but MOST IMPORTANT
- It is dangerous to be RIGHT wnen the Gov't is WRONG!
- ...after a long train of abuses it becomes necessary...
- he that give up his sword for a plow, will plow for his masters

God Bless America!

Posted by: TonyPony | June 27, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

If you look at the studies made of states that issue CCW permits and those that dont you will see the murder rate by firearm is actually lower. In MD, they will issue you a CCW permit to protect your $$$ but not you or your families life. Most crimes take place in moments and i do not want to wait minutes for the police to show up. I believe everyone has the right to a safe and free environment to live and raise a family. I am a law abidding citizen who doesnt have that right. Criminals dont care about the law but that same law prevent me from defending my family. Go figure.

to those who say the USA is " uncivilized" for allowing people to own firemarms, I say guns dont kill people kill.

Posted by: Matt | June 27, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

This is a sad day for America.

As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion but not to you own facts. The ratio of accidental, suicidal, and criminal deaths from guns as compared to justifiable homicides in self-defense is 43 to 1. If you take out suicides, it's still 2.39 to 1.

See Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay ("Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986)

The gun lobby likes to mock these figures. They like to presume that without guns, people would commit suicide at the same rate. But suicide needs both motive and method, and the presence of a gun helps.

You can say, well, "Criminals and the insane shouldn't get guns." But before an employee shoots his co-workers (as happened on Wednesday), he wasn't a criminal or insane.

It's only on TV where all criminals have a gun. In the real world, they have to buy them, and it's not as easy as looks on the screen -- especially for teens. The more guns in circulation -- which this ruling will help increase -- the higher the supply, and the lower the cost, and the easier it is for criminals to buy them on the black market.

Now, with this ruling, every future criminal -- those who haven't been convicted yet -- can waltz right up to a store, buy a gun, and get a license. Then they can shave off the serial number and rob the store the next day.

I feel safer already ...

Posted by: A.D., Connecticut | June 27, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I believe in reasonable gun control. I think that DC pushed this issue to far. Had they not banned guns in individual homes I do not think this case would have gone to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, given that when our Constitution was drafted there was a revolution the term militia can be seen as meaning the people rather than an organizied group such as the states.

Posted by: Frank | June 27, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Since 1975 when the ban was first put in place, homicide's have been decreasing. D.C police appeared to be so aggresive in getting guns off the street. For those who support the abolishment of the Ban, do you feel that homicides will increase?

Posted by: Bryce | June 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Matt,

Protecting your family is an honorable and understable desire, but please consider two things:

1. If everyone has a gun, criminals will actually be MORE liekly to break into houses when it appears no one is home (e.g., no cars where there are usually two), in order to steal guns they can't legally buy -- and it's quite possible your kids will be home by themselves when that happens.

2. If people kill people, and guns don't kill people, then why do more people die from guns than being stranggled with bare hands? Why is it that in countries in Europe that have many of the same Western values, but also have strict gun laws, there are so many fewer homocide deaths?

Is it because Americans are just more violent? I doubt it. Access for law-abiding citizens like you also helps criminals.

We'd all be better off if we simply supported our men and women in uniform, who, with the badge and top-notch training, can stop crime before it occurs.

-A.D.

Posted by: @Matt | June 27, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

in response to matt. most people are cowards they will not confront someone to strangle them its the same with the internet. say what you want on the internet but keep your mouth shut in person. and as far as fewer homicides in othr countries most of them we will never hear about and the numbers are wrong on that account. if you think americans are violent try going to other countries and not just to the tourist areas. and by the way criminals like to enter homes that are empty because they are cowards at heart and the thought of confronting a home owner whether they have a gun or some other weapon is not appealling to them.

Posted by: robert | June 27, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

This is just the latest chapter in the country's neurotic fixation on firearms. It is, to some extent, a reflection of our national character ... and it's not pretty.

Posted by: Innocent Bystander | June 27, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

The 2nd amendment does NOT establish an individual right. OUR security (as a country, as a free society) requires, when needed, an organized civilian force with arms, a militia (that was then), and for THAT purpose, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So the language is awkward. So what! The meaning is clear. Now since militias turned out to be practically useless militarily and were abandoned in favor of regular uniformed forces by the the early-mid 19th century, that is, over 150 years ago, the 2nd amendment is MEANINGLESS.

The Constitution is SILENT, SAYS NOTHING, on whether individuals have a right to have guns to hunt, defend themselves or engage in target sports. Our heritage of liberty laid out in the Declaration of Independence says that GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN to secure the rights we have been endowed with--the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and for many people, pursuing these rights includes personal possession and use of guns.

Yes, we have a right to own and use guns as citizens and our government is supposed to secure that right. THE CONSTITUTION AS A WHOLE FORMS OUR GOVERNMENT AND IT SECURES THE RIGHTS WHICH INCLUDE PERSONAL OWNERSHIP OF GUNS. THIS MEANS TWO THINGS: THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT, I REPEAT, DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND SECOND, LIKE OTHER RIGHTS, THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL POSSESSION AND USE OF GUNS CAN BE ABRIDGED, MODIFIED, REGULATED, CHANGED IF WE, THROUGH OUR GOVERNMENT (S), DECIDE IT IS IN OUR INTERESTS TO DO THAT. The legal basis of challenging the D.C. handgun ban by claiming the 2nd amendment establishes an 'unabridgable' individual right to keep and use guns is WRONG, a radical activist judicial corruption of the constitution and a triumph for NRA shills.

