Archive for Thursday, June 26, 2008

Did the Supreme Court make the right call on gun laws?

Court says 2nd Amendment protects Americans’ right to own handguns or rifles for hunting, self-defense

June 26, 2008

Advertisement

Hidden Heat: Concealed carry in Kansas
Finding places that allow you to carry a concealed weapon in Lawrence is not hard, Journal-World reporter Chad Lawhorn found. A new law that went into effect July 1 makes it even easier to obtain a concealed carry permit.

In summer 2007, reporter Chad Lawhorn embarked on a project to document the process of receiving a concealed carry permit in Kansas. Follow Lawhorn as he goes through the steps - from buying a gun to carrying it on the streets - and learn more about some of the people and places he encountered along the way More

-->
-->

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

Comments

1029 7 years, 1 month ago

Happy day for scared little men with little p__ses who want to feel tough. As their brains were developing, they watched cowboy and indian movies and shoot-em-up cop movies, and as adults they simply lacked the capacity to move to the next level mentally and say "Wait a minute! Are we really that scared and pathetic that we need guns to feel tough and safe?"

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille..(1) The reference to the sawed off shotgun, and guns in common use at the time, was in reference to the holding in U.S. v. Miller. It was used to illustrate that the Miller decision is not overruled.(2) I have not read the whole opinion yet so I am not sure if it the court make specific reference to incorporation. If they did not then you are correct; there will likely be future litigation regarding whether it applies to the states. However, one could make the argument it is incorporated by negative inference, since he didn't say it wasn't incorporated.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

justfornow...Just for the sake of argument:"The people," to which Thomas Jefferson was referring, could be the people in a collective sense, in a "well regulated militia." Therefore, it would not apply to individuals, only state regulated militias.Also, would you say that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of rebellion against the government?

Haiku_for_You 7 years, 1 month ago

Hand me my shotgun.I need to go kill a bear,then I'll have bear arms.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

barrypenders...Contemporary public opinion is just one of the factors the court sometimes looks at when interpreting the meaning of words in the constitution. Although some Justice only look at the historical meaning of the word at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Marion...How about I just provide a link to the opinion, rather than you wasting so much space.http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

I agree with LeviCirlce, this would have been a huge deal if one justice voted the other way. It is also a huge deal because, while the citizens understanding of the 2nd Amendment was that it conferred an individual right, for the last 70 years (since U.S. v. Miller) most courts have not interpreted it as a collective right.

staff04 7 years, 1 month ago

"The Miller Decision is fundamentally flawed because Miller did not show up to plead the case and default judgement was granted."The Supremes clearly do not share your opinion in this case, do they?

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Marion...That is a good point, but (1) there also is likely a rule against spamming, and (2) I would not necessarily call pasting a URL for reference "promoting"

sfjayhawk 7 years, 1 month ago

What about the part of the 2nd amendment that says .'...well regulated..." does that not give citizens the right to regulate locally? What ever happened to states rights? The true republicans are rolling over in their mansions.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

I know, Marion, but the Scalia opinion makes it OK to prohibit fully automatic weapons or sawed-off shotguns while it is not OK to prohibit other types of weapons. (At least for the feds and D.C.)I found the distinction interesting and really somewhat subjective, Much like the "cruel and unusual punishment" standard, the "in common use for lawful purposes" standard will invariably change over time and allows the judicial system to be more active than most neo-cons profess (falsely, IMO) to be comfortable with.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Jonas:The definition of "arms" in the 2nd Amendment does not include those type of military weapons. This has been the law since U.S. v. Miller, even before today's decision which reiterated it.

Poon 7 years, 1 month ago

Dag nabbit Blue, you beat me to it :-)

Poon 7 years, 1 month ago

"Did the Supreme Court make the right call on gun laws?"You Betcha!

sfjayhawk 7 years, 1 month ago

Marion, at the time of the writing of the amendment they didn't have assault rifles, semi automatic hand guns and machine guns. So should we interpret this to mean that anyone can have a black powder muzzle loader? Sounds good to me.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Based on footnote 23, I think it is fair to say the court implicitly incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states, although not directly since it was not at issue, when they stated "we note that Cruikshank (a century old case that said the Second Amendemnt isn't incorporated) also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases."

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

sfjayhawk..I think republicans understand, accept and agree the U.S. Constitution may limit what states may lawfully do.The "well regulated part" refers to the militia, not to "the people." Also it is in the prefatory clause which cannot take away from the the operative clause provides, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"However, the Court clearly stated that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right and reasonable regulation is allowed. However, a complete ban on handguns is not reasonable.

madameX 7 years, 1 month ago

Marion, why are you so mean? By assuming that all "liberals" are irrational idiots until they prove otherwise, you are engaging in exactly the type of close-minded, knee-jerk stereotyping you accuse us of. p.s. I totally think the Supreme Court made the right call on this. However, I'll be interested to see if there's any thundering about how they're "thwarting the will of the people" by striking down and (unconstitutuional) law that was put in place by elected representatives the way there has been about other decisions, particularly the Cali gay marriage law. I know that one was a state supreme court and one was the federal supreme court, but the basic sequence of events is more or less the same: representatives pass law, someone sues, court delcares law to be in violation of the Constitution (state or federal) and therefore void. If a law passed by elected representatives can be assumed to represent the will of the people, and by striking down said law the court is, in one case, thwarting the will of said people, then it stands to reason that all courts would be thwarting the will of said people in all other equivilant cases. Like I said, I agree with this ruling, and I also agree with the Cali gay marriage ruling, but it's food for thought.

Munsoned 7 years, 1 month ago

Haiku--I thought it meant I could now rip my sleeves off in DC.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

Interesting opinion. (Funny how Scalia does a great job with using his "textualist" approach to analyze this legal issue, but then slides into legal realism when towing the party line on Gitmo. Anyway.)Couple of observations: (1) Scalia says the amendment refers to those weapons in common use for lawful purposes, particularly self-protection. This allows the outlawing of sawed-off shotguns and other weapons deemed not "in common use for lawful purposes." However, this is somewhat circular. I have no doubt if fully automatic weapons were not prohibited, they would be quite commonly used for "self protection." And sawed-off shotguns are commonly used in this part of the nation for pest control on farms. At least they were when I was a kid. (2) I never saw in Scalia's opinion that he actually incorporated the 2nd Amendment into the 14th so that it would apply to the states. Maybe I missed it - and I certainly would agree that he implied it - but without this incorporation this opinion is limited to laws enacted by the federal government or the District of Columbia. Did I miss it?

Flap Doodle 7 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

And the 5-4 on Gitmo clearly indicates the bias of the Right and the lengths "purists" such as Scalia and Thomas will go to justify their positions. Which is why I don't vote party line for anybody.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

blue, I agree with the ruling and say congrats and rejoice if you choose, but the ruling won't really effect the nation. I agree that it is a major deal -- for those in DC! -- but not the rest of the country, where people have had guns in their homes all along. It hardly qualifies as one of the greatest days in our nation's history, as Marion ejaculated. (Does that closing line count as shot worthy?)

nobody1793 7 years, 1 month ago

"If NOBODY had a gun,,,,we wouldn't need this decision,,,,now would we?"You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Well, who the hell else are you talkin' to? You talkin' to me? Well, I'm the only one here.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

jafs...The right is not limited to only handguns, it is limited to "arms""If one believes that an individual right to bear arms is the meaning of the 2nd amendment, how can one deny any citizen that right under the Constitution?"Because no right is absolute, just like the right to free speech and freedom of assembly are limited.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

Copied from scotusblog:"Individuals have a constitutional right to possess a basic firearm (the line drawn is unclear, but is basically those weapons in general lawful use and does not extend to automatic weapons) and to use that firearm in self-defense. The government can prohibit possession of firearms by, for example, felons and the mentally ill. And it can also regulate the sale of firearms, presumably through background checks. The Court leaves open the constitutionality of a licensing requirement."D.C.'s laws are invalidated. The handgun ban is unconstitutional. The Court treats the District's trigger lock requirement as categorical and not including a self-defense exception. It does not address whether the trigger lock rule would be constitutional if it had such an exception, though it suggests it would by referring to the right to have a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.""The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, but strongly suggests it is. So today's ruling likely applies equally to State regulation."

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Correction: "for the last 70 years (since U.S. v. Miller) most courts have not interpreted it as a collective right."Meant to say: "most courts have interpreted it as a collective right"

staff04 7 years, 1 month ago

Marion-I did read it. From start to finish. Here is what I was referring to:"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in anymanner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealedweapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendmentor state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearmsin sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, orlaws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale ofarms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those"in common use at the time" finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."-----------------------------------------------------------------------------This court ruling establishes that reasonable prohibitions on the possession and use of firearms are allowable. It says in clear and plain English that, contrary to what many on your side of the argument would have us believe, "the Second Amendment is not unlimited."That's the point I was making. Sorry if you missed that paragraph in the decision.

