Change!

(well, I guess its the opposite really...)

Change! averted.

Maybe the latter ruling will have some sort of impact on the former.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

in the same week, the Supreme Court has banned the death penalty for child rapists, and ruled that individuals have the right to own guns.

I won't comment on the hidden message I'm getting.

They should let Scalia write all of the opinions.

I have never and will never own a gun and I am rejoicing that the Second Amendment will be restored to the citizens of Washington DC.

YAY!

re: #2 buzzsawmonkey

With the right to own guns protected, banning the death penalty for child rapists might become a moot point.

Good to know I'm not loopy.

We are in a s orry state of affairs when such a ruling is even required.

re: #4 Liechtentrager

Amen!

HBob has stepped away from his desk to go outside and shoot his guns in the air.

A week early, but still a nice Independence Day feel to it.

As a warning to those who will go read it, put down any beverages before you delve into the minority segments.

The usual suspects (Hot Air, Malkin, etc.) have good roundups.

Mew

re: #2 buzzsawmonkey

re: #3 bosforus

Exactly so of [G-d forbid!] somebody even tried to hurt my child.

re: #5 MandyManners

I won't comment on the hidden message I'm getting.

I believe I hinted at the hidden message in my #3.

But now that citizens are allowed to own guns - there will be crime in Washington DC

/ sarc

Happy Day!

It's well worth reading the opinion - it's quite interesting and even funny at times.

re: #6 jamgarr

They should let Scalia write all of the opinions.

I highly recommend the book "Scalia Dissents". That is a very smart and eloquent man.

Freedom: 2
Socialism: 1,822

As long as I got Amendment 2. Number 1 is a given.

We can still win with those numbers.

re: #3 bosforus

Maybe the latter ruling will have some sort of impact on the former.

It would if it were one of my daughters who'd been brutalized.

Universal ammo-care, it's a right, not a privilege.

"For the first time in US history"?

Reuters appears to be playing fast and loose with the truth in an effort to make this look like it's a case of judicial activism.

Reuters had to work in an editorial comment implying that it was an activist, right-wing court decision:

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first time in U.S. history, that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the nation’s capital.

It's our ideological drift that's made it necessary for the court to affirm what was the clear and obvious meaning from the beginning.

re: #19 freedombilly

I highly recommend the book "Scalia Dissents". That is a very smart and eloquent man.

I'll check it out. He generally doesn't mince his words.

And in other news, the Supreme Court decides that water is wet.

re: #12 HBob

HBob has stepped away from his desk to go outside and shoot his guns in the air.

What goes up, must come down.

YEA! A win for the good guys and freedom. I am slap happy!

re: #6 jamgarr

They should let Scalia write all of the opinions.

Uh- well.... Let's keep him away from any ID decisions.

re: #5 MandyManners

I won't comment on the hidden message I'm getting.

Sounds like a group of Americans just got put on notice.

This decision was way too close. It's sad to see that 4 out of 5 Justices can read, but do not understand, or don't want to.

Individual Rights Affirmed, Lefty Blogs Calls for Head of Jon Stewart and Justice Scalia.

re: #15 bosforus

I believe I hinted at the hidden message in my #3.

I didn't see that. I'm glad to know I'm in good company.

Don't forget giving Constitutional rights to terrorists! One out of three...

SCOTUS Says You Can Own Guns

Er, I think the Constitution said that all along.

re: #9 MandyManners

Good to know I'm not loopy.

You're not Loppy, either.
Not that there's anything wrong with her.

re: #31 suboptimal

This decision was way too close. It's sad to see that 4 out of 5 Justices can read, but do not understand, or don't want to.

DING-DING-DING-DING-DING!

We're safe a few more years until BHO's SC overturns it.

I think I 'll celebrate by taking my M1911A1 out of cold storage and leaving it on the nightstand....

Next to my Bible...

/What a Country!

Too many 5-4 decisions.
To all "conservatives" on the fence about McCain, think for a minute. He has vowed to put strict constructionists on the court. Obama will appoint only liberals to the court. Is this clear?

re: #29 Sharmuta

Uh- well.... Let's keep him away from any ID decisions.

Oh crap! I didn't mean to open that can of worms!

Perhaps Anthony Kennedy thought it through enough to figure that if they banned guns in DC, what would the guards at the steps of the Supreme Court building use to protect the robed royalty from us poor peasants with pitchforks?

Oh wait, they'd still have their guns anyway...

WooHoo! ! ! ! Brady bunch and Handgun Control Inc. can suck hind tit!

The recent 5-4 decisions are all the more reason that we must not allow a radical social engineer to nominate future occupants of the Supreme Court.

NOBAMA!

I'm going to hop on the Metro now and check out the Smithsonians one more time before the gun fights break out in the streets of DC.

re: #18 protestshooter

It's well worth reading the opinion - it's quite interesting and even funny at times.

I like the way Scalia deconstructs the minority's argument at the same time he writes the majorities opinion. He doesn't seem to be particularly impressed with Justice Stevens.

Thank God!

If you have any interest at all in the issue, or if you would like to see clear evidence of the minority's attempt to legislate from the bench, you should read the first 30 pages or so of the opinion.

The logic and reasoning that Stevens uses is beyond belief. It's horrifyingly clear that he simply raised every objection possible in the hope that something would stick. He did everything but try to interpret the intent of the Constitution. He had an outcome that he wanted to achieve and he used every technique possible -- logic and truth be damned.

re: #35 Dar ul Harb

Er, I think the Constitution said that all along.

They disagree and say that Madison accidentally wrote "Right of the People" instead of "Right of the Government" in the Bill of Rights. Only on the 2nd Amendment part of course.

re: #30 Ward Cleaver

Sounds like a group of Americans just got put on notice.

I hope scum like that pay attention to this ruling.

I am very happy about this. A victory, finally, that the Constitution is not a Chinese menu, that the leftists cannot pick and choose column A and column B.

Oh, but the Koz Kidz are, predictably, going stark raving nutters. Here's a particularly good one. This one almost made me vomit.

My opinion on the 2nd amendment is this:

1 The 2nd amendment does say that we have the right to keep and bear arms. We can own guns and bullets. It says that, so let’s just not argue about it and accept that that’s what it says.

2 Maybe now, after almost 250 years, is the time to amend the 2nd amendment. Create the 28th amendment that changes the 2nd by taking away our right to bear arms. Why not, because let's face it...having the right to bear arms hasn't really worked out well for us, has it? We just keep shooting each other to death. Let's change the 2nd amendment and try another tack in trying to achieve the goal of not killing each other.

That’d be fine with me.

Obama, '08 - Because the failure of America as a democracy is not an option!

by WSComn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

Yeah, kid. Molon labe, idiot.

