"This ... decision, which hands the far right a victory it has sought for decades, is a powerful reminder of why voters need to have the Supreme Court firmly in mind when they vote for the president this fall."
Posted on 06/27/2008 5:09:33 AM PDT by Zakeet
Thirty-thousand Americans are killed by guns every year — on the job, walking to school, at the shopping mall. The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.
In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” The ruling will give gun-rights advocates a powerful new legal tool to try to strike down gun-control laws across the nation.
This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.
There already is a national glut of firearms: estimates run between 193 million and 250 million guns. The harm they do is constantly on heartbreaking display. Thirty-three dead last year in the shootings at Virginia Tech. Six killed this year at Northern Illinois University.
On Wednesday, as the court was getting ready to release its decision, a worker in a Kentucky plastics plant shot his supervisor, four co-workers and himself to death.
Cities and states have tried to stanch the killing with gun-control laws. The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned the possession of nearly all handguns and required that other firearms be stored unloaded and disassembled, or bound with a trigger lock.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"This ... decision, which hands the far right a victory it has sought for decades, is a powerful reminder of why voters need to have the Supreme Court firmly in mind when they vote for the president this fall."
Shivering, bed-wetting Chihuahua’s.
No wonder this group are afraid of firearms....
Shoot the messenger comes to mind.
“even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” “
Liberals thinks that because we don’t have militias anymore, that removes the reasoning behind the right for individuals to bear arms.
They’re stuck on the syntax and willfully ignore the important aspects of gun ownership...the right of the people to not be subjugated by forces foreign or domestic.
Amazing how these dolts who write for the left don't even try to go to the next paragraph before they shoot themselves in the foot (pun intended).
Law-abiding citizens who are unable to defend themselves are easy prey. But the Slimes doesn't realize that.
“In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent...”
They can’t even go ONE sentence into an editorial without lying their asses off.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves — E.R. Murrow
On this point the NYT is correct although in their feeble mind they don't even recognize the fact that pro-gun people vote too. I hope every person who values their 2nd Amendment right will not be fooled by Obama's rhetoric and see him for the anti-gun zealot he really is.
Hey!
For once I agree with them!
Maybe Conservatives should form a bunch of these private forces and start roaming around -- THEN we could carry guns, right??
The NYT should die of fright if there were militias today.
First of all, a lot more people die in motor vehicles than from guns. So, how come no ban on owning automobiles and trucks?
The press never covers stories about law abiding citizens, who are armed, saving lives by virtue of carrying a weapon legally. This happens every day.
The left’s argument about banning handguns makes as much sense as disbanding police departments to reduce crime; or disbanding fire departments to reduce the occurrence of fires.
Secondly, The Supreme Court situation may not be as dreadful as we think. Two justices, Suter and Ginsburg are making noises about retiring. If Obama wins the White House, he would replace those two liberals with liberals. The result: no change.
However, one never knows what will happen to the Supremes. One might die in office, or become mentally impaired(stroke), or a conservative one might resign unexpectedly.
Lots of permutations.
The “damage” done by guns is insignificant compared to that done by the NYT due to it’s ability to hide behind the 1st ammendment.
Amazing how it never even dawns on the liberal brain (such as it is) that they’re basically advocating that the only people who should have guns is the military and law enforcement.
Their abject ignorance of history is woefully apparent.
Well, bedwetter, the High Priesthood of Secular Humanism has declared this statement to be false. Spin on it.
Ah, but they WANT to subjugate the people by forces domestic... it’s in every policy they propose. This is why they inherently oppose the individual having the right to defend himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.