Confrontation 7 years, 1 month ago

I think the cost of getting a concealed carry permit is too high. It's $150 for the application, $12 for the license, and how ever much someone wants to charge you to take the course (I've found prices ranging from $80 to $150). Add in the cost of the gun and the ammo for the class. For those people who live in the highest crime areas, and who are most likely to be targeted by criminals, this cost is prohibitive. Of course, I know most people on here will claim that the cost should be higher. That would make concealed carry an option for only the stay-at-home soccer moms who drive Honda Odyssey Touring minivans.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

Back to the issue of the shotgun section, would it not follow that if a majority of states allowed fully automatic weapons such that it could be said they were in common use for a lawful purpose that the feds and D.C. could not ban them? And then if the right has been incorporated then the remaining states could not ban fully automatic weapons either, right?

nobody1793 7 years, 1 month ago

I'm pretty sure that anyone in D.C. who really wanted a gun already had one.

HootyWho 7 years, 1 month ago

If NOBODY had a gun,,,,we wouldn't need this decision,,,,now would we?

jafs 7 years, 1 month ago

It is an interesting decision.Seems to me it's kind of in the middle somewhere - it's a citizen's right to own a handgun, but not other types.Oh, and if you're a felon, or mentally ill, etc. this right doesn't apply to you.If one believes that an individual right to bear arms is the meaning of the 2nd amendment, how can one deny any citizen that right under the Constitution?

50YearResident 7 years, 1 month ago

Now maybe DC can reduce their crime rate and no longer be known as a place to avoid after dark.

Grundoon Luna 7 years, 1 month ago

I am a liberal who believes in the right to bear arms, as do many of us, so stick your generalizations, Marion!

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Marion: "This is one of the greatest days in the history of this Great Nation!"Yep, it ranks right up there to when they re-introduced "Classic Coke." This ruling was expected and it will have an effect on only a few communities in our nation, so it hardly counts as a "major" change to the way most have been living. It appears to me to be more a symbolic victory for most in the country who support gun ownership. Even in the communities directly effected, I doubt we will see much of a difference in the rise or fall in the crime rate, especially in a place like DC, since an introduction of more guns won't change the economic situation there. Although a symbolic victory for most pro-gun types, I can't really argue with the judges' rational. There has indeed been a "historical narrative" of the law that has allowed guns in the home, so I think the conservatives on the court got this one right. It will be interesting to see if the number of crimes and murders do indeed drop in DC in the near future, and I hope they do, which would certainly be a strong message in support of gun owners. On the other hand, what are we to do if the number of violent crimes rises dramatically there? What if the numbers of crimes committed rises dramatically in the next few years, along with the number of stolen gun reports? If murders and crimes rise there, will we need to look at the law again? (This is all speculation, not meant to be anti- or pro-gun. These are just questions. Again, I hope for lower crime.)My personal feeling is that all gun owners should be required to go through the equivalent of training the conceal and carry owners must go through (and then all should be allowed to carry) but I doubt it would ever happen. Congratulations to the victors and the gun owners on this ruling. Since this one appears to be settled, can we move onto the really important issues, like gay marriage and flag burning?

tunahelper 7 years, 1 month ago

finally the US Supreme Court did something right!I'm gonna go buy some more .45 ACP ammo in honor of this great moment in our history.nobama, keep the change.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

Apparently, I skipped a critical footnote, which discussed incorporation:""23 With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government."I bet SCOTUS will incorporate the 2nd eventually. Its discussions about the treatment of individual rights and its comparisons using the 1st and 4th Amendment are telling.

rootdown1212 7 years, 1 month ago

One need only to study Switzerland to realize that there is no correlation between the number of guns and crime. In Switzerland, EVERY citizen is required to posses a military-issued assualt rifle. However, crimes that involve guns are extremely uncommon. Assualts involving blades are six time more common than those involving firearms. Moreover, deaths involving guns in that country are mostly suicides. Washington D.C., by contrast, is the antithesis of Switzerland. It has had for the last 32 years very onerous gun control laws, yet crime was rampant. This goes to show that law-ABIDING citizens are capable of responsible gun ownership. Laws prohibitting ownership and use are absurd and misguided. A motivated criminal will always find a way, be it with a gun, knife, bomb, club, etc. I would rather take my chances with a criminal holding a gun than C4 and ball bearings duct-taped to their chest. If you want to eliminate crime, you have to go to the source and address the root issue....culture...people are not being raised with sound morals and judgement. Unfortunately, government has little to offer in support, especially since the ACLU scurge. It starts with good parenting where the mother AND father are heavily involved in their children's rearing.

madameX 7 years, 1 month ago

Bea asks:"(Does that closing line count as shot worthy?)"I say yes! I'm off to raid my bosses' liquor cabinet now...

staff04 7 years, 1 month ago

"(Those present said that it did not pass by voice vote but gun-hating Charlie said that it did!) "Marion's lack of institutional knowledge shines through once again.Marion...any member of the House of Representatives has the right to call for a recorded vote after any voice vote has been taken. If anyone present thought that it didn't pass, they would have called for a recorded vote. It wouldn't matter in the least what "gun-hating Charlie" said.Repeat: ANYONE who thought that the voice vote did not pass could have called for a recorded vote. Blame those who opposed the amendment for not asking for a recorded vote if you want to blame anyone.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

The individual right to bear arms is "the palladium of our liberties" - Justice StoryThis is a great day for those who believe it is a fundamental right to be able to protect themselves, and their family against criminals and oppressive governments.

average 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille - Thanks for pointing out the footnote disclaiming incorporation of the 2nd on the states (yet). Certainly, if we look at framer's intent, none of the Bill of Rights applied to state action (states had established religions, lack of jury trial, restrictions on free speech, etc, until the civil war).Personally, I don't see the huge problem in states having different gun laws.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

"Not necessarily disagreeing with the decision, but so much for "strict constructionism"."I am far from a Scalia fan. I think he is a bully and a blowhard, and he is a hypocrite when it comes to consistently applying his principles as a self-identified pure "textualist." On the other hand, as Baille, I am kind of a bully and a blowhard, too, so what are you gonna do?In any case, Scalia's opinion in this matter was well reasoned and well written. While he did occasionally give in to his baser impulses and make gratuitous insulting and demeaning comments about the amici or his fellow Justices, his application of textualism was very consistent throughout and I found it his reasoning compelling. There were only a couple of spots where I saw he digressed into the a different perspective., and while I do not necessarily agree that the judicial system must adhere strictly to one narrow category of jurisprudence as Scalia so often preaches, I thought in this case it served him - and the rest of us - well.

staff04 7 years, 1 month ago

The decision also states that the 2nd amendment isn't unlimited and that reasonable restrictions are permittable--it only states that THIS particular restriction is not. FINALLY, an admission by the Supremes that gun ownership is not, in fact, a "God given right." Flush that, Marion...

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

"If one believes that an individual right to bear arms is the meaning of the 2nd amendment, how can one deny any citizen that right under the Constitution?"Read the decision. The Court addresses this directly and uses other cases that have more in-depth legal analysis on the point to support its position in this matter.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Sfaff04:A statement that the individual right to own and use a firearm is likely included as generally denouncing the method of Constitutional construction know as Natural Rights theory, which many in the majority do not agree with.

LeviCircle 7 years, 1 month ago

I cannot agree with those who say that this is no big deal. All one has to do is to read from Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion: "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house..." In other words, because of one vote (it was a 5-4 decision), the above view lost. One vote swings, and the Supremes would have ruled that there is not Constitutional right to owning a handgun.I'd call that a big deal...both now, and for the future.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

"I'm pretty sure that anyone in D.C. who really wanted a gun already had one."This is why I agree with the ruling. Yes, there are plenty of guns in DC already, so the band-aid approach of taking away only some of them had no effect except to turn well-intened folks into criminals.I'll bet a gun safety instructor could make a mint working in DC in the coming year. I anticipated seeing Marion "spouting" off as he has been doing. I'm just surprised he doesn't need 8 hours of sleep in between each "proclimation." (shots all around!)

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

DonQuipunch..."Satirical. You took up MORE space with your redundant example."I am not sure how a single line link takes up MORE space than three very long posts. Plus, I awas not publicly denouncing, I was providing an alternative.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Sfjayhawk:The 2nd Amendment would allow modern day weapons just like the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech includes modern methods of communication. However, the court stated that a ban on weapons such as assault weapons is constitutional.

Poon 7 years, 1 month ago

sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says:Marion, at the time of the writing of the amendment they didn't have assault rifles, semi automatic hand guns and machine guns. So should we interpret this to mean that anyone can have a black powder muzzle loader? Sounds good to me.We didn't have the internet when the First Ammendment was ratified, so perhaps we should just shut down this whole d@mned discussion board.

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

justfornow (Anonymous) says:"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.Thomas Jefferson"While it's a good quote, I wonder if the arms build-up of the 20th century makes gun rights for the citizenry kind of irrelevant to that purpose. Can the citizens own a battleship or an anti-aircraft missile?