Time to go gun shopping again.
SCOTUS has a majority of members who can read with comprehension!

re: #45 freedombilly,

Better notify the crack dealers of your route so they won't disturb you too much!

:-)

But if you use your gun to off a child rapist in Louisiana, you'll be put to death.

re: #36 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

You're not Loppy, either.
Not that there's anything wrong with her.

LOL!

re: #18 protestshooter

It's well worth reading the opinion - it's quite interesting and even funny at times.

Scalia joke, at 9:

Petitioners point to militia
laws of the founding period that required militia members
to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they
conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a
militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16–
17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia).
This is rather like saying that, since there are many stat-
utes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file com-
plaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints”
has an employment-related connotation.

I should take my AK-47 out to the ranch and blast off a few rounds on the 4th!

re: #39 CIA Reject

I think I 'll celebrate by taking my M1911A1 out of cold storage and leaving it on the nightstand....

Next to my Bible...

/What a Country!

You poor bitter thing.
///

re: #5 MandyManners

I will. Take care of things yourself ;)

And the things I have to take care of things -- I get to keep them.

Makes my day.

Private gun ownership is strictly prohibited in Chicago.
Amazingly, gun violence is at an all time high.
Every time that there is an innocent person killed in a drive by etc.
Richie Daley rushes to a microphone & calls for stricter gun laws.
As I see it, criminals by defintion do not care about laws.
Their profession is actually breakling laws & How do you get more strict than a total ban?

re: #45 freedombilly

I'm going to hop on the Metro now and check out the Smithsonians one more time before the gun fights break out in the streets of DC.

Don't forget to see the Spy Museum. My favorite non-Smithsonian in the District.

re: #40 Golem Akbar

Too many 5-4 decisions.
To all "conservatives" on the fence about McCain, think for a minute. He has vowed to put strict constructionists on the court. Obama will appoint only liberals to the court. Is this clear?

(Just thought that bore repeating.)

Quotes from the opinion (from ScotusBlog):

“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

Finally some good news

re: #43 maddogg

WooHoo! ! ! ! Brady bunch and Handgun Control Inc. can suck hind tit!

Attention:
National Coalition to Ban Handguns, you can go out of business now.

Gun control laws generally have little affect on crime, as criminals already don't care that they're breaking the law. However- conceal and carry laws actually have helped reduce crime in the states where they're proposed and passed. Maybe things will get better in DC.

It's like the saying goes- a well armed society is a polite society.

Well, at least some good news in these increasingly repressive times.

Now that I have SCOTUS on my side. All I have to do is convince my wife that 38 guns is not enough to effectively cover all avenues of approach and create good over lapping fields of fire. My work is never done it seems. Work calls all. Please have a great day in the gun store, if you are so inclined.

Top

Obama: Supreme Court Judges are just bitter and clingy.

I just perused through all of the networks looking for their take on the SCOTUS decision....I was shocked but shouldn't have been...NOTHING! SQUAT! the only one on the story is Fox...almost all of the others are doing stories about evil oil and evil oil companies! What a bunch of sore losers!Unbiased! feh

ABC Radio in it's top-of-the-hour news summary (sic) reported the SOCTUS decision immediately followed by one of the Brady Bunch decrying it.

I wonder what the effect of the ruling will have on communities that have handgun bans such as Evanston and Oak Park, Illinois... Yooper or any of the Crook County Lizards want to comment?

re: #68 blueroom127

Obama: Supreme Court Judges are just bitter and clingy.

Obama: that's not the Supreme Court I once knew...

re: #12 HBob

HBob has stepped away from his desk to go outside and shoot his guns in the air.

Please don't reinforce the leftists' negative stereotypes of irresponsible gun owners. Guns fired into the air tend to have bullets come down in parabolas that can be of sufficient velocity to kill.

If you want to shoot a gun outdoors, the only acceptable place to do so is a range with an earthen berm of sufficient thickness as a backstop, or a target in front of a hill that will service as such.

Don't even joke about irresponsible gun use. Please.

re: #58 unclassifiable

I will. Take care of things yourself ;)

And the things I have to take care of things -- I get to keep them.

Makes my day.

Watch out, punks!

I think a lot of fast hot Pb will be flying out of my XD this weekend in celebration.

The Whole Opinion

Thank you, Supreme Court--with this decision, maybe DC will no longer be the murder capital of the country.

Mewling lefties will now wear Kevlar in DC, to protect themselves from rightful licensed, legal, likely trained owning citizens.

Our outlaws will have to watch out for a change.

Even some of the Kos Kidz (like the diarist "Adam B") sound pretty level-headed on this:

SCOTUS: Second Amendment Protects Individual Rights

Everytime I see SCOTUS written like that, for some reason my brain sees SCROTUS first.

Well!
This IS a good day!
Wonder what this means to the states (two, I believe) that refuse to issue carry licenses..

read it for yourself, here [Link: www.scotusblog.com...]

How is BHO gonna' spin this so that he can stay true to his beliefs and his supporters while not alienating the rest of us?

Waiting to see some moonbat heads explode.

Now maybe other towns won't be afraid to join us here in Kennesaw, making gun ownership mandatory!

re: #67 1SG(ret)

Now that I have SCOTUS on my side. All I have to do is convince my wife that 38 guns is not enough to effectively cover all avenues of approach and create good over lapping fields of fire. My work is never done it seems. Work calls all. Please have a great day in the gun store, if you are so inclined.

Top

Top, standard reply when wifey asks "well, how many more guns do you need?" Answer: Just one more. (repeat as needed).

re: #57 Cygnus

You poor bitter thing.
///

Heh, I'll cling to the Constitution thank you very much :-)

Thank G*d the SC has done the same!

Hey, this isn't over. Not as long as leftists have breath.
We must still be vigilant.
Join 2nd amendment groups and stay strong.

re: #78 Sizzlack

Everytime I see SCOTUS written like that, for some reason my brain sees SCROTUS first.

/Well, as Freud said: sometimes a cigar is just a penis.

re: #81 MandyManners

lie and deny, not necessarily in that order. Seems to be one of his few talents.

re: #57 Cygnus

You poor bitter thing.
///

He needs some arugula.

re: #41 jamgarr

Oh crap! I didn't mean to open that can of worms!

You didn't- I did.

re: #52 Iron Fist

,

Better notify the crack dealers of your route so they won't disturb you too much!

I just tell them that I fundraised for Marion Barry and they escort me where I'm going!

Join the NRA- they get it right!

Considering that Justice Stevens, and probably Justice Ginsburg, will probably be forced to retire during the next four years, this week's rulings confirm that Obama must not be allowed to be in a position to appoint new SCOTUS justices.

