Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Supreme Court gun decision moves us toward anarchy

Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts and other enthusiasts for our newly created universal right to bear arms should take a trip to Beirut or Baghdad and see how this idea works out in practice.

My biggest worry with Monday's Supreme Court decision is that by ruling, in effect, that every American can apply for a gun license, the justices will make gun ownership much more pervasive in a society that already has too many guns.

After all, if I know that my neighbor is armed and preparing for Armageddon situations where law and order break down (as so many are --just read the right wing blogs) then I have to think about protecting my family, too.

That's the state-of-nature, everyone for himself logic that prevails in places such as Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. They've been struggling to establish a rule of law, where the police have a monopoly of force and militias are a thing of the past. How weird that we are moving in the opposite direction.

By the way, the Roberts court might also want to take a look at the "well-regulated" reference in the second amendment. That might at least slow the rush to the gun stores.

By David Ignatius  | June 28, 2010; 12:40 PM ET
Categories:  Ignatius  | Tags:  David Ignatius  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Kagan hearings open thread: opening statements
Next: Kagan speaks: open thread

Comments

What an utter and total irrational opinion based on nothing but feelings and not the facts. Every area with the most restrictive gun bans has the highest crimes. Note that when DC implemented their gun ban crime with guns went up substantially. Chicago had a falling murder rate until the ban was implemented and then it went up.

For all the whining from the left about the ruling in DC the murder rate has gone down despite people buying and having guns.This is the biggest fear of liberals that their theories and practices are proven wrong. It seems that the Mayors of DC and Chicago want their people to live in fear dependent on government in order to justify a bigger government

Posted by: Pilot1 | June 28, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

What I want to know about all of these people that desperately need guns to defend themselves - what are they so afraid of? I walk around all day, every day, without once thinking of the possibility that someone is going to attack me, and daggummit, nobody ever has. It could happen one day, but why spend your life worrying about it?

Posted by: duhneese | June 28, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

You don't have to go to Lebanon or Iraq to see how this works. Go instead to Wyoming or Montana.

Chicago had 52 shootings on a recent weekend. Because guns were outlawed, only outlaws had guns.

My neighbor's arsenal protects me--home invasions are non-existent in my neighborhood precisely because my neighbors have guns.

Posted by: mark31 | June 28, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

somewhere in the background of this article is a coo-koo bird singing. What a bunch of boloney.. This is the well rehearsed play book of the extraliberal so that they can take over every aspect of your life and you have no way to defend yourself against their agressions.

Posted by: minuramsey | June 28, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

What a loony left wing radical.You must be an absolute fool.

Posted by: fcs25 | June 28, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"Chicago had 52 shootings on a recent weekend. Because guns were outlawed, only outlaws had guns."

Perhaps one of you lefties can explain something to me. The UK has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world. So please explain how those laws helped to prevent the massacre of a dozen people there a couple of weeks ago.

Oops!

Posted by: finesseaugrande | June 28, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

What about all the statistics that show a drop in crime where the CCWs are allowed. The countries that ban personal ownership of wepons do so to prevent the overthrow of oppressive government. Those that penned the Second Amendment to the Constitution were well aware of what could happen when a government becomes callous to the will of the people. Those that oppose the Second Amendment are usually the same ones that want more government and less personal freedom, let the Obammas and Pelosis decide what is best for us. This mentallity leads us down the slippery slope of totalitarian control. With the possesion of fire arms the general population has the final say in what controls the congress and President can force upon the people.

Posted by: denden101 | June 28, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

These 5 justices define an activist judiciary.

Posted by: streff | June 28, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

My God. If this is the first time you have thought about protecting your family, I pity them. Listen to yourself, and how your cowardace shows through in everything that you have written. I guess the thought of protecting your family is just too scary for you.

Posted by: madhtr | June 28, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

If you really want to save lives, worry about motor vehicle crash fatalities, which states and localities can tackle as agressively as they want without federal government interference.

Of course, this is all about restricting other people, not oneself.

Posted by: Wallenstein | June 28, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Sir,

Prhaps you should take a trip to Vermont where there are few laws to limit handgun ownership. For some reason, Vermont does not look like Armageddon, or Beirut.

Perhaps you should trust your fellow citizens. No, not everyone is sane, but hopefully those deemed mentally inappropriate will not obtain weapons. But if there is a criminal or a nutcase with a weapon, you can wait for the police to draw a chalk outline or two and complete a report, or hope a more responsible citizen uses their weapon to protect life and liberty.

Where the only ones with guns are police is called a Police State. Do not project your inability to protect yourself and loved ones onto me. I am capable of protecting my family, and neighbors without being a vigilante. You show your distrust of the average American. Shame.

"Gun-control" disarms citizens, making them into victims.

Perhaps you should worry more about criminals with pistols, rather than law-abiding citizens.

Posted by: Fltsrgn | June 28, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I am truly trying to decide whether you wrote this post tongue and cheek or with a serious focus. The second ammendment was designed to prevent the government from over stepping it bounds while also providing for an armed populace that can both defend the nation and defend itself from the government intrusion.

In curbing gun ownership the states believed they would be able to decrease violence. The facts prove other wise. The cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest murder rates. Clearly gun restrictions have done a wonderful job of keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals. Also, the Supreme Courts original rulings upheld that certain gun restrictions were applicable in licensing, limiting the rights of felons and limiting the access to certain weapons.

Working with police has given me a unique perspective. Police themselves will tell you that the law is there to investigate and punish after the crime occurs. That leaves a lot of time for the criminal to have their way with you. I believe in being more assertive of my personal/familial safety and will defend myself as necessary.

Posted by: therapist11 | June 28, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

If you work in an industry that use word craft as a tool at least be able to read before claiming knowledge through a back handed comment about "well regulated"
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of someone being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so.
The Second Amendment exists, it has been ruled on by The Supreme Court, if you don't like the Bill of Rights change the Constitution, leave the country, or at least learn to read so intelligent discourse can take place.

Posted by: jake2far | June 28, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

For the right-wing gun fanatics:
1) Ignatius is far from a liberal
2) His article is simply common sense
3) No one is out to get your guns
4) Why are you so cowardly?

Regarding the article, why does the headline exploit the fear-mongering term "anarchy". This term was not mentioned in the article and is misleading - just another dishonest WaPo ploy to attract attention.

Posted by: dougd1 | June 28, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of liberal clap trap! Buck, buck you chicken.

Posted by: FLvet | June 28, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Hooray for David Ignatius!

Posted by: CAMM1 | June 28, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

New discovered right? I'm pretty sure that gun ownership has been considered a basic right since before this country existed. In fact this country exists BECAUSE of gun ownership.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" - Patrick Henry

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense." - John Adams

And going even further back...

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." - Aristole

Posted by: BradG | June 28, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I am thrilled with the Supreme Court's ruling. It is Constitutionally sound and that is their job. To interpret the Constitution and to see that all laws made adhere to it.

The reason we have the right to bear arms is not so we can go turkey hunting.

It is to protect ourselves from our own government.

Recall this excerpt from The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

****But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.****

Think about it. God forbid....but if we find ourselves with a government that becomes "absolutely despotic" does anyone think an "election" will get rid of that government? It didn't work very well in Burma, did it?

Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots."

Memo to Ignatius: Read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And have a Happy 4th of July weekend!

Posted by: Abbybwood8 | June 28, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

David Ignatius shot himself in the foot with this bunch of leftwing crap!

Posted by: nmg3rln | June 28, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Beirut and Baghdad is not that they are full of guns. The problem is that they are full of Lebanese and Iraqis...

Posted by: pmendez | June 28, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

WWJD?
Somewhere I don't recall seeing in the Bible that Jesus carried a weapon for self-defense. Peter used his sword once and Jesus rebuked him. How many souls has Jesus saved without needing to kill someone doing it?

So...what do I need a gun for? To protect my wife from being attacked and raped by some thug? I'd gladly give my life for my wife, but at the cost of taking that thug's life? As much as I am very grateful for police officers and military members who kill people in my defense, I am certain that not one of them who ever has killed lives a happy life from then on. You may call it cowardice to not be willing to kill for self-protection or for protection of others, but I simply calling it breaking the 6th Commandment. So, if I have to protect my wife, I will use my body as well as I can, but I won't point a gun and shoot.
What sickens me is that these gun-lovers also call themselves Christian! I've got other names for them.