Posted by: Philip W. Appel | June 27, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Bob 6/26/08 at 3:09, Russoline at 3:12
where are you getting your info from? I agree with you the homicide munbers have drop since the late 1980's and early 1990's however, the average number of murders per year hasn't drop in the 30 year since the Ban and only 6 times has it gone below the 192 murders in 1977 and as far a the overall violent crime dropping. Have you watch the HBO series THE WIRE the police department does jook the stats, in fact I believe this paper up out an article about MPD doing just that. you see, those stat about other crimes beside murders can be changed to lesser crimes just to show the appearance the police doing their job. but you can't change a murder the is a body you can't jook that. take a look at the link below and see for yourself if you think the Ban worked. Also note that the population of the city has declined over that same time period. take a look.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
well the link didn't open but that's the site.

I think the biggest problem is not the guns it's the way in which our childern are raised today the lack of fathers in the household and babies raising babies alot of these childern have no respect for others or life in general because our society teach that, with video games, tv and the media a murder in DC doesn't effect these childern because society see it a common place it's not a shock until it hits home. they can see and person with their head blow off and walk by and go about their business, even if they have never seen it with their own eyes before in person they seen it daliy in our society via the internet and tv so their attitude is " man that mess up oh well i don't know them" RAISE YOUR CHILDERN OR THE STREETS AND SOCIETY WILL

Posted by: LRE | June 27, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

P.W. Appel, thanks for your legal interpretation. In case you didn't realize, just recently a majority opinion from the highest court in the land interpreted the 2nd Amendment differently than your interpretation. Thus, you are the one who is wrong. It really is that simple.

Posted by: Monday Morning Justices | June 27, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Hey Marjorie.. I had a plumbing call- Um, there is no brand name "cop killer bullets" there are various types of bullet conficurations... Like the semi-wad cutter is basically a slug- it has no aerodynamic shape- it is merely for cutting a clean hole in paper so you know you hit the target. There are som bullets designed for hunting. They 'mushroom' on impact- making the wound channel larger for faster bleed out- and thus a quick kill. No bullet in history was ever designed for killing cops. Any person with the money and equipment to be designing bullets would much prefer the cops BUY the bullets. So really, they would be criminal killer bullets. You describe artillery pieces. I saw an episode of st elsewhere where one of your supposed exploding bullets detonated in a patient in the ER. GARBAGE. Science fiction!!! If nitroglycerine or what ever chemical substance were put into bullet tips to explode on impact, the user would be killed prior to firing a round. Like I said the expression is the creation of people skilled at manipulating fools like you who do not know facts, and believe whomever can get your emotional state aroused. You are the sort that fell for Hitler's speeches in tiny places with the effect of a few folks looking like a crowd, and so they followed.... the folks you follow are evil anti-Americans. Defend yourself, or not, who cares- We are still free!

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Yes, MMJ, Appel is, now, unfortunately, incorrect in the eyes of the majority of the SCOTUS. He is still correct, however, if you don't buy Scalia's manipulative language -- Scalia's been waiting his whole career to pull a fast one like this.

If you read the opinion (please do if you haven't yet) you'll see many sleight's of hand.

Here's a couple of examples:

1. The first clause, Scalia says, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state ..." does not affect or change or limit in any way the rest of the Amendment. What he's saying is basically: half of the amendment is just there for decoration, to announce intentions, but has no legal weight. That's bogus constitutional law.

2. Scalia takes "State" from "...security of a free State..." and then does this:

State = Polity and Polity = People

Therefore, State = People. QED.

The amendment was written so individual states, N.Y., Delaware, etc. could call up and train militias to protect against the tyranny of either Britain or our own federal governement. It was basically a way to allow states to keep their own armies, for dire circumstnaces, as they had before independence.

As the dissent noted the other day, many state constitutions at the time the Bill of Rights was written included explicit protections of the rights of citizens to own guns for self-defense. If they had meant that to be the case for the 2nd Amendment, they would have made it explicit.

Instead, that was an issue left entirely to state governments, while this was merely a check on federal government, so that it couldn't destroy militias (and later, National Guards) and have one all-powerful army.

-A.D.

Posted by: Re: Monday Morning Justices | June 27, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Justin dearie, "I'd be very curious to see statistics on the prevelance of home invasions, and particularly on home invasions where the owners were home at the time" THAT's what HOME INVASION is, honey. You have no idea what kind of world is outside your little disney-sweet enclave. They break in, rape your seven year old(boy or girl) and they kill you and your wife. But first they have fun with each of you.

And yes! Lots of it is happening but the pole-eece and politicians don't want that news to get wide coverage. They want all people to be tame little sheep, cowering in the dark and praying for somebody else to come and save them. SAVE YOURSELF, get a GUN!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

NO NO NO- STATE is a condition of being, hence, free state is freedom. Armed population ready to spring into action (militia) is necessary for the protection of freedom. At any rate- you liberals keep complaining for free medical care while simultaneously trying to make 80 million armed angry americans get rid of you, how crazy is THAT?

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Considering how the party of criminals, traitors incessant whining hysterical out of control types has proven itself to be so totally far off base about trampling freedom as their pretend to protect freedom, is it not time we outlaw democrats? They cause murder and mayhem- and aid and comfor the enemy- they are treasonous slime- the need to get out.

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

A.D.