In my dreams, Janice Rogers Brown is nominated to the Supreme Court, and we watch in amusement as an African American woman, single mother and daughter of sharecroppers is told by the tolerant liberal Democrat masters of identify politics that she is "extreme," "out of the mainstream" and not qualified.

An armed sorority is a kick-ass sorority...

I happen to have a date tomorrow at the gun club. A wonderful way to celebrate. (using firearms repsonsibly)

McCain released his statement supporting the decision.

As for BHO - nothing.

Just came from BHO webiste. His campaign did think it vitally important to create a blog post this morning about North Korea. Apparently truly landmark Supreme Court decisions don't qualify.

re: #5 MandyManners

I won't comment on the hidden message I'm getting.

Sounds like there are responsibilities as well.

Hoo Freakin ray!

re: #88 Golem Akbar

/Well, as Freud said: sometimes a cigar is just a penis.

It's like Freud also said: you are thinking one thing but saying your mother...
[stop me please...]

re: #44 vagabond trader

The recent 5-4 decisions are all the more reason that we must not allow a radical social engineer to nominate future occupants of the Supreme Court.

NOBAMA!

* * *
He's NOT an engineer, but a lawyer who organized communities.

re: #70 Conservative in Liberal Hands

ABC Radio in it's top-of-the-hour news summary (sic) reported the SOCTUS decision immediately followed by one of the Brady Bunch decrying it.

I wonder what the effect of the ruling will have on communities that have handgun bans such as Evanston and Oak Park, Illinois... Yooper or any of the Crook County Lizards want to comment?

Speaking, of Oak Park, Il., it is also a nuclear free zone!

If a nuclear war breaks out, get to Oak Park. That place will be safe.

No thanks to the Bush administration, which file amicus on DC's side.

...funny how four "Justices" disagree with what should have been obvious for a few hundred years...

toon

glorious morning

Well, they finally got one right. Viva Heller!

re: #65 Sharmuta

Gun control laws generally have little affect on crime, as criminals
already don't care that they're breaking the law. However- conceal and
carry laws actually have helped reduce crime in the states where
they're proposed and passed. Maybe things will get better in DC.

It's like the saying goes- a well armed society is a polite society.

Lincoln made men free, Colt made them equals.

re: #85 maddogg
The reply to wife is "how many black shoes do you need"

Why do I hear Handel's Messiah chorus, and see flying pigs?

The Supreme Court actually (gasp) defends the words of the Constitution?!

re: #99 buzzsawmonkey

Buzz, You're not suggesting some... target practice, are you.

re: #57 Cygnus

Heh

re: #70 Conservative in Liberal Hands

ABC Radio in it's top-of-the-hour news summary (sic) reported the SOCTUS decision immediately followed by one of the Brady Bunch decrying it.

I wonder what the effect of the ruling will have on communities that have handgun bans such as Evanston and Oak Park, Illinois... Yooper or any of the Crook County Lizards want to comment?

It's already having some effect. I posted a few articles from the Tribune and CBS2 up in the spinoff links section.

Here's excerpts from the CBS2 article:

As CBS 2's Joanie Lum reports, the decision is exepcted to have effects across the country, including in Chicago, where a ban on the sale and registration of handguns has been in place since 1982. Only police officers, aldermen and a handful of others are exempt from the ban.

While other firearms can be registered, under current law, handguns cannot be registered and are considered illegal. Several suburbs have similar restrictions.

Mayor Richard M. Daley is a staunch supporter of gun control, and says the recent police shootings – all of which allegedly involved offenders who aimed guns at officers – are the direct result of having too many guns on the street.

Daley also says gun violence has claimed the lives of schoolchildren, and without the ban, the city would have more serious problems.

"It is an epidemic in America. There's something about a handgun, there's something about rifles and shotguns and Uzis people want, and drug dealers and gangbangers have them," Mayor Daley said. "And one thing we know – the more guns in society, the more victims you have in violent crimes."

With an epidemic of gun violence in Chicago this year, Daley and other officials and activists have been lobbying for stricter state gun laws.

But some defenders of gun rights say just the opposite of Mayor Daley, arguing instead in favor of the theories of economist John Lott, now of the University of Maryland.

The onetime University of Chicago professor argued in his 1998 volume, More Guns, Less Crime, for a statistical correlation between laws allowing people to carry concealed handguns and a drop in crime rates. Lott theorized the crime rate dropped because criminals were deterred by the possibility of confronting an armed victim.

Lott also claimed the Chicago gun ban was to blame for an increase in crime.

Critics of Chicago's gun ordinance also say the law already aims to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to possess any firearm they desire.

The gun ban in Washington, D.C., that was struck down Thursday, is the same as Chicago's, forbidding the sale and possession of handguns.

Looks like King Richard II is gonna have his gun ban challenged.

The reason we have the 2nd Amendment is that we have the 2nd Amendment.

re: #99 buzzsawmonkey

Hey, the decision said we could own firearms; it didn't say a thing about exploding moonbat heads.

I've noticed that many moonbats have a problem with us mere mortals owning firearms. Thus the expectation of internal head pressure issues on their part.

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes)idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture ahybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really a idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed.

re: #104 Onslow

No thanks to the Bush administration, which file amicus on DC's side.

Un-fricken-believable.

Like I said recently, "Compassionate Conservatism" has turned out to be Liberalism Lite.

re: #103 opnion

Speaking, of Oak Park, Il., it is also a nuclear free zone!

If a nuclear war breaks out, get to Oak Park. That place will be safe.

LOL. The Unitarian Church around the corner from my hose is also a "nuclear-free zone." I still laugh every time I drive by.

re: #59 opnion

Private gun ownership is strictly prohibited in Chicago.

Not for long.

5-4 decision? I can't believe a close call like this could happen in America. This nation sorely needs a few more solid Constitutionalists on the bench.

Should Obama be elected our constitutional rights are really going to get f$%^# over by the Judiciary.

reposted

How burglery encounters should end.

FYI: I'm skimming Scalia's decision, and he quotes several articles written by Eugene Volokh. And he keeps ripping at Stevens, complaining rather artfully that Stevens is wrong, wrong, wrong.

It's been rather a delight to read. :D

My new Sig 556 cleared NICS yesterday afternoon. Time to slap on an ACOG and go to the outdoor range and celebrate!

Relief!

Ouch.

Heller, at 17-18:

JUSTICE STEVENS believes that the unitary meaning
of “keep and bear Arms” is established by the Second
Amendment’s calling it a “right” (singular) rather than
“rights” (plural). See post, at 16. There is nothing to this.
State constitutions of the founding period routinely
grouped multiple (related) guarantees under a singular
“right,” and the First Amendment protects the “right
[singular] of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment. Remember that one, Stevens?

From now on, every murder in Washington DC will be headline news.