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille: "(Obama) stated that he supported D.C.'s right to ban handguns absent some controlling authority."I don't remember him including the part about absent some controlling authority, As I previously stated, he did not explicitly state he supports a collective right, but stating he supports the D.C. gun ban is a irreconcilable to an individual rights view, which he claims he held all along. "but you don't rebut something through mere contradiction"A contradiction is exactly how you rebut something. I believe in "X", is a contradiction and rebuts, I believe in "not X." You can't have it both ways, unless you are a politician who speaks out of both sides of your mouth and then convince your myopic followers that these totally inconsistent statements are somehow reconcilable. "The only references I have made to the 14th have been in regards to your theory of "implied incorporation."" Perhaps you forget your argument that Scalia was a flip-flopper which provoked my counter argument. Having said that, I am not here to defend Scalia and I think we have wasted enough time talking about him.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 1 month ago

Even if the right to firearm possession is "individual", that does not mean that it cannot be restricted, as it already is today.The press is restricted; free speech is restricted; practice of religion is restricted, with the restrictions coming from the commonwealth need for safety and pursuit of happiness.

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

...bea, surely you're not that far around the bend. Perhaps you misworded that statement. Is it that you were trying to imply disliking obama is racist? Because if that is your insinuation it would be equally absurd. That should require no explanation.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

beatrice..."We need to look at the big picture, particularly our continued occupation of Iraq and the economy. On these issues, Obama is my choice by far."I agree with your argument, but not the conclusion.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 1 month ago

"Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted."What a maroon. This guy calls himself a strict constructionist, but this is liberal overinterpretation at its finest.The 2nd clearly indicates the right pertains to militias. Nowhere are individuals mentioned.Scalia is legislating from the bench. It is the right of the states to legislate individual gun ownership because individual gun ownership is not mentioned in the Constitution.Scalia is an activist judge who is legislating from the bench. Liberal overinterpretation.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

Well I believe that sky is green. That does not rebut evidence that shows it is blue. You can not rebut through mere contradiction. You must offer evidence to support a belief or show a flaw in the other's reasoning. If all we are going to do is profess our belief in contrary position then this discussion is an absolute waste of time.Supporting the D.C. gun ban is not irreconcilable with the position that the 2nd is individual v. collective. One could support a gun ban in Abilene even while recognizing that the 2nd Amendment prevents the feds from prohibiting individual gun ownership.In any event, rather than relying on yours or my recollection of what Obama said, here is what he said he said:""I believe the Second Amendment as being an individual right and have said that consistently," he said. "I also think that individual right is constrained by the rights of the community to maintain issues with public safety. I don't think those two principles are contradictory and in fact what I've been saying consistently is what the Supreme Court essentially said today."If you can find something that says differently please let me know. I know that Obama has long favored tight regulation and control, but if you have something solid that shows he once flipped where now he flops, please share it.And I never said Scalia was a flip-flopper. I said he will have to reconsider (flip-flop if you will) his principled opposition to incorporation in order to incorporate the 2nd amendment. If that's all you base your conciliatory 14th amendment argument on, I think we can put that issue to bed with the agreement that neither one of us read anything like that in the opinion.

bondmen 7 years, 1 month ago

Only individuals can make up a militia. And only free men own guns, slaves and subjects do not. This was an extremely important decision for America. Be thankful for the Five my friends and countrymen!

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Bondmen:Again, refer to the language, it does not state; the right of the militia to keep and a bear arms shall not be infringed, it states, "the people." The reference to the militia is in the prefatory clause which does not control what is provided in the operative clause.

gogoplata 7 years, 1 month ago

**Also, would you say that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of rebellion against the government?It does give the people the ability to stand up against tyranny. "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."The 2nd ammendment is a means for protecting individual liberty.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

beatrice...While I do not support barrypenders comment, s/he was not making a threat, plus calling Obama a "soon to be President" is a little presumptuous.Also, I flagged a post several hours ago from someone who explicitly suggested shooting every single person who voted for Bush. And for some reason LJWorld still hasn't removed it.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Yourworstnightmare:."The 2nd clearly indicates the right pertains to militias. Nowhere are individuals mentioned"Perhaps you should read ALL of the second amendment including the operative clause which states: "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"Even a strict constructionist looks to the definition of the word at the time it was adopted in order to derive its meaning. In fact, that is the definition of a strict constructionist.

Jcjayhawk1 7 years, 1 month ago

"If the murder rate in D.C. goes lower then say 150 (in 2006 it says 169, lowest in many years) because of this, I will defend this action, but if it goes over say 300 (1988-1997), it will be proof that gun controls work."Gun controls have little effect. People that commit Murder usually have aquired the firearm illegally. The control laws mean nothing to them. Therefore are ineffective.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

Huh. What about a spirited, in-depth discussion of the "Vagina Monologues?" Would that be appropriate?

gogoplata 7 years, 1 month ago

**Satirical (Anonymous) says: gogoplata:Your quote is not apart of the 2nd Amendment or the U.S. Constitution.The court did never stated the 2nd Amendment granted the right of rebellion.The right you are referring to is what some people call a Natural Right, but it is not in the Constitution.It doesn't need to be in the constitution or bill of rights and it doesn't need to be granted by the supreme court. That quote is from the declaration of independence which predates the constitution. This nation was founded by men and women who stood up against tyranny and if we come to a new point in American history where the US Government takes away the individual liberties of the people then it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The 2nd ammendment is vital for the people should they be forced to once again stand against tyranny.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Marion, actually it was Robert Marble who called those opposed to the ruling as "bedwetters" in his 8:32pm post. The last time a gun article came by, he did the same thing then. I simply responded. Feel free to apologize for those hateful things you wrote about me at any time. RM -- Funny, I have said throughout that I agree with the ruling, and have said congrats to those to whom it really matters, especially those in DC. But you have to jump in calling people who disagree with the almighty YOU that you call them bedwetters. Read my earlier comments to see if I'm a liar. You are the one who started calling people who don't like guns "bedwetters," an odd phrase and one you have used before, which indicates a particular interest in this activity. Now, read Marion's 10:54 pm post, and realize all those hateful comments he directed at me are really aimed at you.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

We were discussing both; however, the last mention of incorporation was caused by you misstating the law.""The Bill of Rights guarantees individual freedoms from the government, including the individual right to keep and bear arms.""Not true and because you fail to see how this is not true, you do not see that it is perfectly consistent to agree with the proposition that the second amendment is an individual right but that its application only constrains the federal government. If the second amendment is to apply to Abilene it must first be incorporated.Furthermore, what you quoted was not a quote from Obama, but a quote attributed to someone in his campaign. I do not see where Obama reversed his position. His quote says that he recognized the tension between a communities right to make its own policies free from federal meddling and the individual right to gun ownership as found in the 2nd. Then he acknowledged the Court provided long overdue guidance on the issue. I don't see a flip-flop. I see a recognition of a difficult and undecided issue and a resolution provided by the Courts.I also never saw any Presidential candidate talking about the second amendment in terms of individual v. collective rights. Matter of fact, last time I heard anybody talking about that in those terms was in law school. And now we all are experts on the matter? Please. Obama recognized the difficulty, stated his position, read the opinion and called it good. Sounds like the kind of leader we need after 8 years of a guy who can't comprehend the technicalities on the back of a cereal box.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

gogoplata...Your quote is not apart of the 2nd Amendment or the U.S. Constitution.The court did never stated the 2nd Amendment granted the right of rebellion.The right you are referring to is what some people call a Natural Right, but it is not in the Constitution.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Satirical, I guess we agree that there are just some classless folks among us. Besides, as far as the person you mentioned, didn't s/he know that the people who voted for Bush are the ones with the guns? And of course it is presumptive to name Obama a would be President, but it followed bp stating "once Obama is elected" he was going to pull an Oswald on him. (For those still playing the drinking game, no, that last comment doesn't warrant a shot.)

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

barrypenders: "So according to Thomas Jefferson, once Obama is elected and he comes for my guns I can shoot him in the head?"How disgusting and disturbing. People shouldn't make comments about shooting a former, sitting, or soon to be President. Since we don't know if it is in jest or not, perhaps the LJWorld has an obligation to report the person who is making those claims to the proper authorities.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

While Blue73harley's story is probably not true, it is pretty funny.Obama has denegrated gun owners, and said on more than one occasion that he supports banning guns. Now he "restates" his position because 70% of Americans believe there is an individual right to keep and bear arms.

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

Once again bea I encourage you to curb your hostility long enough to evaluate the matter objectively rather than emotionally. And also try to curb the bitter partisanship. As has already been stated many people of the liberal groups agree with the Justice's decision. This is truely an issue that people of both sides are agreeing on- no reason to perpetuate partisan animosity in bilateral issue.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 1 month ago

My comment got disappeareded, but 1029's is still there!