The simple fact is that this issue is one in which thousands of rationale men and women (not to mention a 5-4 Supreme Court Justices) reasonably disagree. Just look at the numbers above in the Post's poll. The majority Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment differently than your interpretation. So now the Court's (and thousands of others) interpretation is right, and yours is wrong. Our system of judicial authority is almost child like, but I admire it. Even when the Court interprets the law differently than I do. (e.g. banning execution for child rapists)

Posted by: Monday Morning Justices | June 27, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Whichever side of the ruling by the Supreme Court you are on, the only real winners are the gun & gun seller companies. More guns, more ammunition & more accessories.

This keeps our economy going and the gun manufacturers and their work force still on the job. I hope everyone who has stock investments in these companies saw the rise in their stock today.

Posted by: jerry rubin | June 27, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I read several newspapers every day. I NEVER read stories about ordinary, law abiding citizens engaging in shootouts with criminals who are threatening and robbing them. I DO read stories frequently (one this week in Kentucky, in fact)about a previously law abiding citizen who walks into his place of employment, a school or a church, or a mall, and opens fire on multiple innocent people, killing them and then himself. This country has a sick fetish with guns; gun ownership is higher here than in any western idustrialized society and we have the highest rates of gun violence. If owning guns stopped crime our prisons would be empty, yet our prisons are overflowing. After this ruling, when gun deaths skyrocket, who are we going to blame?

Posted by: aqualung | June 27, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

aqualung, the reason you do not read about the TWO MILLION TIMES A YEAR that americans defend from criminal attack or stop a crime with a gun, is that the "journalists" are anti-americans who are trying to destroy the country by aiding the dems in their conquest to disarma americans and destroy our freedom. Wake up you fools!

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

ralphy, you need to provide valid documentation for your statistic; otherwise rational people are going to assume you are a crazed lunatic (which you obviously are)...

Posted by: aqualung | June 27, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Read some John Lott- he was anti gun, and set out studying firearms use and misuse, and by cracky, he learned the truth- citizens stop more crimes than police, and it happens an average of 2 million times a year- and to make you happy- more often a shot is not fired- simply aiming the gun at the crims stop them in their tracks. Some do get shot though... and so the proof that being a criminal has risks happened yesterday. Don't want to get shot? Stop trampling the rights of americans- either with gun control (criminal!!) or robbery, rape theft etc etc etc- (ps aqualung: liberals are crazy hysterical out of emotional control twerps. I merely protect end defend our rights)

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Interesting to see how many are posting against "the people" having the "right" to bear arms.

Any attack on freedom whatsoever granted by the Constitution should be taken as a threat to all freedoms and struck down as this one has been.

Yet you cry: guns, guns! They'll kill us all. Wake from the stagnant liberal propaganda. The guns were always there alraedy, they've been there. Taking them from the citizenry hasn't undermined the criminal element to accessing firepower nor weaponry. Have you been to DC? Chicago? NYC? LA? All of these fine cities have strict gun control LAWS. But that's the point, they're just laws, and the outlaws live outside of society's chosen rules and prey on the weak and foolish.

Molon Labe.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Aqualung,

Here is one for you. It's mine too. One plead guilty and is serving ten years. The other was convicted in juvi court and given probation.

I was off duty, in civilian clothes. If I did not have my gun, believe me, they would have stabbed me to death. The article got it a little wrong. They did not run UNTIL AFTER I pulled out the gun.

(you may have to cut and paste)

https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2003/12/02/2003-12-02_stabbed_cop_chases___nabs_te.html

Posted by: NYPD | June 27, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Outside Las Vegas at an Interstate-15 rest stop I once pulled a gun on 2 thirty-something guys trying to rape a young teenage girl in the bathroom. No cops around. Nobody else around.
Glad I had my gun with me that day, and so was the young lady who said thank you through her tears. It scared me to think I have a daughter her age.

Posted by: Paul | June 27, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Aqualung, still... if you were not in a lack of emotional control state, you would nto still be trying to pretend that what is, shouldn't be. Like the fellow at 3:05 said- the guns have been here. You think a gun that looks scary can suddenly make normal folks a criminal- golly, if that was the case, there would ALREADY have been at least 50 of the 80 million Armed Americans go wild. If that happend- and they each went and popped off five people- the dems would be gone, and ALL the illegal immigrants too! Not to mention some fellow gun owners... it is the criminals we ALL need to be concerned with- whether a political party bent on trying to erase freedom so they can make us bow to the UN, or fanatical stone aged murder cults trying to make us bow to mecca, or garden variety individual criminals with a crack habit, a meth habit, a drinking addiciton, or the mentally disconnected who cannot name to day month or year properly. CRIMINALS, not artifacts, are the danger. Why do you fear the ability to defend YOURSELF? That is just wierd to me....

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

To the two fellows (HERO'S) who just also wrote to aqualung- who have actually employed firearms in defense of innocent people: BRAVO Sirs!! Yes!
Americans can prevail, if we stop allowing hysterical twerp liberals to set the agenda and divert and obfuscate with their incessant whining.
I bet too- that aqualing vanished- he tossed a verbal molotov cocktail and fled, like any criminal in a real scenario would... hahaha cheap worthless entities...maybe that is why they refuse to defend their own selves- why defend that which has NO value?

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

your first post actually has an interesting point regarding the definition of state. that is one alternative that you could find in a dictionary, and certainly one that helps make your case more persuasive. but that usage of 'state' is not found elsewhere in the constitution, and even if, it doesn't get rif of the fact that a well-regulated militia is not just a bunch of individuals with guns to shoot intruders. it's a bunch of people (like the national guard) that train together, on occassion.

as to your second post, i'm going to assume you don't actually mean any of what you said. i am a democrat; i am not a criminal, or a traitor. and i think if anyone is out of control and hysterical right now, it's probably you. that's okay because becoming outrages IS how we protect our freedoms. just it usually helps to also be civil.

i love my country, and will work to make it even better. and i will not get out.