With this decision mentioned in either the headline, the first sentence, or maaaaaaybe just the first paragraph.

-depend upon it

Did you read this:

Justice John Paul Stevens (minority opinion, thank goodness) :
(The majority opinion) "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 that the evidence for this is no where to be found.

HA! What about the right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government! What are we going to do, throw pillows at them and hope they don't shoot us?

Justice Stephen Breyer (again, dissent thankfully)
"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."

I love this. Apparently "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't apply to individual people keeping and bearing arms in their homes if they live in a crime ridden area.

Oh, I know, they meant to write "the right of the people to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed"....dyslexic founding fathers.....

re: #12 HBob

HBob has stepped away from his desk to go outside and shoot his guns in the air.

We are not fundamentalist Islamacists. At least the way they celebrate it will only take a few million victories to exterminate themselves.

re: #81 MandyManners

How is BHO gonna' spin this so that he can stay true to his beliefs and his supporters while not alienating the rest of us?

There is not enough spin in the world for that. Isn't his idealogyg already alien enough for the rest of us? :)

re: #102 alegrias

Was trying to be polite and reasonably intelligent. My first thought in describing him is actually traitorous azzhole.

re: #16 thepoguemahone

But now that citizens are allowed to own guns - there will be crime in Washington DC

/ sarc

Oh, dear - I just booked my long-awaited trip to DC. If there's going to be crime there, maybe I should cancel.

/Fraidy cat

re: #124 Cartman

You need a wheel for the front of that.

(They're too nose-heavy, I think.) :)

re: #97 ronaldusmagnus

Obama's position on guns is... um... nuanced. That too shall result in an edition of bus and driver.

re: #96 Ziggy

You're taking your date to the gun club?

re: #114 Honorary Yooper

Why would he think that "...drug dealers and gangbangers..." are going to respect a gun ban? Is he just a complete moron?

Well....We are not "subjects" or "serfs" yet....Reid and Pelosi must both be fuming.

/or is that seething?

re: #66 SalsaNChips

Well, at least some good news in these increasingly repressive times.

And, speaking of repressive times, here in Canada a stand-up comic is being hauled before the British Columbia Human "Rights" Tribunal...a heckler didn't approve of the comedian's routine. She figured he was being "sexist", etc.

Old meme:

X servicemen died this week in Iraq, bringing the total deaths to XX since Bush declared an end to major hostilities.

New meme:

X people died this week in DC, bringing the total deaths to XX since the Supreme Court struck down the ban on guns.

re: #78 Sizzlack

Everytime I see SCOTUS written like that, for some reason my brain sees SCROTUS first.

Me too. And you wouldn't *believe* how I read your nic.

re: #128 kimbergrl

Did you read this:

Justice John Paul Stevens (minority opinion, thank goodness) :
(The majority opinion) "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 that the evidence for this is no where to be found.

HA! What about the right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government! What are we going to do, throw pillows at them and hope they don't shoot us?

Justice Stephen Breyer (again, dissent thankfully)
"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."

I love this. Apparently "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't apply to individual people keeping and bearing arms in their homes if they live in a crime ridden area.

Oh, I know, they meant to write "the right of the people to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed"....dyslexic founding fathers.....

It's pretty obvious reading Scalia's text that he (and his aides) really did their homework. His piece-by-piece reading of the amendment is really great, and should be required homework for any future lawyer or jurist.

It also makes it clear the vacuousness of Stevens' arguments. He just blows huge, gaping holes in them.

re: #114 Honorary Yooper

As CBS 2's Joanie Lum reports, the decision is exepcted to have effects across the country, including in Chicago, where a ban on the sale and registration of handguns has been in place since 1982. Only police officers, aldermen and a handful of others are exempt from the ban.

Good thing that no one's been shot in Chicago since 1982, right?

Mayor Richard M. Daley is a staunch supporter of gun control, and says the recent police shootings – all of which allegedly involved offenders who aimed guns at officers – are the direct result of having too many guns on the street.

Um, isn't that pretty much what happens when there's a shooting of any type - most shootings involve guns.

re: #61 MandyManners

Too many 5-4 decisions.
To all "conservatives" on the fence about McCain, think for a minute. He has vowed to put strict constructionists on the court. Obama will appoint only liberals to the court. Is this clear?

(Just thought that bore repeating.)

As often as possible.

re: #24 FlakMusic
There was/is a gun ban in DC? So the murders every weekend are by knife? Bow and Arrow?

Two years ago, but this article talks about the huge rise in violent crimes, including home invasion in England and Wales:

[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]

re: #119 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

LOL. The Unitarian Church around the corner from my hose is also a "nuclear-free zone." I still laugh every time I drive by.

What, have they got a force field around the property?

re: #136 Ward Cleaver

Why would he think that "...drug dealers and gangbangers..." are going to respect a gun ban? Is he just a complete moron?

He simply believes that he is smarter than the rest of us.

This belief has no basis in reality.

Gun bans do nothing but impose insecurity on law abiding citizens.

If you want to reduce crime- increase guns in the hands of law abiding Americans. DC needs a conceal and carry law- then you'll see crime in DC go down.

re: #119 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

LOL. The Unitarian Church around the corner from my hose is also a "nuclear-free zone." I still laugh every time I drive by.

DB_VM, Are you part of the underground Crook County Lizard Legion? Or am I mis-understanding your hose's proximity to FLW's Unity Temple?

re: #145 madisonsfriend

There was/is a gun ban in DC? So the murders every weekend are by knife? Bow and Arrow?

Spitwad.

re: #136 Ward Cleaver

Why would he think that "...drug dealers and gangbangers..." are going to respect a gun ban? Is he just a complete moron?

Yes, I think he is a bit of a moron, but that's my ever-so humble opinion of the dipstick.

Remember that Senator Obama skated all around this issue, while Senator McCain signed an amicus brief to show what he thought (that the DC law was unconstitutional).

Obama disavows yet another "inartful" statement. Under the bus with that inartful statement, yes?

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence." [DUH]

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by contrast, has been forthcoming when it comes to the D.C. gun law. He signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.

Is this also another opportunity for many of our precious liberals to make good on their "threat" and finally move to Canada?

Please?

re: #148 The Other Les

He simply believes that he is smarter than the rest of us.

This belief has no basis in reality.

But they let the aldermen own guns? I'd be worried.

re: #141 ploome hineni

Nothing wrong with the Church, just a lot wrong with Pfleger. I will cheer the day he gets defrocked for his liberation theology.

re: #121 turn

It wouldn't be the first time that an important case turned on a 5-4 decision (Bush v. Gore comes to mind), but in some instances, the Court sought unanimous ruling to make a clear point (Brown v. Board of Education comes to mind).

re: #82 buzzsawmonkey

Votes on the Supreme Court, like votes in the rest of the government, are bargained over.