Posted by: schaeffz | June 28, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Today's ruling merely reinforced the fourteenth amendment forbidding states and cities from taking away constitutionally protected rights.

Liberals won't stop trying and hopefully the court will continue to protect us.

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | June 28, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"then I have to think about protecting my family, too"

David, you are suppose to be doing that already.

Posted by: rnotigan | June 28, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

David:

I usually find your reasoning and reporting to be excellent. This opinion disappoints me because it is fails on both counts.

There is nothing that suggests that allowing law-abiding citizens to own firearms increases the crime rate or leads to anarchy. In fact, the second amendment was placed in the Constitution to prevent the government from disarming the citizenry because it would lead to tyranny.

The reasons Beirut and Baghdad fell into anarchy have nothing to do with possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. It is hard to believe that someone with your sophistication would say such a thing.


Posted by: InTheMiddle | June 28, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Glad to see that the consertive Roberts court is not activist or ideological.

Posted by: Ralph_Indianapolis | June 28, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

The common sense of the common people is here vividly contrasted with the liberal canon of the modern journalist.

It's not complicated, Mr. Ignatius: Gun laws only affect good people and keep them from defending themselves. The miscreants who are wont to steal, kill, and rape have no concern for gun laws. They are already involved in much more serious crimes.

Think about it. If a guy is willing to kill his fellow human, disobey the highest law of the land, why would he be swayed by a local gun statute?

Posted by: Josiahtx | June 28, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Lots of right wing revisionist history is already at work.

Well regulated, "keeping your property orderly" as jake2far described was not the definition intended in the constitution.

Therepist11: "The second amendment was designed to prevent the government from over stepping it bounds while also providing for an armed populace that can both defend the nation and defend itself from the government intrusion."

The second amendment was not written to keep the government from overstepping its bounds. That is just Tea Party nonsense.

I like how the the tea Party Faction of the right wing always references the Constitution without ever providing actually references.

The Tea Party crowd throws about the Constitution like an old oily rag in a auto shop.

When the people of the Tea Party actually read the entire Consitutuion, than I might think about taking them seriously.

Posted by: tazmodious | June 28, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

This article from Ignatius is so bizarre that I can’t tell if it’s a spoof on some kind or that he is insane. Can’t the Post do better? Or is this the kind of “journalism” that get’s it readership these days?

Posted by: gcmj | June 28, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

What the law "should" be isn't really the issue, is it?

People wanting to amend the Constitution should work on doing just that. But until that happens, the Second Amendment means exactly what the Supreme Court says it means.

Posted by: John991 | June 28, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Penalize:

- criminials who use guns in crimes
- gun smugglers
- terrorists
- organized labor thugs using guns to keep union members in line
- right wing militias caught terroroizing neighbors

Don't penalize honest citizens not harming anyone.

Posted by: jfv123 | June 28, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

schaeffz:

WWJD? Try this passage from Revelation.

"Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had[e] a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS."

Posted by: InTheMiddle | June 28, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

What a silly blog post by Mr. Ignatius.

In the short term this ruling affects the City of Chicago (where all 50 Alderman and the Mayor are allowed pistols) and a few of its suburbs.

In the long term the McDonald Decision might affect the City of New York, where the New York City Police Department corruptly gives home pistol permits ONLY to those who are wealthy, politically connected, celebrities and retired police officers.

The bottom line is that in practically every other city and town in the USA, handguns are allowed to (non-felon) adults with reasonable restrictions that are not applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Why do you think this ruling in Chicago (and perhaps NYC) suddenly plunges the Republic in to anarchy, when the facts on the ground to the remaining 96% of the population unchanged with regard to Gun restriction laws?

Posted by: CharlieBarker | June 28, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I hear a lot about the "statistics" that show that crime decreases when gun control is reduced, but I've never actually seen anything that shows a causal pattern. Only a couple of disconnected figures and a stretch -- a big stretch-- of "logic" connecting one to the other.

Unless someone can point me at some decent, peer-reviewed research showing a *causal* link between higher gun ownership rates and a reduction of local/regional crime, then I have to call your claims what they are: unsupported politicking.

And to the commentor who said that we should "trust" our fellow citizens, I have to ask: Isn't the reason you have guns based in the fact that you don't trust your fellow citizens? If you don't trust them, why should we trust *you*?

And I'll answer: I don't trust you. Unless you're a highly-trained individual in when NOT to pull your gun, I don't trust you with a weapon whose designed purpose is to put lethal holes in people. Unlike, say, a car (which the average gun-nut seems determined to equate with a Glock) which specifically does not have wounding people in its designed purpose.

Posted by: bjameswi | June 28, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Fear mongering about "anarchy" has always been the retreat of authoritarian strong men, military juntas, and dictators the world over. After living through the twentieth century, where "state monopoly on force" has led to tens of millions dead, spread over every continent and culture, I find your arguments not only ironic, but tragic. Freedom may finally reign.

And for @schaffz
Matthew 8:5-13. Don't confuse Jesus' personal job (he was a Rabbi) with his teachings. There were many jobs that were not rebuked that others may have, soldier, statesman, tax collector, etc. This distinction is a rich debate though, not well covered in comments like this.

I certainly share your desire to see an end of violence period, but decentralization of force is the only real path to peace.

Posted by: vimrich | June 28, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Is it any wonder that with writers like Ignatius that the post is considered another left wing gossip blog much like the Daily Kos?

Posted by: robtr | June 28, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

schaeffz
I would guess that around 80% of the men who have died defending this country were Christians. One of the things that they were defending was the right to worship God, and your right to say the crap that you just said.

Posted by: vnamvet1969 | June 28, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Well, yeah, Ignatius there is such a thing as natureal law and doing for yourself, as opposed to your philosophy, which read, how is that now? 'From each according to his ability; To each....' Yup, you're right, David, there is a difference. but on the statement about a "newly created right', well, you're wrong about that. Excuse me; what I meant to say was that you are LYING about that.

Posted by: chatard | June 28, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

from bjameswi:

...And to the commentor who said that we should "trust" our fellow citizens, I have to ask: Isn't the reason you have guns based in the fact that you don't trust your fellow citizens? If you don't trust them, why should we trust *you*?

_______

Excellent, excellent point!

Posted by: catherine3 | June 28, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I notice someone here rebutting two comments with an accusation of revisionism but with no supporting evidence.

In one case he asserts that the Second Amendment was not written to keep the government from overstepping its bounds.

I assume that what he is really saying is that the intended use of the arms was not to permit the citizenry to keep the government from overstepping its bounds. He presents no evidence for this assertion. It is patently ludicrous to assert that the Tea Party invented the notion that he opposes. One minute of research will show you that this position is as old as the Constitution.

(Obviously, explicitly and implicitly, the entire Bill of Rights was intended to keep the government from overstepping its bounds.)

In the other case, he rebuts the idea that "well-regulated" meant properly functioning. Check contemporaneous usage and you will see that this is exactly what was meant.

If you are going to rebut something, you need stronger evidence than "because I said so."

Posted by: NoseOfReason | June 28, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

What a moronic 'strawman' argument posed by this opinionator....if you really want to see full gun ownership in action, go to Switzerland where it is mandated! Very safe country, indeed! Gun ownership is high in Canada and we know how violent they are.

Posted by: Common_Cents1 | June 28, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"The Supreme Court gun decision moves us toward anarchy"

As soon as anarchy occurs neo-cons will step in, confiscate guns and establish a business run fascist government.
Good-by middle class.

Posted by: knjincvc | June 28, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

GOOD GOD Ignatius!!!!.... What an IDIOT.

Posted by: marvm7 | June 28, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

GOOD GOD Ignatius!!!!.... What an IDIOT.

Posted by: marvm7 | June 28, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

What nonsense! Boilerplate rhetoric! What arguments like these intentionally ignore is the fact that Chicago and formerly DC, already HAD a gun ban. Yet the killings went on. Pretty effective ban, eh?