Posted by: @ ralphy | June 27, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Not vanished ralphy. Just trying to get you to answer a factual question. How was the 2 million statistic arrived at? How was it validated? Please answer this. Also, if gun ownership prevents crime, why does America hve more gun violence than Canada or Germany? Your postings are starting to sound incoherent and irrational...not very reassuring in a gun lover...

Posted by: aqualung | June 27, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Hello 3:27 (he with no name given, even a no de plume).... Well regulated. Regular is the root word. Well similar. Hmmm, could well similar possibly be construed to mean fully aremd and similarly equipped? yes That is how I was brought up (by folks who colonized this here continent and were here for its creation, not by folks who immigrated to the pre-existing USA). A fully armed similarly equipped population ready to spring into military action being necessary for the preservaton of freedom, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Twenty thousand infringements have not slowed crime, but have in fact caused the general slaughter since gun control was introduced by the communists who took over th edem party in the time of ed kennedy getting rid of his brothers. Need i say more? If youa re a zell miller dem, well, I have no quarrel except to point out the money checked on 1040 is divvied up according to voter registration- you still help the enemies of freedom.

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

to 3:27 still- I admit, I love to exaggerate for effect- it is so very easy to rattle the hysterical bortch liberals into a frenzy- that it is difficult not to. I have so many good laughs telling your kind what I think of them. But really- if you trample the rights of Americans, you are a criminal= it matters not if you had good intent. Criminal. Get it?

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

There you are aqualung- I am about to eat lunch- so I will be back. Um, you need to read it from thehorse's mouth- google up John Lott- you can get more than I can try to recount for you... But he used police reports and interviews and stuff like that. I am not him- so.... As to why we have more crime than homogeneous populated countries is a bit of obviosity... the most poor and hopeless of the world are dying to get here daily- and getting here is not instant wealth. One reason. Two reasons:: Drugs. That word alone causes so much death and misery and confusion and waste of human potential.... Another reaason- dems have controlled education here for fifty years and the communist manifesto tells it best: get education establishment, and country is yours in a generation. They are so close to success, I must clean my guns daily. hahahaha the jokes flow out sometimes... back to serious... Some simple folks think that a quick stealing is beneficial to anyone, and try it. But now the worst gun crime zones, are where gun control is the strictest, and dems have total political power, and so I blame them the most. If you are not free to defend your own self, you are not free. But yesterday has changed that, eh>? hahahahahaha Love it!!!!! back in 20

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

The two million DGU figure comes from a survey by Gary Fleck at FSU. Some critics, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig tried to debunk his findings and found an even higher number of uses. Google is your friend.

Posted by: Steve | June 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

now i'm convinced: ralphy = lunatic...

Posted by: aqualung | June 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Ever notice that urban areas, which have the highest violence rates, are almost always controlled by liberal and/or Democratic politicians? Hasn't anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together and said, "gee, this isn't working?"

Posted by: Steve | June 27, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Not back yet, have not read any response to my last entry- but wanted to say while chewing: If you support gun control- which has been declared unconstitutional by the way- then you are guilty of the murders of the innocent disarmed Americans slain in the criminal empowermnet zones. You cannot be a benevolent democrat when half a million murders from rampaging criminals turned loose in gn control zones for fifty year (not to mention they are trying to give them the vote!! and let more illegals in!!! how many treasons before you realize you are helping to destroy the usa?? Crazy liberal freaks!

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

ralphy - half of my family came to this country in the early 20th century, through ellis island. the other half has been here since the early 1600s and can trace lineage through the founding fathers. and you know what? both sides are just america as the other. if it wasn't for immigrants, we wouldn't have the economy or the security we do today. in fact, immigrants are often those most willing to sacrifice for the country -- they give up their lives behind to come here, to work, to pay taxes, to fight in the army, sometimes laying down their life. they are often the first to honor the flag.

you can be a libertarian. you can rave at easily offended liberals because it's fun. but you should remember that ancestory has nothing to do patriotism, or individual worth, and if you drive away those who might most agree, you'll never see anything you want accomplished.

and to steve: urban crime is caused by urban problems, like destroyed families, and drugs, and low education -- not by the party in power. the problems were there long before the politicians. and democrats (of which i am one) keep getting elected because they at least try to focus on education and rehabilitation for drug users, instead of ignoring the problem, or just saying everyone would be better off in jail. they wouldn't. then we'd just have more broken families, less guidance for kids, those kids get in trouble, end up doing drugs.

if we want to fix inner cities, we need education, health care, rehabilitation, to bring people out of poverty, and allow stable families to form.

Posted by: nome d' guerre, i.e., 3:27 | June 27, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

thanks Steve- I thought i was missing a name... kleck too, eh? Anyhow aqualung- you cannot support your argument so you go to personal attack like any cheap scum traitor democrat hahahaha i find you fools mildly entertaining, until I remember the threat to freedom you pose... and all the murdered americans, and destroyed dreams...