I find myself wondering whether a vote was brokered, giving a majority in the child-rape-penalty-ban in exchange for a majority on this case. If so, the Constitution, and the nation, are clear winners on two counts.

First, the death penalty for anything is rarely sought, rarely sentenced, and even more rarely carried out--often at a great remove of time from when the sentence was pronounced. Thus, while it is an outrage for the Court to buy into the notion that the death penalty is per se unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, the actual loss to law enforcement and to the nation is minimal--far less damage than the gutting of the Second Amendment would be.

Second, not only have Second Amendment rights been resoundingly upheld--and cleared up, linguistically speaking--but the countervailing arguments have been gutted. One has to wonder, again, whether the dissents which Scalia ridicules were produced under a consent arrangement--because they provide a point-by-point statement of the anti-gun rights position, which Scalia proceeds to demolish. It is far better that these points be raised in a dissent and then demolished by the majority opinion than that they be rhetorically raised and answered only in the majoriity opinion, where they can be misquoted.

I'm not sure if I like the notion of a quid pro quo. Nevertheless, you are spot on with your analysis that this decision is far more important than the one from yesterday.

re: #133 Kalak

You need a wheel for the front of that.

(They're too nose-heavy, I think.) :)

Not to bad, really. I added a forend grip, 3-point sling and Magpul stock, so I'm good to go.

re: #147 Ward Cleaver

What, have they got a force field around the property?

No strong or weak nuclear forces, please!

re: #145 madisonsfriend

There was/is a gun ban in DC? So the murders every weekend are by knife? Bow and Arrow?

For some strange reason, the criminals didn't obey the law. Only law-abiding people did. No one knows why.

Perhaps the dissenting Justices felt that the right to "bear arms" meant the right to wear a tank-top?

re: #136 Ward Cleaver

Why would he think that "...drug dealers and gangbangers..." are going to respect a gun ban? Is he just a complete moron?

Yes.

re: #137 stanlef

Well....We are not "subjects" or "serfs" yet....Reid and Pelosi must both be fuming.

/or is that seething?

Seething. I bet my gun on it.

Seventy posts in 11 minutes. Wow.

re: #156 Honorary Yooper

Nothing wrong with the Church, just a lot wrong with Pfleger. I will cheer the day he gets defrocked for his liberation theology.

I was disappointed that he didn't get a bitch-slap from Cardinal George.

re: #164 buzzsawmonkey

I love reminding "nuclear-free zone" people that if they have a smoke detector on the premises they are not "nuclear free," since all smoke detectors contain nuclear waste.

Their confusion is enjoyable.

*glowing* praise my friend.

re: #166 MandyManners

Seventy posts in 11 minutes. Wow.

Ain't it sweet? It's like the lounge.

re: #166 MandyManners

Seventy posts in 11 minutes. Wow.

It's a free fire zone.

BHO

"That's not the 2nd Amendment I know."

Barry,

Here's the deal.

There is a country in Africa so f'ed up that no matter what you do you can't possibly screw it up any worse than it is already. How about you and GW get together to get the present freedom fighter clown in charge out and then you can try out all those really cool ideas you have before you foist them on us. That will get you a little training before you hit the big leagues back in the States.

/just a thought

re: #89 vagabond trader

lie and deny, not necessarily in that order. Seems to be one of his few talents.

You forgot "obfuscate".

re: #167 Ward Cleaver

I was disappointed that he didn't get a bitch-slap from Cardinal George.

As was I. Hopefully Pope Benedict XVI will remedy the situation. He really does not like liberation theologians like Pfleger.

Thank G-d.

Too bad they didn't chip away at the limitations BS... It would be nice to see another "assault weapons" ninny law rendered unconstitutional.

Of course the news article has to put the usual closers on there... Bush Administration, America awash in guns, somebody got shot just yesterday, et cetera.

Eighty million gun owners killed nobody yesterday, but that's not news.

The decision still has serious problems, since the majority didn't take its reasoning to its logical conclusion. In particular, support for restrictions at point of purchase was upheld, as were carry restrictions, leading to the inescapable conclusion that DC and Chicago will change tactics. Instead of banning possession and ownership of guns, they will implement purchase and carry restrictions that effect the same purpose: prevent ordinary citizens (but not the politically connected) from owning guns.

re: #92 freedombilly

I just tell them that I fundraised for Marion Barry and they escort me where I'm going!

LOL!

re: #149 Sharmuta

Gun bans do nothing but impose insecurity on law abiding citizens.

If you want to reduce crime- increase guns in the hands of law abiding Americans. DC needs a conceal and carry law- then you'll see crime in DC go down.

To be honest, a lot of the killings are between(among) people who already have guns- or spitwads. I really didn't know the laws in DC- but I vanpooled years ago with a guy who was bringing a gun to sell in DC to a co-worker(he had it in a paper bag). maybe it wasn't illegal 20 years ago?

re: #111 Silhouette

Why do I hear Handel's Messiah chorus, and see flying pigs?

The Supreme Court actually (gasp) defends the words of the Constitution?!

Now if the flying pigs were actually singing the 'Hallelujah Chorus', that would be something. Oh yeah, and the cows jumping over the moon would be the orchestra!

picking up my new M&P compact 9 tonite, my XD45
needed a little brother...

Just think... If Kerry had won, this would have been a 7-2 or 6-3 decision upholding the ban. This is why we cannot allow Obama anywhere near the White House, except maybe as part of a tour group.

re: #147 Ward Cleaver

What, have they got a force field around the property?

Zombie can also tell you that the City of Berkeley is a Nuclear Free Zone. It's also home to the Lawrence-Berkeley Lab.

If Oak Park has a nuclear lab within its city limits, then both it and Berkeley are on par. If not, then I contend that Berkeley wins the moonbat contest.

re: #95 rcris5

An armed sorority is a kick-ass sorority...

My DE .44 matches all of my cashmere twin-sets.

re: #150 Conservative in Liberal Hands

DB_VM,
Are you part of the underground Crook County Lizard Legion? Or am I
mis-understanding your hose's proximity to FLW's Unity Temple?

I meant to say "house" of course. I don't even own a hose. I'm in Philly, smack dab in the middle of the most moonbatty neighborhood in the city.

Heller, footnote 14, at 18:

14
Faced with this clear historical usage, JUSTICE STEVENS resorts to
the bizarre argument that because the word “to” is not included before
“bear” (whereas it is included before “petition” in the First Amend-
ment), the unitary meaning of “to keep and bear” is established. Post,
at 16, n. 13. We have never heard of the proposition that omitting
repetition of the “to” causes two verbs with different meanings to
become one. A promise “to support and to defend the Constitution of
the United States” is not a whit different from a promise "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Thwack!

re: #177 madisonsfriend

To be honest, a lot of the killings are between(among) people who already have guns- or spitwads. I really didn't know the laws in DC- but I vanpooled years ago with a guy who was bringing a gun to sell in DC to a co-worker(he had it in a paper bag). maybe it wasn't illegal 20 years ago?