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

Fine, Marion, but using that definition, there is nothing in Scalia's opinion at this point that would prevent the government, fed or state, from banning assault weapons, fully automatic weapons, or almost any other type of firearm outside of handguns (and maybe shotguns and rifles). There is much litigation to be done, and I am not sure that at this point, under the Scalia opinion, assault weapons, however you define them , would pass muster.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Nice point, sfjay. Mr.Marble, I see you are back with the bedwetting liberal line? Is this a kink of yours or something? You seem to mention it every time you show up. Does Mrs. Marble know? I'll repeat what I said earlier today, but direct it toward you personally: now that this is settled maybe you can go back to worrying about important issues -- like flag burning and gay marriages somehow infecting your marriage. Just so you know, not all liberals oppose guns, and not all conservatives are against environmental issues. I wonder what it must be like to live in a world where all issues are clear-cut black and white? I'll bet it drives people to having bedwetting fantasies.

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

bea, it's unfortunate that you so quickly resort to personal attacks- but not unexpected. The sour grapes of defeat must still be rather bitter for you, considering that this decision has effectively knocked the last vestiges of bogus credibility from the anti firearms crowd's 'arguments'. But take note of this as a learning opportunity; clinging to bitter partisanship will not be productive for you either now or in the future. I encourage you to learn to transcend your party line instead of merely regurgitating it on command. On this thread alone several people who are devout liberals have openly stated they agree with the Supreme Courts decision in this matter. You should read the list of organizations who filed amicus briefs on behalf of pro- 2nd Amendment side. Many of them are traditionally hard line liberal groups, but even they were willing to see the wisdom in this matter and speak their conscience, not merely toe the party line. To those groups, and to those who consider themselves liberals yet still rise to the occasion of supporting a basic civil right such as this- I applaud you. Face it bea, this is just common sense- Americans clearly have the right to keep and bear arms. If your own liberal brethren even agree on this, perhaps you should curb your hostility long enough to evaluate the matter objectively rather than emotionally.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Since so many people agree with the Supreme Court's decision re: the 2nd amendment, how about we talk about Obama's flip-flop on this issue. He previously stated he was in favor of the D.C. ban on handguns, and now claims he supports the Court's decision.That is two flip-flops in two week, when you add in the public financing flip-flop. Obama was right when he said he was the candidate of "change"

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille...So even though the U.S. Constitution guarantees your rights to; Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition, bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, double jeopardy, self incrimination, due process, right to a jury trial in criminal cases, right to counsel, right to confront your accuser, protection against excess bail fines, cruel and unusual punishment; and abolition of slavery, equal rights to women and minorities, among others. Do you REALLY think it is perfectly legal and Constitutional for Abiline or D.C. to reinstate slavery or ban women from voting, or take away the individual right to due process, or freedom of religion? Of course not. The U.S. Constitution guarantees these rights, and the Bill of Rights guarantees individual freedoms from the government, including the individual right to keep and bear arms.

jafs 7 years, 1 month ago

Again, I find it somewhat odd that they protect only some rights to "bear arms".What's the justification for banning assault weapons?Our right to free speech and assembly is (or should be) limited only when the exercise of them harms another. Refusing to allow some to own weapons because of the fear/concern that they "may" harm another is a bit different.I agree with the above concerns about due process and the 4th amendment as well - why do right-wing folks forget about those parts of the Constitution?

vpete69 7 years, 1 month ago

And you can bet your a$$ that if congress 'calls me forth', I will be bringing my assault rifle...not my single shot muzzleloader.

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

"Now he "restates" his position because 70% of Americans believe there is an individual right to keep and bear arms."Goodness, that's horrible, a candidate redefining his stance based on what it seems that the people of America actually want.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 1 month ago

Satirical wrote:"Perhaps you should read ALL of the second amendment including the operative clause which states: "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed""I need not remind satirical that "the people" is a collective term for groups of persons. It is not an individual term."Even a strict constructionist looks to the definition of the word at the time it was adopted in order to derive its meaning. In fact, that is the definition of a strict constructionist."Hmmm. I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is, doesn't it?Then as now, a "well-regulated militia" means a collective of individuals organized into a military-like structure. A well-regulated militia does not and has never meant an individual.You may wish that clause were not in the 2nd, but it is. I assume the writers had a reason for putting it in. Brushing it under the rug as Scalia has is simply activist judicial behavior and goes against the meaning of the 2nd.

Steve Jacob 7 years, 1 month ago

If the murder rate in D.C. goes lower then say 150 (in 2006 it says 169, lowest in many years) because of this, I will defend this action, but if it goes over say 300 (1988-1997), it will be proof that gun controls work.I say it does not matter, sure a few more bad guys will get "capped" but it will do more harm then good for this country. And this week is sure proof that Justice Anthony Kennedy is the most powerful person in America, because about every important vote is 5-4, with Kennedy always the swing vote. I will now vote Obama for sure just the fact the three right wing judges (Thomas, Roberts, Alito) probally all have 20+ years left.

sfjayhawk 7 years, 1 month ago

A plea everyone out there who has been screaming about the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms because of the constitution:Can I count on you insisting to your representatives and to your government that the Gitmo detainees get Due Process? We need to enforce the constitution on all levels, not just for the guns.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

blue73harley..I thought you were witty until you made the statement: "I sure wish I could have voted for Huckabee." I would sooner vote for Obama than Huckbee. You have now lost all credibilty on any issue.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Yourworstnightmare:"I need not remind satirical that "the people" is a collective term for groups of persons. It is not an individual term.""The people" refers to individuals, and has the same meaning throughout the Constitution. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1991). The fact the 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights which secures individual liberties further buttress this point.There are two clauses in the 2nd amendment, the prefatory clause "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." And an operative clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The operative clause is the portion that is made law, not the prefatory clause. The prefatory clause cannot take away what the operative clause provides. It is not unusual for an operative clause to be broader than one of the stated purposes of enacting the law.I recognize that the ratifiers of the 2nd amendment understood that a militia was necessary for federalism concerns and prevent a tyrannical government, but the portion that was made law was the operative clause. Your interpretation would render the 2nd amendment completely meaningless since the militia turned into the national guard which is under control of the federal government.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille:Your only argument that Obama didn't flip-flop at 10:21 was rebutted, and I you have not made another argument countering my rebuttal.I am not going to continue to defend Scalia, and I am sorry you fail to understand how a Justice can write an opinion on behalf of the majority in order to get everyone to sign-on, without personally agreeing with every aspect. Also, I am not positive Scalia's view on incorporation is irreconcilable with incorporating the 2nd Amendment.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

gogoplata...I was disagreeing with your statement that the right of the people to stand against tyranny was a right provided by the 2nd amendment. I was not disagreeing that it was a natural right.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

Well, apples and oranges, the Amendments you refer to that were passed after the 14th apply to the states explicitly. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States OR by any State on account of sex."The others have been incorporated by the 14th Amendment in a kind of twisted legal logic, but even so some of the "rights" you mention do differ in their actual manifestation between state and federal courts. For instance, speedy trial considerations differ greatly between state and federal court."The Bill of Rights guarantees individual freedoms from the government, including the individual right to keep and bear arms."Uh-uh. You missed a piece. As written and enforced before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights guaranteed certain enumerated freedoms from the FEDERAL government. In regards to the Second Amendment, that is still the case.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

I stand corrected. Gratuitous insult and ad hominem attack well played, sir.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Marion, nothing wrong in asking someone to cite a source on a statement about illegally obtained guns being used to commit murders. And as far as my spelling goes, to paraphrase Tom Waits -- the keyboard has been drinking, not me. In all sincerity, congrats on the victory today. I hope it has the desired results and helps lower crime in the effected areas.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

It's not "waist." If you are going descend into gratuitous insults and ad hominem attacks, at least take the time to do it right.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

Jesus, Marion. You tell others to do their homework and yet you display the most shocking ignorance about the rest of the Constitution.How...typical.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 1 month ago

marion, considering your proclivity for calling people "moron" and "idiot", it's fascinating that you get your thong in a knot when someone else refers to bed-wetting.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille:Obama's shortcomings are far from illusory; he flip-flopped on the 2nd amendment, and on public financing; claims he is opposed to the SCOTUS ruling prohibiting the death penalty for child rapists, but would appoint a liberal justice just like the ones who did support it; he is too inexperienced to be the leader of the free world; he has radical associations include Rev. Wright, and he is a far left liberal.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 1 month ago

"Marion (Marion Lynn) says:Bea, you got a broken keyboard, or what?Your spelling is atrocious!"The hypocrisy meter just exploded. Stillhavingawonderfulinternetlife.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

Scalia addresses the question of why the ruling does not address assault weapons. I would suggest reading the opinion in its entirety - or at least the majority section. If you still have questions, which would be reasonable, then came back and pose a specific question. You are much more likely to get a meaningful response that way.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Gogoplata: "The 2nd ammendment is vital for the people should they be forced to once again stand against tyranny."The Supreme Court did not declare the 2nd Amendment grants the right of rebellion; it only declared it protects the right to self-defense and hunting. The right to rebellion is also not found anywhere in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is not a law. As I previously stated, some believe (as did the founding fathers) that there is a Natural right to rebellion against tyranny; this is not codified, nor is it apart of the 2nd amendment.I think we should move beyond this discussion because: (1) I too believe it is a natural right to overthrow a tyrannical government, even if it is not codified; and (2) It seems you do not comprehend my argument, which is why you repeated your original argument even when I clearly contradicted it.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

"People that commit Murder usually have aquired the firearm illegally."Is this correct? Anything to verify this? What about accidental shootings? barry, lighten up? After lieing about his being a tyrannt wanting to take your precious gun, you wrote about shooting the next President, for f%#&'s sake! Obviously, the onus is on you to just grow up.