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Hello non d'guerre- OK some of my family came in around 1870 too. But I must admit, there sure are many of the newer comers that are fully indoctrinated with the confusionist obfuscation crap the dems hand out as accurate, but which we now know is un (or should i say ANTI-) constitutional... I do not begrudge folks for coming here LEGALLY and building a better life. It would be contrary to the golden rule from my persepctive, and really unamerican- but I did point it out as a...what is the word... an example to demonstrate the long-held thoughts on it- that predate the communist attempt to destroy the USA. What you addressed to steve is flat wrong though- te dems say what they need to say to get elected, then have fun building power and raping the public of money and trust. The cities are bad because the things they have done DESTROYED families, allowed the drugs (look up Mena arkansas) and prevented actual educating of the people's children. really hardly anything the dems have done in 55 years has been constitutional or patriotic. They lie, cheat and steal elections, intimidate their enemies- they are cheap thug criminals (talking of the powercrats- not joe sixpack union member whose dues are forced from him, and used to help the dems, even though he may be a republican, or an NRA member).... the whole political machinery of the dems- from control of the big giant liberal media lying about all kinds of stuff to sway votes- it is really, to me, just EVIL

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I find the ignorance in a quite a few of these posted comments pretty pathethic. It amazes me that when rights that are plainly stated in the Constitution are upheld the left gets all up in arms about a "right wing court" legislating from the bench but when rights that are not plainly stated but are extrapolated via grey area over-reaching from rights that are plainly stated on order to support one of their own "pet" issues they don't see anything wrong with it. The 2nd ammendment is plainly written, like it or not. If half of you crying about this decision had even a remote clue about what your true civic responsibilities were in this country you might see things a little differently. You can claim that things are "different" now than they were back then but that is pure BS. "We the People" are supposed to hold the power in this country but many of you are too damn content to sit back and let everything go to hell by electing the same crap to Congress election after election. The congressional body we have today, through our own negligence, is a shameful lot fit for the people we have become.
Rant off........

Posted by: Dave | June 27, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Dave,

You write: "The 2nd ammendment is plainly written, like it or not."

So:

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.

I am no longer going to argue my belief that it does not protect individual rights -- but really -- it's probably the LEAST clear of any amendment. It's the only one with a prefatory clause, and it is completely ambiguous whether the first clause it just an artistic intorduction, or an important qualifier.

The Court's decision settles it for probably at least a decade or two, before another overturns it. But it does not yet settle it for states (this only applied to the federal gov. because it's D.C.), nor gun regulations like safeties, etc., or within the decade, thumbprint scanners.

Posted by: A.D. | June 27, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

A.D.

You are incorrect! The original intent of the 2nd Amed is firm grounded in the Federalist Paper. Orignal intent is a key element in decided the law and cannot be ignored becaue of your personal views or how you see it.

Therefore you cannot say it 2nd Amend is ambiguous and simply throw it out the window to suit your short sighted views. Just because you don't support the 2nd Amend does not mean you should be so quick to give a right away. If we all did thought and acted like you then the govt or the state can infringe on other rights and protections. Its less about owning guns than maintaining our rights.

Like it or not!

Posted by: ZenXO | June 27, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Fredrik of Norway! Yeah, I know you... kissed the boots of the GESTAPO while you cringed in the dark, weeping!! But a few of your courageous Norwegians like Telemark fought! Using GUNS! You might have liked QUISLING, he was the traitor and coward that ratted out the Brave Norwegians who fought and used GUNS!
Good thing all those crazy YANK lads kicked Hitler's ass so you could sit around in your half-slip and INSULT the people that made YOUR freedom possible. Next time, ask the Brady-Bunch to save your country!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe how many people have misconstued this ruling IT IS NOT A RIGHT TO CARRY A HANDGUN it is only a right to possess and keep a handgun IN you home for self defense. We will have to work on concealed carry another day. Mr. Heller my compliments for the correct fight.

Posted by: RMB | June 27, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm still in shock as to the great breath of people here that are so anti-freedom! Owning firearms is just but one of those fredoms yet we here over and over how friearms are bad, they kill etc. Though they that are talking like this haven't a clue! The 99% of deaths caused by firearms are by those that have firearms illegaly and are commiting crimes with those firearms!! Also 99.9% of the crime commited in DC is by those thar are criminals -cause there the only ones that have guns!! Think about it 99.9%!!! So how can you come here and say those whom want to protect themselves can't!!! Continue to exersise your other right to voice your oppinion!! As I will exersise my right to vote for pro gun canidates!

Posted by: Greg | June 27, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Hey greg... Yeah, I find it totally amazing that a whole party that has it so bass ackwards about freedom and self defense- could possibly have the unmitigated audacity to claim that the patriot act was an affront to freedom!! they want us disarmed and murdered, but how outrageous the government protect us??? get these evil morons OUT OF OUR USA!!!

Posted by: ralphy | June 27, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Where do I begin? The ruling does not allow guns in the streets, only in the home. How will this cause blood to run in the streets? If you teach your kids how to handle firearms or butcher knives or baseball bats or scissors responsibly they will not accidently harm someone. How is Europe more civilized? Look at the former Yugoslavia. Was it the guns or the leaders of the ethnic hatred? It has been said that anything, good or bad, has been done with a gun in Somolia. Is it the gun or the lack of a Constitution and the order that it brings that causes the sensles violence there? Do you think the people in Zimbawe wish they had the right to own guns so they could have a chance to fight for a government for the people and by the people? It seems to me that the people who are anti-gun don't like questions like this. Questions require you to think for yourself. The fact that the decision was 5-4 worrys me. That is too many people not thinking.

Posted by: VaWolf | June 27, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

"Let's measure the next five years vs the previous five."

Yes, let's.

Too bad you won't be posting here when it comes time to eat your words.