Speaking of killings, do you really believe that all the deaths were at the hands of good upstanding citizens? IT'S THE CRIMINALS WHO WILL KEEP THEIR GUNS!When did you ever see felons (who, BTW cannot legally possess a firearm let alone own one) ever abide by gun laws?? Why do we need gun laws anyway? Last I checked, murder was already a crime.

In other posts, those that cower and are willing to die and let their family die at the hands of criminals are the true cowards. Some say that gun owners are not Christians... there are nine other Commandments, do they follow each one of them faithfully? Or are they not Christians either?

Posted by: oneofabillionusers | June 28, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

@schaeffz:

"Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)"

A sword was the assault weapon of its day, and quite expensive.

Posted by: pmendez | June 28, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"What an utter and total irrational opinion based on nothing but feelings and not the facts"

agreed- thhe roberts court is completely based on feelings and not facts, and is totally and utterly irrational.

after all, the founding fathers didnt' believe African's were entitled to guns, nor those who didn't own property.

Posted by: newagent99 | June 28, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

This ruling will finally ensure that more than 30000 people will continue to be killed by guns used by their spouses, neighbors, coworkers etc. in a fit of anger or whatever.

Posted by: ak1967 | June 28, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I enjoy deer hunting during the winter. It provides a good community service to kill off the excess amount of deer that we have in Va/Oh/Penn. I usually leave the dead deer for the other animals to eat. It's a good sport and my friends and I enjoy the time out in the woods. I'm glad the court did not take our guns away from us.

Posted by: speedo1 | June 28, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I imagine that a society of criminals would slowly become at the very least more polite and hopefully law abiding if they beleived every citizen not only armed to the teeth but pre-disposed to kill any person infringing upon their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

At least most criminal have afforded me this "pass".

Posted by: anderson2 | June 28, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"Speaking of killings, do you really believe that all the deaths were at the hands of good upstanding citizens? IT'S THE CRIMINALS WHO WILL KEEP THEIR GUNS!"

Soo ...at what point does a law abiding citizen become a criminal ... before or after killing a spouse?

Posted by: knjincvc | June 28, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

In a civilized society where nearly everyone is law abiding, restrictive gun laws would be sensible. Unfortunately the "anarchy" described by Ignatius exists in many crime ridden neighborhoods in this country.

Criminals have weapons and should not. People who are not criminals need weapons to defend themselves. Restricting their rights results in many being defenseless. This is one of the issues where liberals, many of whom live in relatively safe communities, have no understanding of the realities of conditions where most people live.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | June 28, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Somewhere, St Paul advised against arguing with people whose minds are made up.

So instead, I'll accept the fact & argument of individual ownership of handguns as a basic human right [how it got to be that way when Humans were invented before handguns, I don't understand, but nevermind...]

If it's a basic right, it's like free speech or the right to legal counsel. From that, I'll advocate for UNIVERSAL ownership of handguns by all citizens and residents. If they cannot afford a gun, they should be issued a gun by the government, just as they would be provided with a defense lawyer if they cannot afford their own.

Without such assistance, they would not be able to exercise a basic human right [gun ownership] which should not be limited by law or by economics. Afterall, Constitutional rights apply to rich and poor alike.

Naturally, some crazy liberals will object to this sensible proposal.

To remove their doubts, we should conduct a test. I suggest beginning with issuing guns to our poorest residents and keeping track of the results.

While I believe that this is an excellent idea, I would limit gun ownership to adults only...say, for example, anyone over the age of 16 or so.


Posted by: Socrates2 | June 28, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Disarm the people..then the criminal can save bullets and just cut your throat..

Posted by: corebanks1940 | June 28, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"What I want to know about all of these people that desperately need guns to defend themselves - what are they so afraid of?

Posted by: duhneese"

I'm afraid of nitwits like you that think "gun free" zones are a good idea, because that's where all the nutjobs go to kill people. It's like shooting fish in a barrell. What do you care if I am carrying a firearm? It's not bothering YOU unless you hurt or threaten me or my family.

Posted by: cheekymonkey | June 28, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"This is one of the issues where liberals, many of whom live in relatively safe communities, have no understanding of the realities of conditions where most people live. "

So liberals live in "relatively safe communities" and the conservatives live in "relatively un-safe communities" therefore they need guns?

Read twice before posting will ya.

Posted by: knjincvc | June 28, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I doubt that InTheMiddle and pmendez ever killed another person, and I see how they, like all radical religious people, can take scripture out of context and use it to defend their violent tendencies. The same tactic as radical Islamists.
My point is simply, that I cannot and will not allow myself to point a gun and kill someone. I will fight man-on-man if necessary, and if that leads to death, then shamne on me. I expect that maybe vnamvet1969 deserves my respect, and that maybe he can enlighten us about the heavy burden carried by our military members who have killed. My father killed in WWII. I served in the Air Force during the Viet Nam era, tho I was not stationed in South East Asia. But my job included supporting the training of pilots whose job it was to kill. I pay taxes and fully support our police and military. I have friends who are police officers and military members. I hear horrible stories, and I completely respect their sacrifice. I have known no poice officer or military person who is a thug, tho I know they exist in the same small minority as in the general population. I trust the police and military to do what is right. I will not give in to the irrational fear exhibited by those who feel a need to sling an M16 over their shoulder to protest their paranoid view of a "tyranical government". Where is the tyranny? IN your local police force? In the State Police? In the military? How crazy are these people? Jesus did NOT write the book of Revelation, and I do not expect to see Jesus leading an army of angels to slaughter non-believers.

Posted by: schaeffz | June 28, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

So here are some statistics. The following is an exerpt from an article published by the Associated Press April 17, 1998:

The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths

Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

Here is a link for the skeptics:

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

The commentator who cited the recent rampage in England might want to check the relative death rates between England, Scotland, and the USA.

Posted by: jmaslach | June 28, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | June 28, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

A simple perusal of any newspaper will demonstrate that in the current era of strict gun controls criminals have no difficulty in obtaining guns to commit their crimes.

This left wing dream of eliminating the Right to Bear Arms will only deprive law abiding citizens of one of their Constitutional Rights.

It will have no affect on the criminal's ability to carry arms and use them against innocents.

This is typical Liberal Think; address a problem by punishing the innocent and let the guilty continue.

By all means, enact laws that punish the use of firearms in the commission of a crime. "He who steals with a gun in his hand gets 10 to life in the can".

Apparently such a solution is too complex for the Left Wing of this country; that must be why they continually attack the Constitution.

Posted by: krankyman | June 28, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Don't tell me that I don't need a gun today in this world.Especially when the parole Boards in this country are turning cold blooded murderers out of prison to murder again.How can you release someone who has stabbed someone 6 times and then slashed their throat.
===============================================
The suspect in the fatal stabbings of four people in Northampton this weekend had been released from state prison to a halfway house in Allentown about two months ago after serving more than 15 years in prison and receiving anger management counseling stemming from a 1992 third-degree murder conviction.

Michael E. Ballard was due back to the Allentown Community Corrections Center at 608-610 Hamilton Mall in downtown Allentown at 2 p.m. Saturday. He did not return.

State police located him three hours later in a crashed car less than 2 miles from a house where authorities found four bloodied bodies just minutes earlier. A state trooper who witnessed the crash said Ballard told him he "murdered his girlfriend and her family and then the neighbor," according to court documents.

Authorities said Ballard had knife wounds and was admitted to St. Luke's Hospital-Fountain Hill, where he was arraigned Sunday on four counts of criminal homicide in the fatal stabbing deaths of former girlfriend Denise Merhi, 39; her father, Dennis Marsh, 62; her grandfather, Alvin Marsh Jr., 87; and a neighbor, Steve Zernhelt, 53.

Prison records show Ballard has lived outside state prison for only one recent time period, between March 1, 2007 and April 23, 2008.

He was jailed in 1991 when at age 18 he was arrested in the death of Donald C. Richard, a registered nurse who was stabbed six times and had his throat slashed twice in his apartment in the 200 block of N. 12th Street in Allentown

Posted by: corebanks1940 | June 28, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"Soo ...at what point does a law abiding citizen become a criminal ... before or after killing a spouse?"

What do you think??? This isn't Tom Cruise and "Minority Report"!!