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

and for those of you who haven't gotten the clear picture on osama's 2nd Amendment views:FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1...1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in "Obama had greater role on liberal survey," Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2(see above reference)FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.55. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.(reference that one yourselves, it's recent enough)FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.99. "Obama and Gun Control," The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.77. "Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)That just scratches the surface. hussein obama has a steady and irrefutable record of blatant discrimination & outright disdain towards firearms issues. Since he tries to pitch himself as pro-gun, anyone who supports him is either too lazy to research their candidate or they are...scumbags.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

jafs...All parts of the Constitution are important, however the due process you are referring to only applies to "people", which the U.S. Supreme Court has defined as resident of the U.S. Foreigners are not afforded the same due process or the same protection and rights as you and I. The question the court recently resolved had to do with the due process of enemy combatants which is completely different than the due process of "people".

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

RobertMarble (Anonymous) says:"Hahaha:it may be bad form to kick a someone when they're down, but. . ."Nah, no buts. Own your bad form, the half-apology only makes you appear more oafish. /before you start, I support the right to bear arms, but I can still think you're an oaf

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

To be entirely clear; the 2nd Amendment doesn't "grant" the right to self-defense and hunting, it "protects" this English common law right.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

As would be the Abilene gun ban. I believe an Abilene gun ban would be constitutional under the current state of the law. I would argue forcefully that it should be made unconstitutional through incorporation, but right now I would support Abilene's decision to ban guns as constitutional. I don't see how that is inconsistent.

sfjayhawk 7 years, 1 month ago

what part of: No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....dont you people understand?Marion - if you don't care about the constitution, then just admit that you are just a bitter old man, who turns to guns or jeasus for answers to everything. Get off your 2nd amendment high horse.

gogoplata 7 years, 1 month ago

If you agree that it is the right of the people to use arms to stand against tyranny I don't understand what point you are making.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Mr. Marble, if "bedwetting liberal" is a perfect fit, as you suggest, then is "pre-ejaculating conservative" a perfect fit for those who cling to their guns with such a passion as to border on the obsessive? You see, many pro gun zealots want to debate an issue to a point, then they just flip out before the argument gets going whenever someone offers an opposing view and they begin to call people childish names, like "bedwetting liberal." So, to counter with a debate style you appear to appreciate, "pre-ejaculating conservative" is a perfect term for the pro gun zealots. If you've got a problem with that I suggest the following: tell Mrs. Marble to learn to deal with it.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

Your reply doesn't make sense, Satirical. In order to incorporate the 2nd, Scalia would have to use the 14th, but he opposes that particular use of the 14th on principle. In order to apply the 2nd, we will have to reconsider that position or twist the argument to fit into the P&I clause, which he does recognize as legitimate. Interesting conundrum.And I did offer a counter to your continued mischaracterization of Obama's position. If you choose to ignore it, fine.

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says:"A plea everyone out there who has been screaming about the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms because of the constitution:"You could also ask them to come out on those issues that rotate around the 4th amendment. It seems some of those so passionate about guns are a little less than that on issues concerning search and seizure. (crap, is that the right way to spell seizure, can't for the life of me remember)

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Yourworstnightmare:"I can't wait to get my own cruise missile."Please read the court's opinion rather before making ignorant comments. The scope of "arms" is not unlimited as determined 70 years ago in U.S. v. Miller.The court also recognized "the right to keep and bear arms" is not an unlimited right, subject to reasonable restrictions. No one here has advocated anything different. However, a complete ban is not a reasonable restriction, just like a ban on your individual right to speak is not reasonable (well: maybe in your case it is reasonable.)

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

RM - Keep calling people childish names (literally) like bedwetters, and then ask me to curb the hostility. Funny. And if you own several guns and just have to go out and get more because of the ruling, that qualifies as "zealot" at least as much as those who oppose the ruling (which isn't me, by the why). Are you also a zealot or a bedwetter if you oppose the Guantanamo ruling or past rulings on abortion, or any other ruling for that matter? I'll stop the partisanship (actually, John McCain's age does concern me and has nothing to do with his party), as soon as you stop the racism. And don't even try to tell me that inserting Hussein into every conversation you have of Obama isn't racist. It may not be on the level of burning down a black church, but it is racist. Do you include McCain's middle name as frequently? If not, why not? I'll tell you, since it is obvious. It is about trying to drum up fear of "the other," the non-white guy. Or are you really just concerned about having a President named Hussein? (Better get used to it.)

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

Well....I suppose the anti gun bedwetters will have to budget for extra linen now. It's about time this matter was settled; now you can direct more time to saving spotted tree slugs & granola herding. Hahaha...it may be bad form to kick a someone when they're down, but you libs have really been asking for it on this issue. Seriously, what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

bea...making a charge of racism based solely upon the correct usage of a person's legal name is absolute proof of rabid zeolotry. I think people of any political affiliation, nationality, or financial status would agree.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

I don't know. I am a gun owner and have been since the age of 10. But I supported the right of D.C. to ban handguns when the law was unclear - if not the policy itself. State's rights, baby, and the days when D.C. was just a district are long past. On the other hand, I think Scalia got it right. The right to own guns is an individual right. But the 2nd doesn't apply to states. At least not yet. I think it should under the 14th, but that is a position that Scalia has always been critical of. Wonder what he will do? Stare decisis?How about we instead talk about how McCain is going to keep us in Iraq spending $9 billion a month and doesn't understand a damn thing about the U.S. economy or economic theory at a time when the U.S. looks a lot more like 1929 than 1999?

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

oh why bother....the Supreme Court has spoken; the 2nd Amendment has been reaffirmed. The anti gun bedwetters have been smacked down (and justifiably so)....if that irks you girls so bad- tough. I'll enjoy the freedom & add a few rifles to the collection this week. I'll also be buying stock in 'depends undergarments' since you antis will be drastically increasing your usage now.

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

ummmmm, bea? his middle name IS actually hussein. So addressing him by his actual name is NOT racist. To make that accusation is completely irrational. That is clear proof - you are trying so hard to come up with accusations that you're fabricating them. Understand: using someone's middle name is not racist....I never thought I'd have to explain something like that, to an adult anyway hahaha

vpete69 7 years, 1 month ago

Arguing on the internet is a lot like the special olympics. Even if you win, youre still retarded.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille:I almost forget Obama's close ties to corn based ethanol special interests. But, I don't want to create an exhaustive list of reasons why Obama shouldn't be President, I want to stick to the topic at hand.BTW: If Kerry were president this ruling would have been the opposite. President Bush did a lot of things wrong, but appointing Roberts and Alito was the absolute best thing for America!

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Jonas:"Goodness, that's horrible, a candidate redefining his stance based on what it seems that the people of America actually want."If that were true you would have a better argument. Obama is not really changing his beliefs or position, he is only saying whatever he thinks will get him elected. A typical politician.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Practice what I preach -- what fun is that? Sati, your comments are well received. However, I would hope few people would vote for or against a candidate based on their views of a single issue like their personal feelings about guns. We need to look at the big picture, particularly our continued occupation of Iraq and the economy. On these issues, Obama is my choice by far.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

jafs...The reasons why conservatives are so loudly applauding this recent decision is because the 2nd Amendment was NEVER really interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court since its adoption in the BOR.Every part of the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, however the liberal Justices wanted to interpret the 2nd Amendment as to make it completely meaningless. (Well, it's in the bill of rights, and it says "the people," but it really doesn't apply to individuals). Conservatives Justices never seek to render an entire amendment meaningless, but they do debate the meaning of certain words within the Constitution, which every Justice rightfully does. So, again conservatives are so pleased b/c by the narrowest of margins the liberal Justices almost re-wrote the Constitution by making the entire 2nd Amendment moot.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille...As I previously stated re: incorporation"Based on footnote 23, I think it is fair to say the court implicitly incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states, although not directly since it was not at issue, when they stated 'we note that Cruikshank (a century old case that said the Second Amendemnt isn't incorporated) also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.'" Therfore, once they engage in a 14th Amendment inquiry, they will likely discover it applies to the stats under the doctrine of selective incorporation.The topic of this article is the 2nd Amendment, and the Constitution, so I am trying to stay on topic by discussing the candidates interpretation of the 2nd amendment and how they feel about the ruling. While no one is preventing you from discussing McCain, his position re: Iraq is not the topic of this article or blog. Are you willing to respond to Obama's flip-flop on the 2nd amendment?