R

Posted by: Renny | June 28, 2008 2:31 AM | Report abuse

Some people apparently think the ruling to allow handguns inside the home for defense of one's family is unnecessary because we have a trained professional police force to protect us. Do you think those same people have a fire extinguisher in their homes even though we have a trained professional fire department?

Posted by: just wondering | June 28, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I totally agree with the Supreme Court decision. We have a right to bear arms. We have a right to protect ourselves and our families with whatever necessary force is needed to stop the threat. The criminals don't care about the laws. The criminals will always have guns.

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another only if:
 a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault and
 (b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and
 (c) The person using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, and
 (d) Force used was not excessive - greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor.

Posted by: Somewhere in NC | June 28, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

If complete government control is safer...
Why are prisons so dangerous?

RED DAWN READY !!!!

Posted by: Big Brother | June 28, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Hm... Parts of DC are pretty unsafe at night. Come next door to Arlington. Yes, we have crime, but almost no shootings. Have you noticed that we do not have gun bans (and in fact, allow concealed carry). If you were a criminal, where would you rather prey on victims - a place where only the criminals have guns or a place where there is a good chance that your victim will shoot you. Note also that VA does not have all that many accidental shooting deaths. Maybe sensible people owning guns are not as irresponsible as the gun banners would have you believe.

Note, however, that the decision only struck down guns in the home. Thus, the only types of crime that are likely to decrease because of the ruling are those in which a person breaks into a house. Alas, I get the impression that most of DC's shootings take place on the street. Concealed carry would be a really good next step to make DC safer...

Posted by: KD | June 28, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I wonder when companies like the Washington Post and New York Times will start reporting news stories on true statistics and the definition of those statistics. I am sick of hearing about number of gun deaths. That statistic involves both homicide deaths and self defense deaths. These companies are not doing the best they could for America. They are social liberal companies. America started out with classic liberals. Social liberals started with Hitler. Socialism has always failed. Why not report on some self defense stories where a gun saved a life and how people truly can be responsible and free.

Posted by: Matt | June 28, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I find it amazing how the kooks think that allowing a law abiding citizen the ability to protect him/her self will make gun crimes go up.. Its rediculous to think that an average citizen handed a gun will become a criminal.. Its just not so..

And for the record.. more people die in their sleep in this country than from handguns ..
So what really needs to be banned..Ponder that....

Socialist kooks trying to take away the rights of individuals is whats wrong with this country. I only hope WE wake up and stop them before they take over..

God Bless America....

Posted by: Carl | June 28, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"More guns more crime" I've seen that on here many times. I have never experienced this in real life though. What I have experienced is, felons that have been released from jail/prison comitting more crimes within days of thier release.
Here's a novel thought,
KEEP THEM LOCKED UP!!!

Posted by: My Opine | June 28, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"And for the record.. more people die in their sleep in this country than from handguns .."

Not sure I follow you Carl. Dying in one's sleep is natural. Dying by someone else pulling the trigger is murder. Poor comparison.

The fear you NRA folks harbor is really quite disturbing. You keep saying you need them to feel safe but you've likely never been robbed. I got no problems with you keeping your guns out in the boonies but don't try to push them into our cities. We don't want your weapons or your paranoia.

Posted by: Violent Society | June 28, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me "violent society" I believe it is YOUR paranoia that attacks the 2nd amendment with your fear of fellow Americans being armed... except really, by your attacking our rights, you became criminal traitors, and so fellow Americans is not the correct expression- pardon me patriots!!- your betters with guns scare you- yet you are not bothered by the criminals turned loose by the gun control traitor murder pigs. What exactly would you call your pathology?

Posted by: ralphy | June 28, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Fairfax Voter wrote:
"I am in favor of gun control and believe it has to vary depending on the locality. What makes sense in a rural area is completely different than in a densely settled city, especially one with a crime problem. Both places--not just the city, and not just the country--should have the right to regulate gun ownership and usage as appropriate for local concerns."

So, you would apportion civil rights by where one resides? Wha happened to "all men are created equal..."?

Perhaps we should limit the First Amendment in urban areas, after all, with people so much closer together, an ill-timed, overheard comment could create havoc...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 29, 2008 5:01 AM | Report abuse

"gun control traitor murder pigs"

Ralphy, if you going to try (and fail) to debate me, you should at least make an effort to form complete sentences. Let me guess, you shoot first and talk later.

Posted by: Violent Society | June 29, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Well, looks like the gun-owners and 2nd amendment Americans have won the debate with logic, civility and class. The gun-scaredy-sissies have shown again their enormous ignorance and cowardice.

Posted by: TonyPony | June 29, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Treasonous gun controller murder pigs have caused the half-century long crime spree with their cheap scum disarm the victim ploys. How was that? You did not respond to your being the paranoid one by attacking that which made this the greatest country ever.....

Posted by: ralphy | June 29, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe some of the people that post on this board. I've fought hard for the right for you to walk freely in this country, for you to worship whoever and whomever you please. And yet you think that the US gov't should slowly pull away your freedom that I've fought and my friends have died for piece by piece. Unbelievable. If you want to live in Europe, by all means go ahead.. Check out the violent crime stats in the UK.. Criminals chastising the general population without fear of repercussions or anyone to stop them.. Take a step back and think about what your saying.