Gun control laws turn good law abiding citizens into violators just because they own a gun.

It's ironic that gun control advocates are afraid of their neighbors but not the real criminals. They think that their block party buddies will turn into foaming-at-the mouth, shoot-em-up crazies as soon as they buy a gun. Hilarious!

Posted by: oneofabillionusers | June 28, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

@Schaeffz:

Well, I am glad to hear that you are physically fit enough to go "man-on-man" with a 250lb prison weight-lifter on PCP who wants to harm you or your family.

Me, I'm not so strong. So I'll stick to using a gun.

Posted by: pmendez | June 28, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

schaeffz

The first words of the book of Revelation are: "The revelation of Jesus Christ..."

Most people don't want to kill anyone, but self-defense of defense of one's family is not in any way prohibited by Christian teaching.

I don't believe there is a high likelihood of an armed intruder coming into my home, so I don't have a handgun ready. However, if I did believe someone were likely to commit a home invasion crime or that I was not safe walking down the street, I would feel no qualms about owning a handgun and using it. I wouldn't feel any guilt if I shot an intruder who chose to invade my home and threaten my family.

I like the idea that criminals have to worry about whether I have a handgun when they are making the decision whether to invade my home and threaten my family.

I like the idea that if a criminal uses a gun in committing a crime, he or she gets a long, long prison sentence.

I like those signs that say "This home protected by Smith and Wesson."

Posted by: InTheMiddle | June 28, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

> Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24


Which means that in 1994 guns killed somewhat fewer people in the US than automobile accidents did. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)

Whatever you may think about the intrinsic virtue or evilness of private gun ownership, it simply hasn't been to date a big social problem in the US. There might be a real problem in the flow of guns from the US into Mexico and their use there by drug gangs against the government and general population, but that's a slightly different problem.

Posted by: TexLex | June 28, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

So, why would someone want to own a gun? To hunt. For the fun of target practice. For historical interest. Protection of self and family. To feel like a "man". To intimidate someone supposedly weaker. To bully. Fear of criminals. Fear of terrorists. Fear of communists. Fear of KKK. Fear of other drug dealers. Fear of other gang-bangers. Fear of tyranical Obama. Fear of those of us who don't own guns. Survival in a future world gone savage. The enjoyment of killing. Seems to me that there are more crazy reasons to own a gun than there are sane reasons. How about this, as a military member or a police officer in order to protect the innocent and to incapacitate the criminal. I chose to not own a gun, to support the legitimate gun owners, and to live with peace of mind without fear in the USA, the greatest nation the world has to offer in this day and age. I also claim the right to call some people crazy.

Posted by: schaeffz | June 28, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

"I will fight man-on-man if necessary"

You will never get that chance. Do you think you can stand there and reason with the bad guy? Do you think you'll have the
time to linearly escalate the force curve until you get the opportunity to go "man-on-man". Do you expect a fair fight???

"...and if that leads to death..."

For you, more likely than not, it will.

You better talk with your police buddies more!!!

Posted by: oneofabillionusers | June 28, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Comparing the USA to Iraq? Come on!

Plus, you are not even mentioning the studies that prove a city with an armed populace of law abiding citizens tend to have crime go DOWNWARD.

Ignatius...hmmmm..you got beat up on the playground a lot as a kid, didn't you???

Posted by: Revcain777 | June 28, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Wow does Ignatius look stupid with this whine o gram.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | June 28, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr. Ignatius, for speaking the truth, and in doing so, bearing the vitriolic personal attacks of the commenters who disagree with you.

The viciousness of their commentary is one more data point for the restriction of guns in this country. If they get this angry in a blog for geez sake, imagine what they might do to you, with their newly acquired guns drawn, if they ever meet you face-to-face.

Posted by: kim4 | June 28, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

The best thing that could happen is an F-5 Hurricane that would wash the crude oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico onto land where it would evaporate. It's not going to evaporate while on the water or submerged.

Posted by: sam1633 | June 28, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I have two questions for all those that believe they are protecting themselves with guns:

1. Do you honestly believe that you can stand up to a F-16 or a Marine battalion with your pistol and shot gun?

2. Do you carry your weapon at ALL times, and are you being ACTIVELY vigilant every moment of the day?

Common sense tells us that given the 'randomnous' of random violence, you won't see it coming and your weapon will be useless.

*Also, I have yet to see one link or reference point mentioned to substantiate the "fact" that private gun ownership equals a lower murder rate.
In fact - the U.S. has a murder rate of 5.6 per 100,000 people (FBI 2005) - and the U.K. with it's strict gun control laws 1.6 (Eurostat 2005)

Posted by: smartypants13 | June 28, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Basic hyperbole.

Question: Why are liberals called liberals when they don't support liberty??

Posted by: eeterrific | June 28, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

If anarchy does come about, it won't be because of this ruling. It'll be some large scale disruption of society's fragile structure such as a WMD, or some environmental disaster like a super volcano. When people can't get the essentials of daily living, look for them to turn on one another. Whether they have guns or not, there will be blood in the streets. I've prepared myself mentally for this eventuality, and have a lot of scores to settle.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | June 28, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

The average american is a fat couch-potato coward who couldn't defent himself from a paper bag without getting out of breath - so they need guns to feel secure. What a nation of woosies.

Posted by: sux123 | June 28, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey Ignatius...

foolish is as foolish says and you win the cake today.

Posted by: corebanks1940 | June 28, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"If they get this angry in a blog for geez sake, imagine what they might do to you, with their newly acquired guns drawn, if they ever meet you face-to-face."

Again the standard, tired, scripted rhetoric from the gun control advocate play book. Always using a wide brush, trying to portray all gun owners as fanatical crazies.

You would be amazed at the number of "normal" people in the crowd around you on the street who are carrying.

Posted by: oneofabillionusers | June 28, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

The average american is a fat couch-potato coward who couldn't defent himself from a paper bag without getting out of breath - so they need guns to feel secure. What a nation of woosies.

Posted by: sux123 | June 28, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse
=========================================A fat couch couch potatoe coward.....The more reason that I need a gun,when they break my door down armed with a knife or gun coming to kill me because liitle voices coming out the ceiling told them too.....

Posted by: corebanks1940 | June 28, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Ignatius, for having the guts to be politically incorrect in this age of Fox News. Shame on the right wing thought police's overbearing comments here. Funny how alleged constitutional literalists always ignore or obscure the "well regulated militia" part.

Posted by: stephenghowe | June 28, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I firmly believe in the Second Amendment, however, I also believe that it means just what it says, with no explation needed: The wording makes it legal for a person ( adult male, who could belong to a militia) to own (by their term: "arms") a flint-lock pistol or a muzzle-loading rifle. That is what they said. I do not see how anyone, including the Supreme Court, could say that it says anything else.

Posted by: central1942 | June 28, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

No ONE should own an M-16 and AK47 Assault Rifles and that includes the latest Military issue for combat.

The majority of people have never seen the brutality inflicted on humans or animals.
I've been in fire fights with these weapons and it's not a pleasant memory.

Posted by: sam1633 | June 28, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

There is always this talk of "there will now be chaos and blood in the streets", and then every time, crime goes down in the wake of a decision or law such as this one. We have gunowners out the wazoo in the south, and we don't have the gang violence and break-in rate that cities like Chicago, with draconian (not common sense) gun laws to "prevent chaos in the streets".

But I'm sure this time is going to be the one that causes the country to collapse.

Posted by: drumster425 | June 28, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Those of you taking Mr. Ignatius to task in such hyperpersonalized, bullying terms should be ashamed of yourselves. I can only assume that you feel the need to insult his character and intelligence because you don't have any valid arguments to offer in response.

That is also very likely the reason so many of you seem eager to own and brandish guns in the first place...

Posted by: DCSteve1 | June 28, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

--"Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts and other enthusiasts for our newly created universal right to bear arms should take a trip to Beirut or Baghdad and see how this idea works out in practice."--

Beirut -- Lebanon in general -- has extremely strict gun laws. All automatic weapons are prohibited and no one may own a firearm without a permit (usually denied). Basically all of Lebanon's gun laws are like what Chicago's were. And the country is awash in illegal guns because there is no reason to own them legally. Automatic AK47s are commonplace. And completely banned.

