Posted on 06/27/2008 5:09:33 AM PDT by Zakeet
I thought the NOPD came and disarmed the militia before it could swing into action.
With armed bodyguards! EXACTLY!!!
Let’s be candid, gun laws are written for and only affect law abiding citizens. The NY “Wimpy” Times can cry all it likes about the ruling, but the fact is this: The US has OVER 20,000 active gun laws on the books, and not a single one of them can or will stop the next gun crime.
The Second Amendment and the SCOTUS’ recent ruling just levels the playing field. Concealed carry is a plus for the good guys and open carry would be even better.
Yes, I’m guessing he broke more than one of the existing laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
“even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” “
Scalia completely destroyed that argument yet the freedom hating anti-gunners still cling to it.
Wrong! It is in fact the other way around. Private ownership of guns ensures that if needed, a "militia" can be raised without the help of the "government". After all removing a corrupt "government" may be the reason the "militia" is needed.
Despite all of McCain’s flaws, in truth he lines up with Bush on most positions and is better than him on others, such as opposing pork barrel spending. Those who are planning on voting third party or sit home on election day in order to “teach the GOP a lesson” better think long and hard about just WHO gets to replace Justices Stevens and Ginsberg in the next 8 years.
Common knowledge here in DC.
I hear Justice Ginsburg is not in the best of health.
One of the good things about this decision is it makes the liberals whine.
The nyt editorial is drivel. It seems to infer that heretofore law abiding citizens are going to purchase a gun and that eeevil gun is going to make that person go out and commit murder.
Does Roe v. Wade ring a bell? There was a case where the Supreme Court created a new "right" out of whole cloth, to the applause of the liberal cadre that runs the Times but to the detriment of innocent lives everywhere. In Heller, by contrast the Court simply read the plain language of the Constitution and reported what it obviously meant. Of course, only "right-wingers" would approve of such a methodology.
The bottom line is that the D.C. gun control law (like all others of its kind) did nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns, and only affected the law-abiding who might have wished to defend themselves. The Times resolutely refuses to even consider this line of reasoning, as well they might, because "reason" is not part of their vocabulary. How else to explain the insistence that "guns" are killing people without reference to the nature and intent of the people behind the trigger?
I think that was in the decision. It would be absurd to have an amendment that allowed the armed forces to have weapons, so that can't be the meaning of the 2A.
In all the recent commentary about this decision it has been easy to pick out those who have not actually read it.
Thanks, Times, I already do have the Supreme Court in mind. And here’s hoping Obama loses.
Yes.
Why just this morning during my drive to work my .357 magnum leaped up off the passenger seat next to me and began making threatening moves; all by itself.
It was all I could do to grab it, decock it, and wrestle it back into its holster.
Fortunately, no one was harmed ... THIS time.
But I should probably get rid of that evil thing before someone gets hurt (most likely ME, according to the NYT and the WashPost).
The second-best lie is the truth, twisted.
Correct, but not for the reasons you list. The Second Amendment is about the balance of power between the government and the citizens. The Founding Fathers knew that if the government had all the guns, the citizens would have no protection against an abusive and runaway central government.
Also, in the days of our nation's founding, militia's were comprised of citizen soldiers. During times of national emergencies, there would not be time for these citizens to go to a central armory to withdraw a weapon.
The Times evidently wants to take away our guns. We will not be safer when we are disarmed. There’s no logic to the Times’ position.
Yea your right maybe some gang member or thug might need it.But I would just give them the bullets and keep the gun if I were you lol.
“There’s no logic to the Times’ position.”
That can be said about MOST of their editorial positions.
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.