Posted by: Proud American | June 29, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Hey Proud America - thanks for your service to our once-great nation (once-great, thanks to the cheap slime incessant whiner thieving fascist traitor murder pig democrats!!)...we will re-arise after this decision... and some of the sludge will take your advice- but europe? No- to uncle chavez and all the free cocaine he offered. Hey folks- free cocaine, go live with uncle hugo in venezuela....

Posted by: ralphy | June 29, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

For all of you whiners out there:
The Supreme court did a wonderful job. If you happy love tree hugging morons dont want guns, dont get them. Do me a favor. Post a big damn sign out in your yard saying " there are no guns of any kind here" Lets see how long it is before you get robbed, raped , dismembered or murdered.
We are not children, when will democrats realize this? I dont like being told what to do.
I live way out in the sticks and I like it. I will not have the misfortune of having my guns removed from me, dor do i care about the problems of inner cities that have rampant crime. The ban did not work , Criminals love gun bans. Demo crats love gun bans. Coincidence?? They both want to take your money, control you, and steal your crap.

Posted by: armedtotheteeth | June 29, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

It is essential for women and minorities to possess the means to defend themselves. Women have a need to defend themselves against rape, which is truly a crime of violence, done to intimidate, denigrate and humiliate the victim.

Minorities also a victimized, with what are called 'hate crimes'. The hate crimes are done to intimidate, denigrate and humiliate the victim, just like rape.

A good example, of minorities fighting back against 'hate crime' violence, occurred during the beginning of the 20th century, in northern Florida. The local KKK decided they were going to burn out a community of African-Americans. The KKK made a mistake, the African-Americans were armed and fought the terrorism.

Posted by: Joan | June 30, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

WHEN YOU NEED THE POLICE THEY'RE ONLY 3-5 MINUTES AWAY.

...but the guy robbing you only took 30 seconds to stab you and take your wallet. Don't you wish criminals had the civility to wait while you dialed 9-1-1?

Now take the same situation and give yourself a means of defense: Concealed Carry. Now that mugger's wishing the gov't had the decency to disarm their citizens so he can go about his business without getting shot.

If you don't want to carry a gun then DON'T but don't whine about being murdered by some thug looking for drug money and the cops show up 5 minutes later to draw your outline.

Leave the decision to carry for us to make instead of forcing your fears upon us. Remember prohibition? Yeah....that stopped booze, didn't it

Posted by: FMF | June 30, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse

Please, those of you who disagree with the SCOTUS, feel free to move to the likes of the UK or Australia where gun control has worked so splendidly.

Posted by: MIman | June 30, 2008 2:55 AM | Report abuse

SIIPAPP

Posted by: ARF Member | June 30, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Was suppose to be SIIDCsPAPP

Posted by: ARF Member | June 30, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

The 2nd amendment does NOT establish an individual right. OUR security (as a country, as a free society) requires, when needed, an organized civilian force with arms, a militia (that was then), and for THAT purpose, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So the language is awkward. So what! The meaning is clear. Now since militias turned out to be practically useless militarily and were abandoned in favor of regular uniformed forces by the the early-mid 19th century, that is, over 150 years ago, the 2nd amendment is MEANINGLESS.

The Constitution is SILENT, SAYS NOTHING, on whether individuals have a right to have guns to hunt, defend themselves or engage in target sports. Our heritage of liberty laid out in the Declaration of Independence says that GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN to secure the rights we have been endowed with--the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and for many people, pursuing these rights includes personal possession and use of guns.

Yes, we have a right to own and use guns as citizens and our government is supposed to secure that right. THE CONSTITUTION AS A WHOLE FORMS OUR GOVERNMENT AND IT SECURES THE RIGHTS WHICH INCLUDE PERSONAL OWNERSHIP OF GUNS. THIS MEANS TWO THINGS: THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT, I REPEAT, DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND SECOND, LIKE OTHER RIGHTS, THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL POSSESSION AND USE OF GUNS CAN BE ABRIDGED, MODIFIED, REGULATED, CHANGED IF WE, THROUGH OUR GOVERNMENT (S), DECIDE IT IS IN OUR INTERESTS TO DO THAT. The legal basis of challenging the D.C. handgun ban by claiming the 2nd amendment establishes an 'unabridgable' individual right to keep and use guns is WRONG, a radical activist judicial corruption of the constitution and a triumph for NRA shills.

Posted by: Philip W. Appel | June 30, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

hey appel, you hysterical ou tof emotional and cognitive control twerp: Go Away. You have not a full understanding of the American experience- and hate what little you do get- so spare us your incessant whiner twerplet spew, and go away. Disarming americans allow murderers to rampage- you as a gun controller, are guilty of murder- we are waking to the danger your sort presents to our way of life, and our lives, and well, you do not want to see us do self-defense. GO.

Posted by: ralphy | June 30, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

For all of you screaming about guns and children being killed, here's some interesting numbers:

In 1999 41,042 people were killed in car accidents. (Department of Highway Safety)

In 1999, there were 15,521 murders committed during the same time period. Of those, 89.7% were of adults over the age of 18. The vast majority of deaths amongst children were those in the 14-18 age group and were members of "Gangs". This is all available from the Department of Justice and FBI websites. They, unlike some (Hello Brady Bunch) don't distort and misrepresent numbers for their cause.

Since more people are killed by cars every year (and more children) we should ban cars!

The lack of logical thought amongst some of you use is astounding.

Posted by: Hunter | June 30, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Hey Appel, you know whats happened throughout history every time a majority has decided to strip a minority of rights, especially that to keep and bear arms?

We coined a term for it in the 20th century; "Genocide".