Shouldn't he be saying that places like Chicago can look forward to moving AWAY from being like places like Beirut?

Posted by: drumster425 | June 28, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Isn't owning a gun inherently evil?

No. Evil and good are moral terms that apply to entities that can make moral choices. A gun is a non-volitional object. Guns have no power of choice; they simply act according to their identity, their nature. Unlike a gun, the user of a firearm possesses free-will, and can be morally judged for his actions. It is only the user of a gun who is good or evil: a woman who uses a gun to shoot a man wishing to rape her is acting selfishly to save her life -- and is judged as good; a bank robber using a gun to rob a bank is acting irrationally and selflessly (by placing himself in such a predicament, and attempting to achieve values by theft) -- and is judged as evil. To say that a gun is intrinsically evil, because it can be used by criminals -- and corrupt governments -- to rob peaceful citizens, is like saying water is evil because people can drown in it.

Posted by: corebanks1940 | June 28, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

what a kook!

Posted by: meyermain | June 28, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Another example: Jamaica. Every firearm is banned. Nobody may own a gun.

Gun crime is out of control. Jamaica's murder by firearm rate is 6 times higher than when they instituted the gun ban.

Posted by: drumster425 | June 28, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Gosh, Dave, it just sucks when the courts actually uphold the Constitution rather than rewriting it to suit your preferences, doesn't it?
Oh, and Saddam had pretty strict gun control laws and an absolute monopoly on the use of force. Didn't make his Iraq a very nice place to live. And Iraq's transition to anarchy had nothing whatsoever to do with repealing gun control laws. Neither did Beirut's. I challenge you to find one single instance anywhere on the planet where repeal of strict gun control has led to anarchy and social unrest.

Posted by: TheyCallMeBruce | June 28, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

So the 2nd amendment is different from the others?

Maybe what we ought to have are licenses and examinations for accuracy and proficiency for people who express opinions or purport to be "reporters" or "journalists."

The incessant assault on the 2nd amendment by those who so passionately defend their self-interest (as reflected in the 1st amendment) is disingenuous at best.

Those who argue that somehow the 2nd amendment is anachronistic or obsolete ought to know that there are many who believe that their 1st amendment rights are far to broad and ought to be as severely restrained as the restraints and regulations on 2nd amendment rights.

And, please, don't make the ridiculous argument that "words don't kill people, guns do." As Napoleon is oft-quoted: "Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."

The lock-step so-called mainstream media proves Bonaparte's point completely.

Posted by: jshaver001 | June 28, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Mayor Daley sites horror stories of people who were hurt by guns in his town as a reason to ban guns. He fails to point out that these happened under his watch and his austere rules, that failed to protect them. It seems that the criminals weren’t too impressed with the Mayer’s rules as 410 of 412 murders were committed using supposedly banned guns. Perhaps some of them might have been spared if they were not perceived as unarmed and helpless. The shooters might have thought better of it if and held there fire. Wolves attack sheep not bears. No one knows how many crimes have been deterred by the perception (real or imagined) that the intended victim can return aggression in kind. No criminal wants a confrontation on equal terms. They strike from a position of advantage. The Sheppard lost a lamb to the wolf so he got a dog. The dogs teeth were no sharper nor its bit more vicious than the wolf but the wolf would rather go hungry than face them.

Criminals are immune to gun laws. The primary problem with all gun laws is the very people they are aimed at are those least likely to follow them. The penalties for gun possession pal in comparison and are insignificant to those for the much greater affiances they have committed when caught. Many gun confiscations from criminals are as a result of unlawful searches and not prosecutable. Thus the deterrent is small compared to the perceived utility.

Criminals must have guns to stay in business or run the risk of losing their ill-gotten gains and there life to yet another criminal. Predators are themselves prayed upon by stronger meaner predators. Remember they also make the best victims as they are not going to call 911. They need to intimidate or kill witnesses and victims. Would you turn it or testify against a criminal in his prime to whom you have no defense against. I think not. He may have friends, relatives, employees or fellow gang members. He mite even get out and thank you personally for testifying against him. It takes but a single dog amongst the sheep to deter the wolf.

Posted by: notspam | June 28, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Face it, SCOTUS and in fact the whole judicial structure is now politicized and the Corporate Fascists and the Christian Right have dominated Judicial selection for 30-40 years. For all intents and purposes, we have placed the "interpretation" of our law and legal behavior into the most corrupt, reactionary, ideological fringe of our culture; and it can only get worse without radical restructuring of everything political in our country. That's unlikely to happen, so America is now the progeny of El Duce' and we can look forward to a new dark ages of at least several centuries! Our only hope, I suppose, is the very real possibility that our youth will reject everything my misguided and duped generation has let occur; and a new anarchy will arise from the ashes of the self induced economic calamities destroying the Grand ole Republic! What a bitter sweet term that is!!

Posted by: CHAOTICIAN101 | June 28, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"That is also very likely the reason so many of you seem eager to own and brandish guns in the first place..."

Yada, yada, yada, and the rhetoric play list goes on, and on and on...

Nobody is brandishing anything. Please...

That's the problem. There are those who want to own guns and those that don't. Fine, so be it. If you don't want to own one then don't, but don't try to force your PERSONAL opinion (through legislation) onto everybody else!

Gun control is all about just that: CONTROL! If it wasn't, then there would be legislation attempting to ban everything that kills people. I know, let's ban cars since that's the weapon of choice of drunk drivers. Let's go as far as to ban alcohol.

If somebody wants to kill somebody bad enough, it will happen, gun or no gun.

Posted by: oneofabillionusers | June 28, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I AM A LIBERAL, and I have always believed that the 2nd amendment rights do apply to individuals - if you read the language, and understand the times in which the constitution was written, a 'well regulated militia', which was only called when there was need, demanded that the individuals own their own firearms. Without individual ownership, you would have an unarmed militia. The times have changed as regards militias, but the individual right, and the reasoning behind that right, have always been there - now recognized at last by the supreme court.

Posted by: arumph01 | June 28, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Why do the liberals want just the criminals and law Enforcement armed.....could it be that its nearly impossible for a unarmed revolution to happen?

Posted by: corebanks1940 | June 28, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps one of you lefties can explain something to me. The UK has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world. So please explain how those laws helped to prevent the massacre of a dozen people there a couple of weeks ago.

Oops!

Posted by: finesseaugrande
-------------------------------------------

I'll give it a try. Not cherry picking statistics is a good place to start. On the average day in the USA approximately 35 people are murdered with guns. In the UK approximately 40 people per year are murdered with guns. Adjust for the difference in population and the country with perhaps the strictest gun control laws in the world has a miniscule murder rate compared to the USA. And, no, they are not clubbing or stabbing one another to death at a higher rate because they don't have a gun handy.

Posted by: MaryAnnEvans1 | June 28, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

The Justices do not care, "How things work in practice," they probably would re decide Dred Scott the same way it was originally.

Last time I looked, the rational and purpose behind, not infringing the people's right to bear arms was, "A well-regulated militia." You know, to defend the state. Not to assail it.

Guns used against the state are therefore clearly Unconstitutional. So if some idiot thinks his gun is for being a, Coach Potato Revolutionary, then he needs to go reread the amendment.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | June 28, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Well no no down varmint going to get the drop on any US citizen if Judge Roberts has his way. Don't matter if that citizen has a rap sheet a mile long and newly relesed from the hoos khow according to Roberts, God and the God fear'in Founding Fathers meant our countrys citizen to pack heat. And by the Lawd Almighty Roberts is here to make sure its big heat and as much heat as any man or woman can carry, towt or roll in to place, ANY place.

Posted by: oregonbirddog | June 28, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

@Central1942:

"I firmly believe in the Second Amendment, however, I also believe that it means just what it says, with no explation needed: The wording makes it legal for a person ( adult male, who could belong to a militia) to own (by their term: "arms") a flint-lock pistol or a muzzle-loading rifle. That is what they said. I do not see how anyone, including the Supreme Court, could say that it says anything else."

**************************

OK, so freedom of the press only applies to newspapers printed with hand-set type on a manually operated press?