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille:I am not Scalia's advocate, but my guess is that he included the bit about the 14th Amendment to get the other 4 justices to sign off. That does not mean he changed HIS view."I am sure that if you just keep repeating it, some of the people will start to believe it to be true."So...you can't counter my argument that Obama flip-flopped on his stance re: the 2nd Amendment?Sorry, can't afford the gas on an SUV.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

I think I now understand the logic of the SCOTUS, and can reconcile their decisions re: child rapists and gun rights.They want "the people" to shoot child rapists. It is so clear now!

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

Oh and McCain still has no idea how to navigate a computer or turn around the economy that has been wounded by Bush's $9B monthly war bill.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

RM - so people who support Obama are "scumbags." Whatever. I've decided that every time people insist on writing Obama's middle name in their lame attempt to put fear in white America, I'm going to point out something about John McCain that is far scarier: his age.Did you know John McCain is 71 years old!?!George Carlin just died of a heart attack. He, too, was 71 years old.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille...We were not discussion incorporation, we moved past that remember? You appear to be trying to slide out of your failing argument.Recap: We were discussing whether Obama flip-flopped on the issue of the D.C. gun ban which is a federal (not a state) issue. You disagreed he flip-flopped and I subsequently supported my argument with Obama's quote. Then you were making the claim that it is not inconsistent to support a federal gun ban, and also support this as an individual right, by claiming a city banning a protected right (guns) isn't inconsistent with the Consitution protecting this right. I countered this by stating it is entirely inconsistent, and that no city could ban the rights of religion, speech, freedom from slavery, nor any right in the Constitution (assuming incorporation if we are not talking about D.C. or another federal territory). Nor could any candidate support such a ban and still support the individual right, without contradicting himself.

vpete69 7 years, 1 month ago

Lots of people here dont know that 'Militia' and 'Military' are two different things. Let me enlighten you:militia 1. 1590, "system of military discipline," from L. militia "military service, warfare," from miles "soldier" (see military). Sense of "citizen army" (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1696, perhaps from Fr. milice. 2. In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).3. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 4. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 5. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. 6. the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution.You have to remember that the 2nd amendment was written in 1791, and the use of english in both speech and in writing was much different. In todays speak, "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" actually means "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The second part of the amendment actually uses the word "people" to explain what the militia is comprised of.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Hey Marion, I'm still waiting for that apology.

Rationalanimal 7 years, 1 month ago

Scallia is the MAN - res ispa locquitur.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

I did respond to your Obama fascination. And as much as the neo-con playbook requires one to mis-label and construct strawman phrases, I haven't seen his position as a flip-flop. Now maybe I am wrong. Maybe he did come out and say that second Amendment was a collective right and not an individual right, but I haven't seen that yet."While earlier in the campaign Mr. Obama appeared to support the D.C. law, more recently he has refused to take a position on the case before the court."When an ABC reporter tried to point out the contradiction, Mr. Obama denied there was one: "I believe the Second Amendment as being an individual right and have said that consistently," he said. "I also think that individual right is constrained by the rights of the community to maintain issues with public safety. I don't think those two principles are contradictory and in fact what I've been saying consistently is what the Supreme Court essentially said today.""As it stands now, I would support the right of Abilene to band handguns just like they did in the late 19th century. There is no such thing as implicit incorporation and until the 2nd Amendment is applied to the States there is nothing unconstitutional about that law. I think it is bad policy, but it's not unconstitutional and I believe that communities have the right to address their issues without undue interference from the state or the feds so long as they don't violate the law are the applicable constitutions.In any case, you suggest that Obama is unfit to serve as President because of illusory shortcomings. I simply would suggest that McCain is unfit to serve because of actual shortcomings.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

beatrice...If you disfavor personal attacks so much please refrain from using them yourself. I think we can all strive a little harder to focus only on the argument and not the arguer.Nice joke about McCain, but you are wrong about Obama. Yesterday he said the politically expedient thing, but in the past he has made his position clear that he supports gun bans. He would also appoint liberal Justices that will overturn this landmark decision.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Marion is right. Obama is a political opportunist. How dare he take advantage of the terrible job Bush and the Republicans have done by running for office -- against a Republican no less! Why, the Republicans have done such a bad job of running things the Democrats shouldn't even be allowed to run, because if they do run, their win will be too easy. Opportunists one and all, indeed!Obama is going to be your next President, Marion. I love knowing how upset you will be by this.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

I agree with Baille, that the SCOTUS would likely uphold reasonable regulation against many military like weapons, including fully automatic weapons.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Satirical, please read what Marion posted at 10:54pm, then tell me that it doesn't qualify as classless, clueless and irrational. If someone makes blatant and outrageous lies about me, I'm going to respond. Regarding the issue at hand, just because Obama favors gun control that doesn't mean he will force it on others. Many judges and politicians oppose abortion, for instance, but they go by the law. Obama will do the same. As far as appointing judges who would overturn an earlier court's decision, fortunately the Supreme Court doesn't quite work that way. They really do tend to follow the rules of presedence. Laws aren't overruled on a whim or based on what party is in power at that moment. Once again, consider the abortion issue. On this gun issue, the courts have ruled and I suspect that that will be that for a very long time. And I agree that Huckabee, who doesn't even believe in evolution, would be a poor choice for President. However, I think most of us around here would vouch for Blue's credibility on practically any other issue.

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says:"If that were true you would have a better argument. Obama is not really changing his beliefs or position, he is only saying whatever he thinks will get him elected. A typical politician."That's an interpretation of motives, of course, which you are certainly entitled to. Can you really justify it, though?

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Beatrice:I am not saying you shouldn't respond, I am just saying "practice what you preach." "Can't we all just get along (but still have intelligent arguments)?"I agree that Obama will not necessarily seek to ban all guns, but I think history is the best indicator of what will occur in the future. Given his past voting record on the issue, and his past unequivocal statements regarding banning guns, I think it is more likely he will support every regulation constitutionally permitted, and appoint a liberal Justice (assuming a vacancy is available) to the bench that could overturn the recent 2nd Amendment ruling. While many Justices believe in stare decisis, I think every justice (including Chief Justice Roberts who stated as much visiting KU Law) understands they are willing to overturn prior precedent if they believe it is the right thing to do. I understand laws don't change solely based on the political party, but they do often change when the make-up of the court changes. I would rather choose a President that is more likely to appoint a Justice that will uphold the law both because stare decisis and because s/he agrees with the Court's reasoning.My statement regarding blue73harley losing all credibility on any issue was in jest. But seriously, how could a rational human being vote for Huckabee?

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

What are you going on about, Marion? Apparently these fien distinctions mean something to you and you feel they have some bearing on the opinion, but please explain to me how. I will freely admit that I am slow and dull-witted if you will just explain to me how these distinctions impact the general principle on the right of the federal gov't to prohibit the private ownership of "weapons deemed not in common use for lawful purposes."I think the question is how your AK look-a-like and specific firearms and firearm categories will be characterized by the various state legislators and the federal court system. If you have something that will address the issue, please share.And if your insistence on making us all take a course on Advanced Firearms and the History of Munitions in the U.S. does not apply to anything I have written about, I apologize in advance. Please carry on with yelling at whoever you are yelling at.

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

None of the stuff about Obama's position on gun regulation or gun control indicates that ever espoused the position attributed to him: namely, that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right and allowed the federal government the right to universally prohibit the ownership of firearms in common use for lawful purposes. He never said anything like that. From what I have seen he stated that he supported D.C.'s right to ban handguns absent some controlling authority. If you have some source that says differently, Satirical, but you don't rebut something through mere contradictionAs for the section about the 14th Amendment, I have no idea to what section of the opinion that you are referring to. Where did Scalia reference the 14th Amendment as some sort of conciliatory gesture to the other four signatories to the majority? The only references I have made to the 14th have been in regards to your theory of "implied incorporation."

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 1 month ago

Here is another moderate that believes in the individual right to bear arms and I am against gun control.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

So Marion goes on a vile verbal attack against me for something someone else said, and then doesn't have the cajones to recognize his mistake and apologize. Just what I expected -- classless, clueless, and irrational, all in one person. Blue, funny joke, but Obama won't try to take away your guns. McCain, on the other hand, might make you use them in Iraq.

