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 ...
Shouldn't we just withdraw from those areas?
And I submit that the cost in lives, by the NY Times steadfast support of the lies of Walter Durante during the 1930s, straight through to today, as well as their blatant disregard for national security in their publishing of stories, is far greater than the number of lives lost through the criminal misuse of guns during the same time. How many millions of lives were lost due to the willful propaganda of Joseph Stalin by the NY Times?
The NY Times has FAR more blood on their hands.
Mark
Yep I hear you they run around and talk about what make them feel good but nothing that has to do with reality.
We DO have militias in places where people don't want to depend on the government for protection. People train together with their own firearms and come together as a "militia" if needed.
Militias and armed citizens kept the peace right after Katrina in many places outside New Orleans.
Gun control is a scam. The people who want gun control are also the people who don’t want the criminal punished for the crime. So the gun control people put the blame on the gun.
Some people live in abject fear of their fellow citizens and desire the protection of the state in place of personal responsibility and judgment, or simply desire power over others, and achieve it by excusing criminal behavior on one hand while criminalizing honest behavior on the other.
Liberals routinely set free or defend the guilty because it gives them a sense of power. It also creates a criminal environment that serves as a pretext for the expansion of state power they crave. On the other hand, honest people cannot be so easily ruled, so laws are multiplied to make them into criminals for the greater benefit of the ruling class of liberal elitists.
Finally, there are those (found most commonly in Academia, but elsewhere, too) who have made it their project to destroy our culture and our way of life in order to impose their own vision of Utopia. What better way to achieve that end than by supporting policies that subvert the rule of law, while imposing laws that are ill-defined, ineffective, and unenforceable?
Its called LIBRALISM its a mental sickness.
Overwhelmingly in areas where carrying guns is banned.
Har!! Good one.
Dianne Feinstein now:
"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it." — Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Dianne Feinstein in 1995:
"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."
Also see:
Gun Control Hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein Pack Heat
And we know what happened in that case.
There ARE militias today. They just aren’t visible, unless the media is trying to demonize them.
You have to wonder if Pinch Sulzberger has a security detail. After all, he is running a multi-national corporation (into the ground!). If he does have one, do they carry wiffle ball bats? Nerf Rockets? Cell phones with 911 on speed dial?
I'll simply have to disagree with you on that. What I wrote in whole was correct. What I didn't write was, and what you wrote, about the central reason of the 2nd Amendment.
I would be surprised if he didn't or live in some gated community with a private security force.
Great info. Thanks.
Which begs the point, why do we repost ANYTHING from the NYTs? Let them die.
Ummm, doesn't this statement tell us that criminals have had as many guns as they've wanted? And for YEARS?
The SC decision puts some guns in the hands of potential victims. And the New York Times objects?
The New York Times wants the bad guys to be armed and only the bad guys? Creepy - really creepy.
Ummm, doesn't this statement tell us that criminals have had as many guns as they've wanted? And for YEARS?
The SC decision puts some guns in the hands of potential victims. And the New York Times objects?
The New York Times wants the bad guys to be armed and only the bad guys? Creepy - really creepy.
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.