Freedom of religion only applies to the various Christian sects practiced in 1783 (plus Judaism and shamanism, of course)?

Wire taps are OK, because telephones weren't invented yet?

Posted by: pmendez | June 28, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Well no down varmint going to get the drop on any US citizen if Judge Roberts has his way. Don't matter if that citizen has a rap sheet a mile long and newly relesed from the hoos khow according to Roberts, God and the God fear'in Founding Fathers meant our country's citizen to pack heat. And by the Lawd Almighty, Roberts is here to make sure its big heat and as much heat as any man or woman can carry, towt or roll in to place, ANY place. Just please try not to blow your foot off while leveling your Automatics. Eee HAw!

Posted by: oregonbirddog | June 28, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"newly created universal right to bear arms" is not newly created. It rests firmly in the Second and 14th amendments, the latter of which extends federal restrictions to the states, just like voting rights.

Posted by: edbyronadams | June 28, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse


A 20-year-old died from stab wounds on Thursday afternoon in Leyton, east London, and a man in his 20s was killed in neighbouring Walthamstow later in the evening.

The Metropolitan police has said tackling knife crime is their number one priority, with a specialist operation called Blunt 2 being launched to help reduce stabbings.

A spokesman for the Met said: "I wouldn't describe it as an epidemic. There is an issue with knives and that is why we have launched Operation Blunt 2.''

Posted by: corebanks1940 | June 28, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey tazmodious you are spewing too much liberal BS. What is with the Tea Party crap. The Tea Party has only been around for a short while. So I guess before that the code word for honest gun carrying, law abiding Americans was right-wing wacos right. For some reason the Tea Party terrifies these feel good socialist idealogs. I not only read and know the Constitution I carry a copy with me. Go read some of the federalist papers for a better grasp of what the Constitution means. Sorry people this right is as solid as the right to free speech. You do not like living with these restrictions on government go to Venezuela and hang out with Hugo Chavez for a good taste of what you would want this country to be. And to all of you who love to compare the U.S.A. to these other countries. This is and hopefully will remain the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever seen.A constitutionally limited republic. Not a democracy which is mob rule. Any attempt to make us more like them will only drag us down to the lowest common denominator. God Bless the U.S.A.

Posted by: Randys | June 28, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"And, no, they [in the UK] are not clubbing or stabbing one another to death at a higher rate because they don't have a gun handy."

Really...

"Doctors' kitchen knives ban call "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

"Swords ban to beat violent crime"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/4788881.stm

"UK: Reducing knife crime, We need to ban the sale of long pointed kitchen knives"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1411652/posts

Posted by: oneofabillionusers | June 28, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Hey tazmodious you are spewing too much liberal BS. What is with the Tea Party crap. The Tea Party has only been around for a short while. So I guess before that the code word for honest gun carrying, law abiding Americans was right-wing wacos right. For some reason the Tea Party terrifies these feel good socialist idealogs. I not only read and know the Constitution I carry a copy with me. Go read some of the federalist papers for a better grasp of what the Constitution means. Sorry people this right is as solid as the right to free speech. You do not like living with these restrictions on government go to Venezuela and hang out with Hugo Chavez for a good taste of what you would want this country to be. And to all of you who love to compare the U.S.A. to these other countries. This is and hopefully will remain the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever seen.A constitutionally limited republic. Not a democracy which is mob rule. Any attempt to make us more like them will only drag us down to the lowest common denominator. God Bless the U.S.A.

Posted by: Randys | June 28, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse
===========================================

AMEN!!!!

Posted by: corebanks1940 | June 28, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Anarchy=the sky is falling. Chicken Littles are of little use except as comic relief.

Posted by: Puller58 | June 28, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

1) I'm a liberal, I generally vote democrat and have donated (substantially) to democrats.

2) I own guns, lots of them.

3) I own them because I like to go to the range and shoot them. I don't expect armageddon or my neighbors to suddenly attack me.

4) There are 300+ million guns in this country no amount of wishful thinking is going to make them disappear.

5) Why do my liberal brethren find it so hard to understand that the gun laws are only obeyed by non-criminals? Criminals ignore them, just look at Chicago's crime stats.

So, lets all take a breath, and realize that just like passing health care reform is not going bring a totalitarian socialist state neither is affirming the 2nd amendment going to bring about anarchy.

Posted by: jpp123 | June 28, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

This is what Ignatius is saying:

In a civilized society people don't need arms to protect their rights and their lives. There are non-violent means and mechanisms to which to which they can take recourse - like police, courts, constitution, and ultimately the vote.

Civilized state and armed citizenry are contradictions.

Posted by: hvravinder | June 28, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

The stupid progressives will never win. The writer of this article must be a progressive, as he cares not for the individuals right to live free and unmolested. Until the police and government do its job and free society form all violent criminal types and guarantee citizens a safe threat free life, I will always defend myself with deadly force.
The writer uses examples of the anarchy in war torn Iraq and Lebanon as this is the future of life in the US. This writer better look to the Arizona/Mexico border, and see that law enforcement is unable to control the violence, and Obamas regime refuses to do anything about it.

Thank you Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA, and all others fighting to keep our Second Amendnment Rifgts.

Posted by: JAQUEBAUER | June 28, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse


Ignatius is right that this pushes us further along toward anarchy on the great dialectic of anarchy-totalitarian state. However, a ruling for the Chicago ban could easily be portrayed as a victory for totalitarianism as well. It just illustrates the foolishness of a writer who dips into the well of hyperbole too frequently.

Posted by: edbyronadams | June 28, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I keep hearing about this "Activist" SCOTUS. Is it also activist when it goes your way? (read: Roe v. Wade)?

Posted by: Glock23 | June 28, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Ignatius and other well-intentioned, but naive persons who oppose restrictive gun laws, should move to a neighborhood in SE Washington DC, the iron triangle in Richmond, California, west Oakland, Hunter's Point in San Francisco, among hundreds of other neighborhoods in this country where ordinary people are less safe than American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | June 28, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and as for we "teabaggers" who need to read the Constitution...well, I have a copy I keep in my back pocket and read it and reread it. $4.95, that's all, and you too can have one! I might also suggest the libs get a copy of the Federalist Papers if you really want to understand the meaning of the 2nd A.

Posted by: Glock23 | June 28, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

One of the loudmouth pseudo tough guys wrote:

What an utter and total irrational opinion based on nothing but feelings and not the facts. Every area with the most restrictive gun bans has the highest crimes. Note that when DC implemented their gun ban crime with guns went up substantially. Chicago had a falling murder rate until the ban was implemented and then it went up.

For all the whining from the left about the ruling in DC the murder rate has gone down despite people buying and having guns.This is the biggest fear of liberals that their theories and practices are proven wrong. It seems that the Mayors of DC and Chicago want their people to live in fear dependent on government in order to justify a bigger government.

Here's a response:

The above is just another example of the gibberish peddled by gun nuts, the NRA and all the open carry boobs. This is the most violent society on earth, save for places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and its precisely because there are so many guns floating around. Even common sense restrictions are treated like the second coming of Hitler, and overblown rhetoric paralyzes Congress. DC's problem is the same as NY City's--everywhere AROUND them there are states and localities without gun laws. It's not some vast black market that supplies guns, it's the places where you can buy multiple weapons in minutes, like Georgia and Texas; it's the unregulated gun shows: it's the private transfer of weapons. Most gun owners have taken no firearms safeety courses and are more likely to injure themselves or a family member with their weapon.

And spare me the claptrap about liberty and defending freedom--thats why we have police officers, that's why we have an Army. You don't love liberty more by walking around believing you're a modern day Wyatt Earp. Grow up and stop hiding your inadequacies behind your holsters. As an ex-police officer, I've seen, all too often up close and personal, how guns cuase unwanted and unnecessary deaths. Try growing a pair.

Posted by: bklyndan22 | June 28, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse


"I keep hearing about this "Activist" SCOTUS. Is it also activist when it goes your way? (read: Roe v. Wade)?"

Pardon me, but the Constitution in the Second specifically mentions gun rights but I must get me one of those SuperSCOTUS penumbra detectors before I can find any words in the Constitution about reproductive rights. Don't confuse apples with oranges.