Your thinking would fit in quite while in Nazi Germany, Vichy France, Stalinist Russia, or any of the other wonderful communist countries (past and present). After all, if the majority of us gun owners decided YOU don't need the right to "life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness" we could easily deprive you of it; either at the ballot box or through naked force. After all, we're the ones who have the guns.

In the end the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is not a "pick and choose" buffet. The second you strip away one set of rights (especially the teeth of the Constitution) you leave all the others ripe for the picking.

The fact that you believe as you claim tells me, and the rest of us who actually have read and studied the Constitution as well as the works of the men who wrote it, that you really don't have the slightest inkling as to the meaning or the mindset of it. The 2nd Amendment, irregardless of what you or any court says, is the "Doomsday" clause of the Constitution. It leaves the ultimate power; that of naked force, with We the People, so as to violently (if necessary) overthrow the Government as the Founders did in 1776. That may terrify you and cause your pathetic little heart to quiver in terror, but that is the simple truth of it.

If I try to strip you of your rights, the most you can do (while disarmed) is protest, ineffectively (much like what's happened in Tibet and Burma). If you try to strip me, an armed citizen, of my rights. Well my form of recourse is much more direct than yours.

Posted by: Hunter | June 30, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Ban or no ban, given that the illegal drug trade takes in around 50 billion dollars yearly, it is a great wonder that they do not also import some of the 100 million Avtomat Kalashnikovs made to ply their evil trade. A few years ago a shipload of Chines SKSes (similar to AK-47s) ended up in San Fransisco, but for luck were found by the ATF.

50 billion dollars can buy almost anything. Anyone not for sale at this forum may find that someone else has been paid to bump them off, with a gun, a car or other common house hold appliances.

It is not what's in your hands that make you dangerous, it is what's in your heart. Thus we need mental detectors, not metal detectors to stop the violence. Mind Moves Body!

If you are too incompetent, untrustworthy or dangerous to have a gun, why would I want you to be able to drive, to vote, to raise kids, write, speak or assemble freely. Why because Mao, Stalin and Hitler killed most of their victims using their "First Amendment" rights and not much else. Their stupid minions were the bodies of their demented minds.

Posted by: BiA | June 30, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

GOOD!

SCOTUS was tasked with comparing the DC gun ban against the Constitution of the United states. Fortunately, 5 justices decided that "the people" actually means the general populus, and that local laws cannot surpass the US Constitution regardless of the unfounded claims of DC politicians.

Gun control is a failure. (Please see the study the National Academy of the Sciences did--they could not find gun restrictions that could be proven to reduce crime).

For those who STILL want more gun control, do it right! Amend the US Constitution. I think you will find that most people do not want that, nor does the evidence support your claims of reduced crime.

Posted by: John | June 30, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court decreed about 5yrs ago that the police have no Constitutional obligation to protect the average citizen -
check the statistics on murdered abused wives that the police didn't/wouldn't help.

Even in the best of circumstances, response to a 911 call will take 5-10 minutes - plenty of time for the bad guy to rob/rape/murder his victim.

So who do we call to save us?

I'm responsible for providing my family with food and shelter, getting them to school, medical care, etc.

Their safety is my responsibility too, and if it takes a gun to do that - well, so be it.

The only time I ever made a 911 call it took a sheriff 45 minutes to get to my house - my daughter was alone and there was a prowler outside - I told her where my pistol was and instructed her to turn on every light in the house and to sit in plain view of the picture window with the gun in her hand - - the prowler left without harming her.

Posted by: Mike K. | July 1, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

The gun ban only prevented law abiding citizens from protecting themselves- the criminals don't care what laws they break. The criminals already have guns and there is no way to get that genie back in the bottle. The last thing criminals want is a level playing field. As far as deterrence goes, the threat of an armed victim goes a long way. Predators don't go after the healthiest animal in a herd. Please see the following link: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/clerk-narrowly-dodges-bullet-and-then-she-fires-back-at-the-robber/3351733808

Posted by: Soccer Mom | July 4, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

I've been carrying a concealed weapon, legally, for many years. While carrying :
I don't drink.
I drive ultra-carefully.
I positively control my emotions when somebody does something stupid that should upset me - usually driving.
I practice with my firearm regularly. I know I shoot better than the average police officer.
I know my state laws.
I'm totally harmless as long as anyone plays within the rules, legal and moral.

Posted by: Brian Montgomery | July 4, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

People need to get real - especially the ones that disagree with the SC decision. The only people in DC who had guns were criminals - the ban didn't stop them. A criminal will think twice before breaking into a home now. In the states that have allowed guns and CCW the violent crime rates DROPPED, not got higher - that's fact. Many predicted Dodge City in TX and FL and it went the opposite. Even the top brass of LEO's who were against it have publicly stated that they were wrong and it's been a good thing.

As for accidents etc - how many 100's of thousand cops in this country have guns at home - and how many 'accidents'. How many in states that allow citizens to have them? Most properly trained law abiding citizens are careful with their weapons and are not cavalier with them.

If just one properly trained and armed person was at the site of many of these mass killings - Columbine - V tech - how many lives would not have been taken by a criminal or nutcase with a weapon?

Outlaw guns and only outlaws have guns.

Posted by: Allie | July 4, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

The USSC has decide since at least 1856 that "the police have no Constitutional obligation to protect the average citizen." A very well kept secret.

I wish those who believe that a house with a gun is a house in danger should post signs on their houses - and on themselves - "NOTICE: gun free zone - you are safe with us!"

Posted by: BiA | July 13, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company