Their gun ban dated to 1976, so yes, it was illegal then.

re: #181 Golem Akbar

Zombie can also tell you that the City of Berkeley is a Nuclear Free Zone. It's also home to the Lawrence-Berkeley Lab.

If Oak Park has a nuclear lab within its city limits, then both it and Berkeley are on par. If not, then I contend that Berkeley wins the moonbat contest.

I think Berkeley wins the contest as I don't think Oak Park has a nuclear lab within its city limits.

Volokh (whose site is being slammed right now) is now discussing the issue of how the ruling will apply to State and local laws. Look for more legal cases!

re: #156 Honorary Yooper

First, thanks for the head's up 'bout the apparently unconstitutional handgun bans. Second, my guess is that his superior (Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I., Archbishop of Chicago) will direct him to take up residence in a cloistered place of contemplation and prayer and replace him, rather than defrock the flagrant POS.

Man. Scalia just keeps ripping into Stevens on just about every page. He seems to be saying, in essence, that Stevens is a complete idiot and knows nothing about the law.

Amazing.

re: #181 Golem Akbar

Zombie can also tell you that the City of Berkeley is a Nuclear Free Zone. It's also home to the Lawrence-Berkeley Lab.

If Oak Park has a nuclear lab within its city limits, then both it and Berkeley are on par. If not, then I contend that Berkeley wins the moonbat contest.

"Shields up, Mister Sulu!"

re: #142 vxbush

It's pretty obvious reading Scalia's text that he (and his aides) really did their homework. His piece-by-piece reading of the amendment is really great, and should be required homework for any future lawyer or jurist.

It also makes it clear the vacuousness of Stevens' arguments. He just blows huge, gaping holes in them.

Scalia likes to bitch alot when it comes to dissenting opinions because man, the dude talks. I would say he's the greatest justice of our time and liberals got to recognize that. He has a great love of the law. Even in the Giles case yesterday, yes, it's a bit screwed up in a sense but Scalia did what the Constitution meant it says. The dissenting 4 justices in this case, I don't know what the hell is going through their mind. The bill of rights was specifically designed for the common people, not the government.

re: #68 blueroom127

Obama: 5 Supreme Court Judges are just bitter and clingy.

Better....

Owning guns and other weapons to protect myself and my loved ones is a God-given right, it is not granted us by the SCOTUS.

re: #131 vagabond trader

Was trying to be polite and reasonably intelligent. My first thought in describing him is actually traitorous azzhole.

* * *
Ditto! You were way too kind describing the radical leftist.

There is no comparison between real Engineers and Social engineers--probably just socialists degreed in marxist math & political "science" which boils down to 7th century grudges & jealousy of the "other", and the only solution is always totalitarian re-distribution by force.

re: #164 buzzsawmonkey

I love reminding "nuclear-free zone" people that if they have a smoke detector on the premises they are not "nuclear free," since all smoke detectors contain nuclear waste.

Their confusion is enjoyable.

You forgot to mention that Big Smoke Dectors are ripping us off. [love moonbat logic]

Remember, folks - this ruling does not preclude a Demoncrat-controlled legislature from introducing restriction and ban nonsense on the floor. If BO gets in, look for other subversive attempts to limit your 2A rights - ammo and platform restrictions, etc. The ubers know that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

re: #122 ROPMA

reposted

How burglery encounters should end.

Yesssssss! You go, girl!
/and I can upding only once - crap!

No death sentence for child rapists is a fair trade for a ruling with this sort of precedence. In fact, I'd say that "winning" today's decision is even more important than "losing" yesterday's.

re: #184 Dar ul Harb

Heller, footnote 14, at 18:

Thwack!

Scalia is shoveling away decades of manure. This decision goes deep.

re: #183 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

I meant to say "house" of course. I don't even own a hose. I'm in Philly, smack dab in the middle of the most moonbatty neighborhood in the city.

Can you send me a hoagie from Sarcone's and a cone of Bassetts?- I will be ready for lunch in 30 minutes.

Which is the moonbattiest now? West Mount Airy? Center City?

re: #178 Cygnus

Now
if the flying pigs were actually singing the 'Hallelujah Chorus', that
would be something. Oh yeah, and the cows jumping over the moon would
be the orchestra!

Pigs singing "Hallelujah?" Double-plus offensive to the Religion of Peace!

...and in Kozlunia

The 2nd is not for home defense (0+ / 0-)

The 2nd Amendment does not protect only in the case of home defense, nor, as is commonly claimed, guns used for hunting. In fact, the only thing the 2nd Amendment specifically mentions is war. A sidearm is perfectly useful in combat.

What the 2nd Amendment leaves open is the nature of the enemy. Is it a foreign invader, or our own government gone wrong? Or both, of course.

brother...

re: #193 Power Armored Lizardoid

Owning guns and other weapons to protect myself and my loved ones is a God-given right, it is not granted us by the SCOTUS.

Well, sometimes SCOTUS thinks they are God.

Fun with "Finding the bias":

Fourth paragraph:

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.

But the headline and first paragraph

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting

The buried reason is the correct one, which is "I don't have to justify my gun."

Charles and Cartman,

Thank you again for your help. I downloaded a number of things, Adobe Flash, Real Player, a new version of Java and something else. But until I downloaded Shockwave, LGF wouldn't work. With that download, everything is working like it should.

As for the SC decision, too close for comfort, but obviously the right call.

Yippee.

re: #183 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Believe me, I know what you mean. Keep the Faith!

re: #157 lawhawk

It wouldn't be the first time that an important case turned on a 5-4 decision (Bush v. Gore comes to mind), but in some instances, the Court sought unanimous ruling to make a clear point (Brown v. Board of Education comes to mind).

I've been reading some of your and other's comments upthread and am enlightened to find out the close call could be a good thing in that it lays a solid foundation to refute future arguments to the contrary. I'll check out your blog for more info - thanks.

re: #186 Honorary Yooper

I think Berkeley wins the contest as I don't think Oak Park has a nuclear lab within its city limits.

I have pointed this out to Berkeley residents, who really don't appreciate the obvious-ness of their lunacy.

The city does have some nice micro-breweries, however.

re: #203 Ward Cleaver

Indeed.

/Teal'c

re: #164 buzzsawmonkey

I love reminding "nuclear-free zone" people that if they have a smoke detector on the premises they are not "nuclear free," since all smoke detectors contain nuclear waste.