Posted by: edbyronadams | June 28, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

The bogeyman is coming. Better arm yourselves to the teeth.

Unfortunately while you're waiting another spouse or loved one will die when the guns you've bought are used in a drunken rage.

Has anyone ever heard of a drive-by knifing?

Posted by: richpix | June 28, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Scrap the lifetime assignment to the supreme court. This John Roberts and his 4 cohorts are pandering to the extreme right wing.

No one without a sound mind should have access to guns and ammo. That probably leaves 10% of the US population, mostly liberal.

Posted by: Single_Payer | June 28, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I have to say that when reading the standard rhetoric of the right-wing, I-want-my-gun-on-my-hip-everywhere-and-everywhen, anti-gub'mint crowd, I have what may be an unusual reaction: amusement.

Let me get this straight: you think you, with your training, physical condition, and resources, are going to be a challenge for this mythical government take-over you're hyperventilating about? Get serious! OK, let's play make-believe, and say that the White actually convinces enough of its members that it needs to use the military against its own citizens on its own soil, and take their guns away -- and they decide to start with *you*!

So you do the Paul Revere, get your community together, have Katie bar the door, and assemble 150 of your fellow gun owners with their pistols and shotguns and deer rifles to stand against the might of the tyranical US government... who sends a single squad (13 men) of US Marines who have their basic training, a 6-week training course in urban combat/counter-insurgency, and 6 months of training as a team. And they have orders to disarm you, and rules of engagement to allow them to use lethal force if necessary. I mean, after all, *you're* planning on shooting at them, so we're just making sure the objectives are clear.

My money's on the Marines. And if you think it's going to go any differently for you than it has for anyone who has *ever* stood against the Marines in an insurgency, you have some serious reality-based issues, and probably should not be allowed to have firearms. The numbers of US dead and wounded against Iraqi dead and wounded (before the military stopped telling us how many people they were killing) demonstrated that our miltary are actually very good at this kind of work, and are getting better.

So my suggestion is to quit obsessing over your Glock and start working on campaign reform, the removal of special interest money (ALL of it, from the left, right and center), election reform (to ensure that every citizen gets to vote and have it count), and the creation of NGO watchdog groups with teeth. That is the only way to ensure that the government doesn't take over -- by having the government be made of citizens, and have that distinction mean something.

Posted by: bjameswi | June 28, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

"Unfortunately while you're waiting another spouse or loved one will die when the guns you've bought are used in a drunken rage."

You host drunken rage parties often?

Posted by: edbyronadams | June 28, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Those of the Great White Liberal specie have never and will never occupy any space that's UNguarded, Ungated, Unsubsidized and UNarmed. Oh,that we Riff Raff would only pay heed and homage to the wisdom emanating from the ruins of the Amphitheater ...

Posted by: extoere | June 28, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Just what a supposedly civilized society needs: All of the people on the board spewing vitriol and self-righteousness now can be armed to the teeth.

Posted by: corbestine | June 28, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Oh, please! We need our guns to protect ourselves from Russian spies in our midst!!!! But forget that! The thing that most concerns me is with the arrest of these Russian spies, who will become our beloved president's best buddy? It can't be any Russian official. I mean, did you how they were all smiles during the recent visit? Oh, woe is me! For Obama, it's just one problem after another, isn't it?

Posted by: georges2 | June 28, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

The only thing this SCOTUS ruling will accomplish is to make certain that local and state governments cannot deny law-abiding citizens the right to own and keep a hand gun in their home. Only a few locales now abridge that right. They will have to re-write their laws. Big deal.

Only an idiot would suggest that the ruling will turn the US into Lebanon or Baghdad. In fact it's more likely the opposite will occur. Did Ignatius think before he wrote this nonsense?

Posted by: theduke89 | June 28, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

This article was satire, correct?

Posted by: jilly999 | June 28, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

David Ignatius is trolling.

Posted by: gbooksdc | June 28, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Well I guess it depends greatly on the neighborhood that you live in. I feel that in my particular case I do not need a handgun to protect my property, but I certainly can envisage other locations where that would not be the case. My main worry is that there are enough "crazies" who may resort to using handguns for political reasons. The term "well regulated" has to have some significance in the thinking of the Founding Fathers.

Posted by: morryb | June 28, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Incredible.

This piffling excuse for an article goes all Chicken Little and reductio ad absurdum on us.

I'm impressed.

Only not in a good way.

So our esteemed and doubtless hard-working author is implying that all of a sudden, now that the Supreme Court, under a center-liberal Administration (that many on the Right so gleefully and *loudly* accused of being more than willing to EEEEEEK OMG THEY GONNA TAKE ARE GUNS AWAY!!1!) has **loosened** those self same gun laws that the Right is so very protective of...

(and properly so, in my opinion)

...the United States is **instantly** transformed into EEEEEEK OMG ANARCHY IN BEIRUT!!1!

Seriously??

SERIOUSLY?????

Now that I'm a card carrying permanent Democrat and have turned into somewhat of a leftist hippie in the second half of my life, this blatantly knee-jerk, illogical, and completely ridiculous line of what passes for reasoning MAKES ME EVEN ANGRIER than it made me when I was a Reagan conservative!!

Posted by: s_vashutal | June 28, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Gee, there must be 5 guys on the court with very small penises

Posted by: KENMAREINC | June 28, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Let's look on the bright side. The ruling recognizes the rights of several hitherto disadvantaged groups, eg., would be terrorists and mention political assassins.

With more guns available (and there will be), would-be terrorists of every stripe need not go to extreme lengths merely to get explosives, then have to deal with wiring cars or themselves to explode, etc.

And now, no one needs to hire a hit man to dispose of the unwelcome and unnecessary since s/he can take care of the problem(s)
without help--at a significant cash savings.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | June 28, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

The Left's opinion on gun ownership has never been the majority opinion, ever. One of the basic pillars of the left wing foundation is gun control. So it also is of dictators.

Posted by: bobbo2 | June 28, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Let's outlaw private ownership of firearms, swords, knives with blades more than 2" long, baseball bats, (most of the rest of the world likes soccer better anyway) canes and walking sticks, golf clubs, make possession of any rock or other hard object which can be thrown, swung or otherwise used to inflict injury a felony, make everyone wear special suits which will protect us from harm...
Who cares if we all waddle like we weigh 800 pounds and look like giant beach balls? We'll be safe!

Posted by: meand2 | June 28, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

BJameswi--You must assume that a large portion if not most of the 150 you speak of may be combat veterans,still a lot of us around.American closets abound with nasty weaponry & not just the criminals have this stuff.This would be like bringing your 13 trained jarheads to the slaughter pen.Combat hardened veterans would have no mercy on their souls if you tried to take away their rights.You would lose your squad.Take it from one who knows

Posted by: Doobert | June 28, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

BJameswi--You must assume that a large portion if not most of the 150 you speak of may be combat veterans,still a lot of us around.American closets abound with nasty weaponry & not just the criminals have this stuff.This would be like bringing your 13 trained jarheads to the slaughter pen.Combat hardened veterans would have no mercy on their souls if you tried to take away their rights.You would lose your squad.Take it from one who knows

Posted by: Doobert | June 28, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

I am dismayed that the author refers to this ruling as creating a new universal right to bear arms. Have you not read the constitution? You know, that pesky little document that gives you the RIGHT to write your senseless drivel? It also assures our right to "keep and bear arms" as the Supreme court rightly upheld today.

Posted by: PennyPincher | June 28, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Whatever side of the gun debate you are on, note that this is a case of a federal court asserting that states and localities do not have the right to fashion their own laws according to the will of the local or state voters. Those readers who like this particular ruling might want to consider the possible implications for other issues where the federal government may assert authority for a position on an issue that may not be to your liking. It is insane that localities cannot make their own decisions on an issue like this using a democratic process. Seems scary to me.

Posted by: kenvkayez | June 28, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Better anarchy than the statist tyranny we have had for the last 9½ yrs...

Posted by: irvnx | June 28, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

To the pro-gun person who asked why the U.K. had gun deaths even though that country has very restrictive gun laws - yes, a few people get killed by guns in England. About 2 percent of the number killed by guns in a year in the U.S. (adjusted per hundred thousand).

