now watch the crime rates drop in dc and new york.

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.


We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.

scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content … 7-2901.pdf

can you hear the wailing and gnashing of liberal teeth?

-Imp

Upon first thought, I thought it was a terrible decision, but
upon reflection, it clearly dooms the second amendment.
The way the court argues for it, it says yes but leaves no room
for lower courts to follow it. It is an half baked idea like Bush vs gore
which stopped voter tabulation in its tracks and that was the basis for
bush vs gore. This decision is the death knell of the second amendment.

Kropotkin

Yea, they will fight to get rid of that ammendment, My suggestion is buy whatever you can unregistered through private parties as fast as you can. Obama and his court of Jesters will remove all rights.

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” (Thomas Jefferson)

civil war is close…

-Imp

Why, even when guns are ‘banned’ like that, people, citizens, still have access to easy guns. If they wanted them.

Which is why gun laws are largely ineffective, they don’t stop criminals who want to be armed, it just stops citizens from arming themsleves legally.

Cyrene:
Why, even when guns are ‘banned’ like that, people, citizens, still have access to easy guns. If they wanted them.
Which is why gun laws are largely ineffective, they don’t stop criminals who want to be armed, it just stops citizens from arming themsleves legally.

K: which of course misses the point of why have a gun? How many of us actually need a gun? One might say I need it for protection but the reality
is how many of us live in an area that you actually need a gun? Even here the percentage is very low. 95% of the country is very safe and there
is no need of any kind for a gun. I am 49 and have never face any kind of a situation where a gun was needed nor wanted. If you need
a gun for protection, you should rethink that aspect of life where you need the gun, clearly you are doing something wrong.
I would guess the gun you have in the house is more likely to harm or kill you or a family member long before you
would use it for actually defense. In 2005 there were a total of 11,346 deaths from guns in the U.S. with handguns accounting
for 8478 of the total according to the United States Department of Justice. ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/t … onstab.htm
Out of 300 million Americans, just 11,346 deaths. Which is less then one ten of one percent of the total population.
The number of unintentional gun deaths in 2005 is 789. number from the National center of injury prevention and control.
Number of suicide firearms deaths is 17,002. So if nothing else we can reduce
the suicide rate by removing guns from easy access to people.

Kropotkin

So the Supreme Court got one right, but (show of hands) does that mean the Left is gonna accept it and and move on? Yeah right.

The way the Left has gone about gun control, and will continue I’m sure, is to work their asses off on anything but the one legitimate solution for them, a Constitutional amendment. It’s symptomatic of the total bipartisan disregard for the ultimate authority of our Constitution which has become so undermined over the decades since we repealed Prohibition (against alcohol) and started just ignoring the Constitution–starting with Social Security and the War on Drugs.

Ultimate justification for many Supreme Court anti-Constitutional decisions is a simple, You can’t go against Big Mo. It’s a symptom not only of corruption, but of something more vital, a lack of leadership. We’re on auto-pilot and the pilot is asleep in the back of the plane. Unless something/someone sparks us into action, we’re either going to run into a storm, or out of gas, and right now the latter appears to be most likely.

The suicide rate thing holds (areas with more guns have higher suicide; although it could also be said areas that are more rural have higher suicide too. The two correlate so well it’s hard to say which causes it), but what business is it of anyone if people want to off themselves? Much less that we should tell citizens that they can’t have a gun because the legality of guns might give someone else the opportunity to kill themselves. What right does the government have to penalize me for the sake of someone else doing what they will with their own property?

Just because you can’t fathom why people need a gun doesn’t mean that people thereby lose the right to have one.

Why does no one leave the ammendment alone and go for the more obvious choice. Ban the bullets or restrict the selling of bullets. You only have to be a certain age to buy bullets right now. I maybe wrong but its not the gun that enters a body and kills a person, its the projectile. The restriction of ammunition would not touch the 2cnd ammendment at all. You can all the guns you want but unless you meet certain requirements they are useless.

that’s fine, it would probably start a shooting war, but that’s fine…

besides, how many hunters do you know that don’t make their own bullets? sure, city people may buy pre made bullets, but everyone I know who shoots/hunts makes their own bullets… it’s just that much cheaper… family traditions as well…

-Imp

Exactly Imp the ones in the city are the ones that they worry about anyway. Its not going to affect those that know how.

Imagine an idiot gang member, drug user, etc. trying to load a casing :laughing:

The crime rate and violence due to increased handgun ownership, as some will argue, will probable decrease in American cities. It will probably decrease like it has in Iraq. Initially, though, to follow the tortured argument of some gun advocates and libertarians, there will be an increase in handgun killings in American cities. That’s to be expected. But then a surge of enforcement, like that in Iraq, will bring it down.

Something else that has brought down the violence in Iraq is that in many respects there is nobody left to kill. Also, in Iraq, neighborhoods of potential enemies -minority groups and people of different religions - have been emptied by the initial wave of violence and killings there. Armed violence has segregated and destroyed once peaceful and ethnically mixed communities in Iraq. Perhaps that is what some people want for America, peaceful but segregated communities brought about by gun violence.

gun violence against criminals and thieves of all stripes brings peace

-Imp

It sounds like the respondent is at a loss for words.

:laughing: Imp at a loss for words? Nahh he just knows how to put a lot into a little.

I had a guy steal guns from my house, then I saw him at the end of the street, then he went to grab one of them and I sprayed him with mace. It’s cost me 3 grand in legal fees so far and I have to go to grand jury in september, and possibly trial in february on charges of unlawful imprisonment. So much for gun laws and enforcement and lowering crime rates. You become a criminal when you protect yourself and your property, even if only with a can of mace.

I cry for my daughter in fear this is true, yet know in needs to come to remind all what we fight for.

Yet one more person willing to give up a right, and take it from others because he does not use it, sad.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … icide_rate

The U.S. is pretty far down the list compared with other countries that most likely have less guns than we do, i.e. Japan. People are going to kill themselves with our without guns. Yes, suicide with guns will go down, suicide via jumping off of buildings will go up.

I agree with banning assault weapons, just like sawed off shotguns are illegal. Those types of weapons are not protection they are assault. Kill the most people quickly. Civilians have no need of such. And who would want meat loaded down with bullets and hamburgured? yech. Ban the manufacturing of such except to military, umm, my side only gets them :laughing:

Nothing is civil about war. And you all are proving incapable making decisions essential to civilization, so what do you think would be the result of a civil war?