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

.454 Casull: For when 'dead' isn't quite good enough.

gogoplata 7 years, 1 month ago

I just meant that for a people to stand up against an out of control government it would require guns.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Gotta go, have a great weekend all!"What should "din't" read? ;)" - BailleFunny : )

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille..."Supporting the D.C. gun ban is not irreconcilable with the position that the 2nd is individual v. collective."It is irreconcilable to believe the Constitution protects the individual right to 'X' (guns, speech, religion, press, assembly, due process, etc.) and also think that a law banning 'X' is Constitutional. Ex: I support the freedom of the press, but I also support a law that bans the press from Washington D.C. These two statement are 100% inconsistent.You are only quoting Obama's recently stated position, which is a flip-flop from his previous position. I already knew what he has recently been claiming.Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

(that comment just sent the NYSE price of rubber sheet companies through the roof)

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

hmm...that's pretty bizarre logic bea...so if I call a spade a spade more than once, according to you it's indicative of an interest in that activity? Then if that is indeed what you are saying then yes, I call you a liar. "bedwetter" is a very appropriate term for anti gun zealots- and for some reason it sure seems to strike a nerve with you, since on both occasions that I've used it you have reacted fairly oddly. You seem to have no problem bashing others when their opinion runs contrary to your own- so it's very inappropriate that you throw such a tantrum when I state my opinion. And yes, I will continue to behave at least as negatively to the anti gun zealots as they behave towards people who are supportive of 2nd Amendment rights. If you don't like that maybe you should read something else, it might prevent you from obsessing over it. I have no use for zealots of any type, especially those who advocate the revocation of my personal rights. The anit gun crowd certainly qualifies- and their typical behavior is clearly presented on these various posts in the JW. They'll usually attempt to debate facts up to the point that works against them- and then the visceral, emotional whining begins. Face it bea, the term "bedwetting liberal" is a perfect fit for those type who seem to have an emotional meltdown at the thought of a citizen being armed. If you've got a problem with that I suggest the following: learn to deal with it.

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

hahaha...relax & unclench a bit, bea....it's just the internet afterall.....and no, choosing to maintain a constitutional right hardly qualifies as zealotry. Please try to defend that statement (this should be good..)...

Baille 7 years, 1 month ago

No, no. You keep that up. I am sure that if you just keep repeating it, some of the people will start to believe it to be true. Maybe the neo-cons can swift boat is into the next Great Depression. That will be sweet.I know what fn 23 says. If I recall, correctly I was the one that first mentioned it in this thread. And I think the 2nd Amendment should apply to the the states and will eventually. But the darling of the Right, Scalia, has long been opposed to using the 14th in that manner. How does one reconcile that little nugget? Will it be called flip-flopping when Scalia abandons his textualist principles to apply the 2nd to the states or is flip-flopping just called reconsideration when done by those on the Right?Oh and $9B a month. A month. For nothing. And a Republican candidate who not only does not understand basic economic theory by his own admission, but who doesn't even know how to use a computer. That is not the President this country needs. Not in this decade anyway. Maybe in 1984. In the meantime, know anyone who wants to buy a well-cared for SUV?

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 1 month ago

The decision is a very good one for democrats politically.Had the supremes ruled differently, the poop-storm that would have erupted from the gun-nut base would have been awesome to behold.This ruling has neutralized an effective wedge issue for GOP candidates.The ruling goes against the Constitution, but it is time to move on. The deaths and cost of unrestricted firearm ownership and thus availability is just a price that we will have to pay.I can't wait to get my own cruise missile.

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

Jafs: My guess is that it's because they actually care more about themselves and their guns more than they care about the Constitution.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 1 month ago

The Supreme Court just reiterated what the 13 States did in 1792. They ratified the Bill of Rights. Do not believe this will be the last gun law to be overturned. The stage is set and I have no doubt there will be more Court challenges.I wonder how Obamination will spin this one in his favor. "I was against the DC gun ban after I was for it!" But we have seen that back-peddling before.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille:Obama never used the exact words "collective rights", however he did state that he supported the D.C. gun BAN. Regulation is one thing, but a BAN is completely different. It is completely contradictor to support a BAN on a right protected by the constitution. It would be similar to stating "I support the right to freedom of religion, but I also support a ban on Baptists worshiping their religion." I never said the 2nd amendment applied to the states given this ruling, I said it was implied; which means that the next court which looks at the issue of incorporation will do as footnote 23 suggests and do a 14th amendment analysis and very likely declare it applies to the states. If the lower courts don't incorporate the 2nd Amendment, I am 99% positive the U.S. Supreme court will.Most states (42 I think) have a constitutional amendment supporting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This supercedes the ability for municipal corporations to do whatever they want.

TopJayhawk 7 years, 1 month ago

The Supreme Court by definition always makes the right call. In this case, it is really the only one they could have made.

bondmen 7 years, 1 month ago

Clayton Cramer, the amateur historian who discovered and revealed Emory University professor Michael A. Bellesiles gun history research lies, had this to say about yesterday's decision:1. The decision is narrow; Scalia was careful not to go much beyond the actual question of this case: did D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership at home exceed the Second Amendment? That's why he made a point of saying that any standard of review would find that this law was unconstitutional.2. By focusing on the question of handguns (which is what the D.C. law banned), Scalia avoided the question of what sort of arms are protected. This is probably wise, since there are a number of categories of guns that are clearly protected under any revolutionary theory of the Second Amendment, but which would cause even some gun owners to start making exceptions (assault weapons and machine guns, for example).3. The dissents are astonishingly bad--rather like Saul Cornell and Nathan Kozuskanich had written them. They pick and choose facts that they want, ignoring what doesn't fit their model. You would never know from reading the dissents that overwhelmingly, the courts in the 19th century recognized the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to arms. Arms and the Law http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/06/stevens_dissent.php points to some embarrassingly gross factual errors in Stevens' dissent.4. The discussion of the 14th Amendment is clearly an encouragement for us to file a suit challenging a state or local law. You should have heard Chicago Mayor Daley this afternoon--he sounded like he was about to pop a gasket over this. How horrifying: they might have to allow law-abiding Chicagoans to defend themselves!5. Because our side didn't challenge the constitutionality of licensing or registration--only that such can't be arbitrary or restrictive--I expect that D.C. will create some system of licensing of handguns. Okay, I'm not happy about that, but as long as it is comparable to a driver's license in how hard it is to get, that's an improvement--and in time, the absurdity of this will become apparent to every person of normal intelligence. In even more time, it will even become apparent to the subnormals that make up D.C. government.

dirkleisure 7 years, 1 month ago

Wound up? By honoring the memory of King Hussein of Jordan?Hardly. Using the name Hussein Obama sends a strong signal to our allies in the Middle East that the United States is not fearful of their culture despite the ravings of certain citizens.I commend you on using Hussein Obama and highlighting this important milestone in our nation's history.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

Yes Colt, I'll be buying one or two this weekend to celebrate. An Armalite in .308, and either a Taurus Judge or Dan Wesson 10mm...... despite bea's proclamation that to do so would make me a zealot...

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Oh, and John McCain is 71 years old.

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

....But this is the funniest of all your quotes, bea. I mean, are you really this deluded or are you just trying to run a bluff? ......" just because Obama favors gun control that doesn't mean he will force it on others"....HAHAHAHA!!! he won't try to force it on others?? he's a fkkn presidential candidate for the extreme fringe elements, who wants nothing more than to further his agenda- how could you possibly say "he won't force his views on others"???....bea, that statement is sub-standard enough to completely & permanently revoke whatever credibility you may have had.....maybe you should just hang it up now

dirkleisure 7 years, 1 month ago

You brought up the name Hussein, Marion.Do you have another comparison you believe to be accurate?It is an honor for Barack Hussein Obama to share an honorable name with the former leader of Jordan, a great US ally in the middle east.Your protestations only give the appearance that you believe the name Hussein to somehow be a dishonorable thing. I cannot imagine why you would hold such a narrow, xenophobic view of this honorable name.

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

bea stammers......."So, to counter with a debate style you appear to appreciate, "pre-ejaculating conservative" is a perfect term for the pro gun zealots""Obama won't try to take away your guns""And if you own several guns and just have to go out and get more because of the ruling, that qualifies as "zealot"""don't even try to tell me that inserting Hussein into every conversation you have of Obama isn't racist""I'll tell you, since it is obvious. It is about trying to drum up fear of "the other," ""are you really just concerned about having a President named Hussein?"...........*** bea- I'd say you're certifiably insane.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

Glad to see I can still make the neo-cons dance. Nine posts in a row! Clearly there is no Mrs. Marble to keep someone company at night. Satirical: "Therefore it would be closer to religious persecution, not racism."That would be true, if Obama were a Muslim. He isn't. The name thing is about drumming up fear of the non-white guy. That is it, simple as can be. If it weren't racism, would the response be such a faux display of outrage?

dirkleisure 7 years, 1 month ago

Ah yes, King Hussein of Jordan, a true visionary for peace in the MIddle East.The United States would be honored to have a president who shares a name with this giant of the 20th Century.Who will ever forget his appearance and speech at the funeral of Prime Minister Rabin?A lofty legacy for Sen. Obama to live up to.

Rationalanimal 7 years ago

Marion--you're absolute correct about the ignorance in this country. It is the most expensive thing we pay for besides laziness. I fear we are approaching a critical mass that could care less what the original intent of the Constitution is so long as they get their government hand out, nevermind who is actually toiling to make society productive. I believe it was Voltaire that said democracy ends when the people realize they can vote their way into the treasury. Scalia is absolutely brilliant in this opinion. It ranks with the finest that have come from the Court. Even the four liberal dopes, Larry, Moe, Curly, and the other justice, together could not asail the history and idiomatic deconstruction. The sad thing about the modern Democrat party is they have gone so far over the socialist cliff that they have pulled the Republican party left of where the Democrat party was during the Kennedy years.