Here are the number of people killed in gun deaths per hundred thousand in a few different countries. Of course, the U.S. has everybody beat by a mile....

U.S.A. 14.24
Mexico 12.69
Northern Ireland 6.63
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Kuwait 1.84
Germany 1.24
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21

Posted by: davidwatching | June 28, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

"Anarchy"? Don't be any stupider than you need to be. In every single state---37 altogether---where the legislature has established "will issue" guidelines for concealed weapons permits---the crime rate for the commission of crimes with a firearm has gone down. Those states evidently understand the Constitution better than someone inside the beltway, as they know that the 2nd Amendment was meant by the Founders to guarantee individual ownership and use of weapons in the defense of life, property and this Republic. Any questions?

Posted by: dkaag | June 29, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

For the people saying individuals have to be armed as a check on the government:

Does each individual American have the right to stockpile his or her own nuclear weapons?

Because your handguns and rifles would not make the difference against the US military.

Posted by: clarkjerome | June 29, 2010 6:53 AM | Report abuse

No; it could never happen here (societal breakdown). We are AMERICANS and are much more enlightened (superior) than the rest of the world's people. A despot like Hitler or Stalin (or their ilk) could NEVER assume power over here, this only happens in the backward countries, we are too wise for that. Anyway, human beings have evolved SO much in the last 50 years . . . so much more in this time than in the previous 200,000 years combined. We are CIVILIZED now ! Add to this indisputable fact that our government knows EXACTLY what's best for us (we better not second guess them) so we need never worry,they will protect us from all harm.

Posted by: gjdagis | June 29, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Anybody see the irony with the following 2 events on the exact same day:

1 - Supreme Court invalidates gun control.

2 - 2 police officers in Tampa, Florida shot and killed.

Morons.

Posted by: bwe43201 | June 29, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

This ruling directly applies to 2 cities, both in IL; Chicago and Oak Park. Both cities have seen fit to ignore the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and completely ban handgun ownership by their citizens.

Private ownership of guns, to be kept in the home, for protection and self-defense, is a basic tenet of life in a free society. The ability to protect and defend oneself is the only way a society can remain free. When one is not allowed the ability to defend themselves, they become fair game for anyone more powerful. That is NOT freedom.

The court has not changed anything at all pertaining to gun control laws. If a state or municipality requires a license or gun registration, those rules still apply. The court also did not lift bans on assault weapons or the ownership/possession of guns by felons.

To say the Supreme Court has ended gun control is not only ludicrous, it's plain stupid. Yesterdays decision has no more to do with gun control laws than your article has to do with reality.

The ruling applies to the ability to OWN guns, not where you may carry one. There is a huge difference between owning a gun and keeping it in your home, and strapping one on your hip to go to Walmart.

Furthermore, to suppose the entire country will now devolve into anarchy is moronic. 48 states have some form of concealed carry laws and, so far, the country has not reverted back to the "Wild West."

You seem to think that the mere thought of owning a gun makes people lose all sense of reality and common sense. Apparently, that phenomenon only occurs when you are in the presence of a keyboard.

You sir, are an idiot!

Posted by: springer98 | June 29, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

"..if I know that my neighbor is armed ... then I have to think about protecting my family, too."

Well, that's the point. Not only is your neighbour armed, but so are others who just walk through your neighbourhood. Saying "but if there is a no-gun law, these people are not supposed to be armed," will not change the fact that they are.

Posted by: langej1 | June 29, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of untrue fear mongering crap this editorial is. This guy is so off base that he deserves an award for for writing the best editorial to line a bird cage with. Get real Ignatius; your baseless opinion only serves to highlight your moronic tendencies.

Posted by: civilrightist | June 29, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

For the people saying individuals have to be armed as a check on the government:

Does each individual American have the right to stockpile his or her own nuclear weapons?

Posted by: clarkjerome | June 29, 2010 6:53 AM
===============

Yeesh, more reductio ad absurdum.

Why of course, I myself have five Trident II SLBMs stowed in my attic.

No self-respecting hippie goes without a set of those suckers.

Just in case the neighbor's cats go excavating in my catnip.

Yup.

Idiot.

Posted by: s_vashutal | June 29, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

To all of the pansy progressives: You lost and real Americans won yesterday in the recent SCOTUS ruling. I think it is time for y'all to organize a hugfest! I know your panties are in a bunch and you people should get together and stroke each other hair and tell one another it is going to be alright. May I suggest that you organize civil disobedience by placing signs out front of your houses stating that you are outraged by the recent SCOTUS ruling and you will not participate in 2nd amendment rights; your pals, the criminals, will be by shortly to comfort you and relieve you of your earthly possesions and hopefully your miserable lives!

Posted by: civilrightist | June 29, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Dismantling the Constitution leads us to anarchy, not abiding by it and the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Posted by: swampfoxniner | June 29, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Dismantling the Constitution leads us to anarchy, not abiding by it and the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Posted by: swampfoxniner | June 29, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Taking apart the Constitution will only bring more problems than it will solve them.

You guys should check out the Nanny State Liberation Front page on Facebook, its getting very popular.

Posted by: ravirehmatullah | June 29, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

the editor is an idiot!why don`t you educate yourself about guns and the facts that apply to them before you shoot your mouth off and make yourself look so foolish!the law is the law;and like all other`s are there to abide by and obey;you can change it if you don`t like it,but the majority of us want our gun right`s!

Posted by: bobsolla | June 29, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Guns in America

300+ M(million) people in USA
200+ M firearms in USA
2+ M DGU's (Defensive Gun Use) per year
9 Billion rounds of ammunition bought by Americans 2009 (DOD purchased 2 B)
34 M people went to the range in 2009
9 M took their AR-Sport Utility Rifles.
108+ M NCIS background checks past 10+ years; peak 11 M 2009
48 States with Concealed Permit Laws.
(Shall Issue vs May Issue (NY, CA, etc.)
Castle Doctrine Acts and Traveling Statues in 31+ states.

A Nation fighting four wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico, and GangLand.

What the Second Amendment means to me.

If you try to take away our guns, we will kill you.
After all, we have guns and we're pretty good shots.
I don't have to tell you I have them. I don't have to fill out a million forms and endure the system's inertia waiting for someone's permission. I can travel with them, secure parts for their repair, buy ammunition for them, shoot them when and where appropriate. I am immune from civil litigation if I lawfully use my weapon to defend my life against an illegal violent assault. They are my property. I can transfer them, will them,lose them, have them stolen with no obligation to report it. I don't have to report to police.


What The SCOTUS Heller/McDonald decisions mean to me.

Confirms a preexisting individual natural right to defend my 'castle' using commonly available tools.
That's nice. I already knew that, but it's handy to have The Supremes back your play.

To all the people who still think this is all so terribly wrong and barbaric, I'm afraid the American boat has sailed on your vision of utopia. I'd reccomend you go and get one and learn how to use it.

As for the moribund militia arguement. Consider that right now the islamic jihadi's consider each American as a proper military target because they feed and support the wars against Muslims. That's why what they do isn't Terrorism according to them. My definition of a terrorist is the intentional targeting of noncombantans. Collateral damage isn't terrorism. Hasan's attack at Ft. Hood wasn't a "terrorist" act. That was a legitimate military target. It wasn't his fault the soldiers had no guns. That's the US Army's fault.

Therefore, as a member of The Texas State Rifle Association and DCM/NRA Service Rifle shooter, I steady ready to rally and muster The Texas Irregulars to defend hearth and home from predations. I am an Army of One. I hereby request a complement of weapons appropriate for a five member squad. (Me, wife, son 1, daughter 2, son 2).

5- Beretta M9A1's
4- M4's with all the cool stuff
1- 240B Heavy Machine Gun
2-M249 SAW's
1- M-110 SDDM rifle
1- Barrett M107 .50 CQ
3- M203 40 mm Grenade Launchers
(substitute M79 Thumper OK)
1- M224 60mm Mortar
1- "Ma Deuce" M2HB.

That should cover it.

If TEOTWAKI occurs, then all the better to have some shooting irons and something to feed them.

Posted by: Tx0591 | July 3, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company