"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.
“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!
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.
That’s an average of 82 people per day so the MSM better quit bitching about Iraq and Afghanistan.
The NYT, confusing the guns with the perps for decades.
This implies that 30,000 Americans are randomly murdered by strangers with firearms each year.
In reality just under 20,000 out of those 30,000 firearm deaths are deliberate suicides.
Out of the remaining 10,000 something like 6,000 are gang and drug related deaths involving individuals who are not innocent bystanders walking to school or shopping at the mall.
Of the remaining 4,000 something like 3,000 are people murdering a relative or a spouse or a significant other - again, not a random killing of a mall shopper or factory worker on the line or a child walking to school.
30,000 people do not die each year in the way the NYT describes - perhaps 500-750 do.
That's why it is a big deal in the newspapers: it is not news in Baltimore or Philadelphia when a drugdealer murders another drugdealer in a territorial or monetary dispute - that describes most murders in those cities. When a stray bullet kills a child walking to school it is front page news because it is a rare occurrence.
So....we have an amendment which allows our military to carry weapons?!!
Well, that is good news.
More than half of these are suicides, a fact which the NYSlimes would never lead an interested but unknowing reader to learn.
In 2005, of all children 1 to 4 years old who died, almost 30% died from drowning.
When are we going to ban swimming pools?