New U-U hymn:

Americium, Americium, Goddess shed thy alpha particles on me...

(I can laugh, as I'm a U-U.)

re: #204 Silhouette

The buried reason is the correct one, which is "I don't have to justify my gun."

DING!

re: #202 aboo-Hoo-Hoo

...and in Kozlunia

brother...

"A sidearm is perfectly useful in combat."

Maybe when the enemy is always ten feet away.

They are morons.

re: #191 Kaitian868

Scalia likes to bitch alot when it comes to dissenting opinions because man, the dude talks. I would say he's the greatest justice of our time and liberals got to recognize that. He has a great love of the law. Even in the Giles case yesterday, yes, it's a bit screwed up in a sense but Scalia did what the Constitution meant it says. The dissenting 4 justices in this case, I don't know what the hell is going through their mind. The bill of rights was specifically designed for the common people, not the government.

Yes, but he has citations for everything. And not just one, but usually four or five. It's just stunning the depth of the research and the clear incisive work that went into this.

Kudos to his team. They did a great job.

re: #189 vxbush

Man. Scalia just keeps ripping into Stevens on just about every page. He seems to be saying, in essence, that Stevens is a complete idiot and knows nothing about the law.

Amazing.

He is, and it's nice to see a colleague call him on it.

My problem is with it being a 5-4 ruling instead of 9-0.......

Our founding fathers wrote it in very plain English!

It is nice that they said I could do something that I would do anyway

re: #122 ROPMA

ROTFLMAO!

4 of the 9 justices cannot either read, or comprehend the meaning of the words "shall not be infringed" Some of the dissent statements are real gems.

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." (if you don't read or comprehend it)

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."

In his view?

He should be interpreting law based on the constitution not "his view"

I think it's time the Supreme Court be reduced to 5 members. The ones that can actually have reading comprehension levels above that of a monkey. Any guess which 5 would pass

re: #214 Cartman

He is, and it's nice to see a colleague call him on it.

Wasn't it Ford that appointed Stevens?

re: #141 ploome hineni
Father Pfleger has been a profile in lunacy since the jump.
He screams about liquor advertising in his neighborhood.
At a rally in front of a gun shop with Jessie Jackson, he suggested that the crowd, "off" the shop owner.
He is constantly effecting "Black" dialect & sounds like an ass.
His promise to be political from the pulpit should effect tax status, but won't.
Cardinal George , who keeps enabling this clown is the same guy who mocked detractors of sexually abusive priests.

OT: Over on bloggingheads, Bob Barr speaks with Jane Hamsher about being the "third man".

re: #215 kevrobin45

My problem is with it being a 5-4 ruling instead of 9-0.......

Our founding fathers wrote it in very plain English!

Silly establishment type with your "plain english" and "facts". The Constitution is a living document, man! It's all relative! Consider the context!

/

re: #215 kevrobin45

My problem is with it being a 5-4 ruling instead of 9-0.......

Our founding fathers wrote it in very plain English!

Because the 4 justices are trying to exercise common law judgment, not interpretation.

re: #189 vxbush

Man. Scalia just keeps ripping into Stevens on just about every page. He seems to be saying, in essence, that Stevens is a complete idiot and knows nothing about the law.

Amazing.

Hee hee hee. SMILE.

re: #193 Power Armored Lizardoid

Owning guns and other weapons to protect myself and my loved ones is a God-given right, it is not granted us by the SCOTUS.

Indeed. The 2nd doesn't "give" us the right. The 2nd tells the government that our right shall not be infringed.

(See also, all other rights.)

re: #200 madisonsfriend

Can you send me a hoagie from Sarcone's and a cone of Bassetts?- I will be ready for lunch in 30 minutes.

Which is the moonbattiest now? West Mount Airy? Center City?

West Mount Airy still takes the cake. I wait for the train to take me home & I can just tell that the weirdest looking (and smelling) person on the station will be boarding my train. Center City may be filled with liberals, but at least they groom themselves properly. Art school punks notwithstanding.

re: #209 Power Armored Lizardoid

Indeed.

/Teal'c

Heh, someone else is a SG-1 fan.

re: #143 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Mayor Richard M. Daley is a staunch supporter of gun control, and says the recent police shootings – all of which allegedly involved offenders who aimed guns at officers – are the direct result of having too many guns on the street.

Um, isn't that pretty much what happens when there's a shooting of any type - most shootings involve guns.

Not including acts of war, the worst mass murder in the history of New York State was committed with a can of gasoline and a cigarette lighter. I'm still waiting for gasoline and cigarette lighter control laws, after all it's for the children, right?

re: #14 littleoldlady

re: #3 bosforus

Exactly so of [G-d forbid!] somebody even tried to hurt my child.

At least you won't be breaking the law.....

The landmark 5-4 ruling

In other words: One Omama appointment to the court would have turned this whole thing the other way.

Another big reason to vote for McCain.

Just heard on Fox News (I think) that the NRA will be filing lawsuits against Chicago and other cities for their un-constitutional laws.

WOW - I was so busy trying to read the actual court decision and responding to folks on the prior thread that I missed a new thread being put up until it was over 200 comments!

Today was a victory for America. Our precious Constitution has been upheld. That it had to come to the U.S. Supreme Court to read the non-ambivilent language of the Second Amendment should be a mark of shame for all those who dissented in this case.

WoooooWhooooooo!

I can't wait to get off from work so that I can rip off a thirty-round burst in celebration!

Finally the SCOTUS gets one right.

re: #231 Libs are Mental

Just heard on Fox News (I think) that the NRA will be filing lawsuits against Chicago and other cities for their un-constitutional laws.

Good.

I'm starting to wonder whether this decision could destroy Stevens' reputation for all time. Scalia beats him like a drum for about 30 pages. There's a section from about page 13-16 that can be neatly summarized as "Justice Stevens is an idiot."

Heck, there's a paragraph on page 13 where Scalia calls one of Stevens' inane arguments "Grotesque."

Literally one word:

Grotesque.

On a list of things you just don't ever want to see, a sex-tape of Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer has got to be near the top...

re: #223 Kaitian868

Because the 4 justices are trying to exercise common law judgment, not interpretation.

The four justices in question are hell-bent on limiting the freedoms of all Americans. They've demonstrated this time and time again, and it's a mindset prevalent in both their majority opinions as well as their minority dissent. They aim to shape America in the image and likeness of their world-view.

I may have to celebrate this by picking up a little S&W revolver like my brother recently got. Light, concealable, capable of shooting either .38 or .357 and a built in laser designator, what's not to like?

Think I'll finally get my concealed carry license too...heh.