RobertMarble 7 years ago

considering the discussion up to this point then yes, the court did in fact make the correct decision.

Rationalanimal 7 years, 1 month ago

Nice posts Marion. As usual, substantiated by hard facts.Barrack Hussein Milehouse Obama--omnipresent on each side of every issue.

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

Look at two of your comments posted side by side bea...."are you really just concerned about having a President named Hussein?""And don't even try to tell me that inserting Hussein into every conversation you have of Obama isn't racist"...go see a therapist, bea...hurry!

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

bea says..."And if you own several guns and just have to go out and get more because of the ruling, that qualifies as "zealot" at least as much as those who oppose the ruling"......So, what type of crack are you smoking bea? Put it this way: suppose you were a collector of a certain type of item, which was under threat of ban by persistant lobbyists...and the Constitutional / legal standing of said item was recently up for grabs- and just happened to be re-affirmed by a narrow majority of the Supreme Court...so to go out and purchase a few more of these items to add to your two decade collection, according to you- is an act of zealotry?!?!?!? I'd say it's a perfectly reasonable thing.....sheesh, you are grasping at straws aren't you bea?Get a grip, girly....

Centerville 7 years, 1 month ago

Just for fun, do you remember when Senator Feinstein had her staff look through a gun catalog and they picked the 'scariest looking' ones to include in the Assault Weapons Ban?

Devon Kissinger 7 years, 1 month ago

I'm just surprised that it took a decision by the SCOTUS to determine what has always been obvious to me. Anybody else buy a gun to celebrate?

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

bea....hussein claims to be supportive of firearms rights as you do, but see above- those claims have already been debunked. If you are as pro 2nd Amendment as you say, then why do you throw a tantrum when I refer to the opposition as 'anti gun bedwetters'? you're trying to play both sides. But again, see above- I've already posted several examples of your quotes conflicting.

Centerville 7 years, 1 month ago

Satirical: the constitution does not limit the rights of states. It limits the rights of the federal goverment, thank God.Nobody 1793: you are correct. I know several people who live in DC and most of them are locked and loaded. In fact, one friend reported to the police after his apartment had been 'tossed' . He lived in a pretty dicey area on the Senate side and the investigating cops suggested he get a firearm. In another instance I remember, a man with his son was on his way to a grocery store at night. He as assaulted, pulled out his hand gun and shot and killed the assailant. There was some whining and moaning at the Washington Post but, quietly, no charges were filed.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Beatrice:Re: Using Obama's middle name "Hussein"I do not believe it is racist to use Hussein because it is (if I am not mistaken) an Islamic name, not an African-American or strictly Middle Eastern name. Therefore it would be closer to religious persecution, not racism.I agree with your opinion that some people use Obama's middle name as a scare tactic, however that is not necessarily the case. If I were a judge in a court, (which of course I am not, and this is not) I would say using a person's middle name is not unduly prejudicial. I can totally empathize with your position that using someone's middle name in a derogatory manner is unfair. However, the way I see it, you reap what you sow. The left has been using Bush's middle name ('W' or "Dubya") as a negative reference for years.

beatrice 7 years, 1 month ago

So many questions are raised by RM's posts.Moral highground? I simply said you are a racist, and apparently a well-armed one at that. I'll admit to being ageist for being uncomfortable with the thought of having a President in his 70s. No highground here. It simply is what it is. At least I'm willing to admit it.Why do you use Obama's middle name at every turn? Can you explain why? Can you do so without being a liar to yourself?I thought you said the bedwetters were those who disagreed with the ruling? I don't, so what gives?I wonder how many guns one must own to feel "safe"? I wonder how many guns the typical zealot owns? Whether you are a zealot or an extreme afficianado who needs more guns than required for safety, please do spend away. It is good for the economy. And I still find it humerous that Marion and Marble are so freaked out by someone who is a liberal and will stand up to their b.s., yet still supports your rights to own guns and agrees with the latest court ruling. They can't quite get it through their heads and make it fit in their black/white view of the world. I think those two should meet, and take turns playing with each others' guns. Or should I call them "tools."

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

Personally, I collect firearms for a variety of reasons. Self defense is certainly on the list as is the fact I enjoy target shooting & maintainig tactical skills. Another is an appreciation of historical pieces- I've recently added numerous WW2 pieces to the collection. There are as many reasons gun collectors enjoy their work as there are for those who have any other hobby / interest / etc....and that is one of the fundamental concepts the antis are never able to grasp.

sfjayhawk 7 years, 1 month ago

"Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the presidential hopeful (Obama) said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."So true, so true

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

Goodmorning bea, hopefully you slept well & now have your sheets in the drier. it's just that your arguments are so flawed (see above); you present quite an easy target. speaking of flawed, what about this one: "bea squawks: I'm going to point out something about John McCain that is far scarier: his age.Did you know John McCain is 71 years old!?!"First I should point out the obvious hypocrisy here. When attempting debate, you & your type are always the first to seize upon most scant provocation to level charges like "racism", "discrimination", "intolerance", etc, etc...you do it quite frequently. You seek a perceived moral high ground as compensation for not having a leg to stand on ethically or intellectually. making such an obviously discriminating statement while at the same attempting to label others as racist (simply for using a middle name) reveals your true nature. By the way, Justice Stevens - who supported the minority decision to allow gun bans- happens to be 88 years old. So by your logic....haha I'll let you ponder that out for awhile....

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Centerville:Oh dear, do I have to explain this again?I am fully aware that the U.S. Constitution applies solely to the federal government, and it only applies to the states when it has been incorporated, and that the 2nd Amendment has yet to be incorporated. However, the first court that looks at this issue will most definitely incorporate the 2nd amendment through a 14th amendment analysis, given footnote 23 in the SCOTUS opinion.What part of what I wrote made you believe I didn't understand the doctrine of incorporation?

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

funny, bea....you redundantly imply safety would be the only reason anyone would own firearms. That's a rather limited field of view. Different people choose to own firearms for a variety of reasons- surely i shouldn't have to actually explain this to you,

RobertMarble 7 years, 1 month ago

...and the fact that bea claims using it makes one a racist...that's pretty funny, plus it gives a clear insight into her thought process.

Rationalanimal 7 years, 1 month ago

malcolm_x_obama (Anonymous) says: "Hey, This is the logic of our Supreme Court.Since we can't hang/electrocute/drug child rapists. You buy two guns. One cheap (around $20 street) and a well made one. When you catch him/her with your daughter/son (12 and below), you shoot him/her with the expensive gun and put the cheap gun in his/her hand."You totally misunderstood the point MX Olabamba, you don't have to buy the inexpensive gun anymore, just shoot the sub-human rapist ilk and be done with it.logicsound4relative to your criticism of Scalia's constructionism and alleging cherry-picking--first, you clearly don't understand what constructionism is, second, read or re-read this opinion, by any honest assessment, it cannot be characterized as anything other than constructionism (unless of course your Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, or Soutter who believe constructionism involves incorporating whatever law (i.e. the Nak Nak tribe of the upper-Amazon peninsula) suits your pre-determined outcome.Breyer's dissent is most stunning when he says (paraphrasing) that he finds no evidence in the Second Amendment that limits the Government's authority to regulate guns. Really JB? Try reading the amendments language "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." And yet, JB and the other four morons (1 half of the time), render a decision relating to enemy combatants that lacks an precedence in 500 years of English common law and Supreme Court jurisprudence. To characterize Scalia's opinion as non-constructionism in light of the MO of the other four and a half dopes, is to use a tried and true propoganda tactic of accusing an opponent of the thing which the accuser is.Scalia's opinion is one of the finest in the Court's history. The honest strident idealogue cannot withstand.

Satirical 7 years, 1 month ago

Baille:.I am not sure you will ever read this, and I am really surprised I am wasting my personal time, but be that as it may:You seemed to disregard the most important sentence in my last argument, but I will blame myself for not being clear enough. Abilene and incorporation is entirely irrelevant and is just one of your examples. We were talking about Obama's stance on the D.C. gun ban which does not require incorporation.(1)In the District of Columbia, one cannot advocate for an individual right which is in the U..S. Constitution and also advocate for banning the same right. Ex: I support the individual right to free speech, however I support a ban on the freedom of speech in the D.C., so it will be a crime to use negative political speech as individual's.(2)In Abilene (ASSUMING INCORPORATION) the same logic appliesIn conclusion Obama's stance was entirely inconsistent.As to the statement I quoted, you are correct that it was someone from his staff, but I don't find it peculiar that he never tried to retract the quote and has been equivocal about the 2nd Amendment his entire political career. If Obama were to be President and a vacancy arose, he would likely appoint a liberal Justice who could overturn this decision.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.