Oh, and who was the first Lib to react to this decision by saying "There will be blood in the streets!" ? If no Libs have said it yet...they will.

re: #236 Kenneth

On a list of things you just don't ever want to see, a sex-tape of Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer has got to be near the top...

I'm so glad that page was blocked.

re: #210 Dar ul Harb

Question, Mr. Lawyer-person:

Why is it that the phrase "Congress shall make no law" is held (apparently) to extend a prohibition to the respective States, but the phrase "the right of the people... shall not be infringed. [Period]" is sharply limited to restrict the Federal government only?

I realize that this all just got a big dose of straightening out, but are you familiar with that seeming incongruity?

re: #225 Silhouette

Indeed. The 2nd doesn't "give" us the right. The 2nd tells the government that our right shall not be infringed.

(See also, all other rights.)

I would ding that up many times

re: #227 Happy Fun Ball

Heh, someone else is a SG-1 fan.

Makes at least 3 of us.

Woo-hoo!

What a great thing to see first thing in the morning!

Woo-hoo!

My Kimber and I will be celebrating this weekend!

re: #241 Ojoe

Oops. double post. Sorry.

a history of gun control

Date: Feb 5, 2008 8:59 AM
A Little Gun History Lesson. In 1929, the Soviet Union
> established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million
> dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
> -----------------------
>
> In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917,
> 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
> up and exterminated.
> -----------------------
>
> Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945,
> a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
> themselves were rounded up and exterminated
> -----------------------
>
> China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20
> million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
> rounded up and
> exterminated.
> -----------------------
>
> Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
> 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
> up and exterminated.
> -----------------------
> Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979,
> 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
> and exterminated.
> ----------------------- Cambodia established gun control in
> 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to
> defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> -----------------------
> Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th
> Century because of gun control: 56 million.
> -----------------------

5-4 vote? life is getting scary in America. One more Ruth Bater on the court and we are screwed.

re: #153 Catttt

Remember that Senator Obama skated all around this issue, while Senator McCain signed an amicus brief to show what he thought (that the DC law was unconstitutional).

Obama disavows yet another "inartful" statement. Under the bus with that inartful statement, yes?

Here's McCain's full statement. He doesn't pull punches regarding Obama's weakness on the issue (from Michelle Malkin):

U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement regarding today’s United States Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller:
Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

re: #226 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

West Mount Airy still takes the cake. I wait for the train to take me home & I can just tell that the weirdest looking (and smelling) person on the station will be boarding my train. Center City may be filled with liberals, but at least they groom themselves properly. Art school punks notwithstanding.

oh - WEST Mount Airy. I thought you meant Mount Airy (MD).

history of gun control cont

> It has now been a couple years since gun owners in Australia
> were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to
> be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia
> t axpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results
> are now in:
>
> Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
>
> Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
>
> Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44
> percent)!
>
> In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are
> now up 300 percent Note that while the law-abiding citizens
> turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess
> their guns!
>
> It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!
>
> While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
> decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed
> drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are
> guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
>
> There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
> assaults of the ELDERLY.. Australian politicians are at a loss to
> explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental
> effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian
> society of guns. The Australian experience and the other
> historical facts above prove it.
>
> You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear
> politicians disseminating this information.
>
> Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property
> and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding
> citi zens.
>
> Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
>
> The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please
> remind him of this history lesson.
>
> With Guns...........We Are "Citizens"
> Without Them.......We Are "Subjects".
>
> During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America
> because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
>
> Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Peal Harbor
> had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S.
> 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army
> had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the
> country It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow
> up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland,
> his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost
> all households had guns.
>
> If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control

re: #227 Happy Fun Ball

I am also a fan of the Happy Fun Ball...but I know not to taunt it!
And yes, Teal'c is da man!

re: #201 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Pigs singing "Hallelujah?" Double-plus offensive to the Religion of Peace!

And they're very happy about that.

re: #238 Power Armored Lizardoid

Just a friendly suggestion - you will not like .357 very much out of a snubby. It's pretty brutal on the palm.

5-4,again Kennedy is the swing vote.The law from now on is what he thinks it is.

re: #235 Diamond Bullet
Indeed and he'll have all summer long to think about how he was spanked, in public, in this decision.
It is true that in the history of SCOTUS, no matter what the issue or how emotionally charged the issue in question was, the Justices always try to be at least polite to each other in public (i.e., the published rulings).
That Scalia felt it necessary to spank the dissent by Stevens is indicative of just how poorly Scalia thinks Steven's "reason" and understanding is.

re: #40 Golem Akbar

Too many 5-4 decisions.
To all "conservatives" on the fence about McCain, think for a minute. He has vowed to put strict constructionists on the court. Obama will appoint only liberals to the court. Is this clear?

The problem is believing McCain. He's in the midst of a political battle and he is a politician. He can say anything he wants, but the proof is in the pudding. I know Obama will screw the US over, but McCain just might put in more Kennedys. What good would that do?

re: #226 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

West Mount Airy still takes the cake. I wait for the train to take me home & I can just tell that the weirdest looking (and smelling) person on the station will be boarding my train. Center City may be filled with liberals, but at least they groom themselves properly. Art school punks notwithstanding.

They get groomed at Petco.

re: #247 angst

McCain gets a dig in by using the words cling and bitterness. Way to go John.

Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

re: #124 Cartman

My new Sig 556 cleared NICS yesterday afternoon. Time to slap on an ACOG and go to the outdoor range and celebrate!

Sweet firearm! I just might reconsider the Bushmaster I have my eyes on and go with the SIG. A nice complement to my P226 and P229 pistols.

Time for the me to go to lunch. BBL

From my inbox:

Letter from one 'Angry Woman'

I don't know who wrote it but She should have signed it. Some powerful words. This woman should run for president regardless of being a Democrat, Republican or Independent.

Written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one ticked off lady. It's too bad that more Americans don't express themselves as she does.

Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was 'desecrated' when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for chopping off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

[cont]

re: #254 realwest

I am guessing Scalia might even be embarrassed to serve with an obviously outclassed fellow jurist.

[cont]

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed 'special' food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and-you guessed it-I don't care !

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country! And may I add:

Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem' -- Ronald Reagan

I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope you forward all this.

If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.' Also by.. Ronald Reagan

One last thought for the day:

In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he said: 'A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in.. And how many want out.'

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.

re: #215 kevrobin45

My problem is with it being a 5-4 ruling instead of 9-0.......

Our founding fathers wrote it in very plain English!

* * *
But but only Verus Possumus & Si Se Puede are spoken in the mainstream old media.

re: #198 bosforus

Has anyone discussed that yesterday's decision may actually reaffirm the right to use the death penalty by implicitly acknowledging it as a recourse for other crimes? (I haven't read all of the posts and info about it, but from a 10K point of view).