High Court Rules In Favor Of Gun Ownership With A 5-4 Ruling That Striked Down The District Of Columbias 32yr Ban...

[Laidley]

The Justices First major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. History!The court had not conclusively interpreted the 2nd Amendment since it's Ratification in 1791!The Second Amendment Ratified in 1791 Reads;A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.I looked up the definition of infringed from Websters;To encroach upon in anyway that violates law or the rights of another.What is your interpretation of this Ratification? Do you feel better knowing your rights are still intact?

[Makkapitew]

Where's my bullets????   Automatic or six shooter? Now that's the question...Actually, I think people have the right to bear arms...I use to belong to Fast Draw and shoot clubs.   The way I figure it: The criminal element will always find and use weapons of any kind. Perhaps if they thought someone had also a weapon some crimes may simply go down. Respectable use of firearms seems correct to me....Although, I think if a weapon is used by someone to commit a crime and they get caught tried and convicted: BECAUSE OF THE WEAPON USED........LIFE WITH NO PAROLE...PERIOD! Yes.......I feel good over the Constitution remaining intact!   Blessings.........Annlee

[Condon]

Well being a cop.. for as long as I have(28 years +) I think its funny to watch peoples reaction when they ask me what I think of private citizens owning firearms, and I tell them that I think everyone who wants to and is capable should be able to carry one if they want.  I know that sounds funny coming from a cop, but if more people properly carried firearms, I truly think violent crime would decrease.   The reasoning behind that is that criminals would know that the chances of their victim being armed and able to defend themselves is much higher in a society that carries than one that does not.   Take this to the question I asked the other day about the bystanders that watched a man beat a child to death and did not stop him. A armed/ trained/ licensed gun carrier could have legally stopped that crime. In Salt Lake city a man walks into a mall and starts shooting people. A man with a concealed firearm hears the shots and responds to the scene, his wife calls 911 to tell them what is happening and describes her husband in detail so police know he is not the shooter. The firearm carrier engages and shoots the shooter and police arrive and working with him, kill the mall shooter. In this case the concealed carrier of a firearm was a off duty police officer at dinner with his dispatcher wife, but it could well have been a civilian.   Criminals like to prey on weak, defenseless victims, no criminal wants to try and attack or otherwise victimize a armed citizen. They know they are likely to die in the attempt and they go elsewhere.   So the Supreme Courts decision is one that just confirms the idea that our founding fathers understood that the citizens not only should have the right to own firearms, but that they may actually need them, not only from the random criminal, but also to protect themselves from a tyrannical government run amok.   I am glad the decided the way they did, and I hope that many more of these firearms bans are removed and more citizens will take this opportunity to get some training in defending themselves and their families and carry concealed properly handled firearms.   You can walk out your door today and be defenseless against an attacker, or you can walk out the door today and know you are able to defend yourself and your family if needed. The second way is a great feeling of safety and security.   Be safe everyone... Sources: Personal experience, and 28 years as a cop...seeing humans harming other humans.   Video This is exactly why citizens being armed is a good idea.. Chris_Wagoner_is_AFK 80 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Chochuschuvio]

Now that the supreme court has clearly established that the words "the people" in the second amendment refers to individuals rather than being tied to any sort of state militia it is my sincere hope that it can be used to prevent any further encroachment on our right to keep and bear arms and, perhaps, even be used to roll back recent legislation such as banning certain "ugly" guns by erroneously labeling them with big scary terms like "assault weapons". For those of y'all interested, here is a link to a poll regarding the recent decision:http://js.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/quiziframe.php?poll_id=36862

[Peverell]

Puzzling reactions I have not read the full text of the ruling, which is conspicuously absent from the article about it on the CNN Website:   http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html?iref=newssearch   However, the salient points of it appear to be that the ruling applied to D.C.?s absolute ban on gun ownership, and serves only to narrow the city?s authority to restrict it.  Residents of D.C. will now be able to keep firearms in their homes, but will still be required to register handguns, and will not be able to carry weapons outside of the home.  This is the status quo throughout most of the U.S.  It doesn?t mean that you can start walking around with a .45 on your hip in D.C. or anywhere else.  To quote Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion:   "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns," Scalia wrote. "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."   This is the first time since 1791 that the Supreme Court has made any kind of ruling on the 2nd Amendment, and it will probably lead to a series of other challenges over the years to come.  That?s the ruling?s major impact. I suspect that gun laws similar to D.C.?s - such as the ones in effect in the city of Chicago - will be struck down in light of the ruling, but that most restrictions on how citizens may keep and use guns will remain intact.   My feelings?  I don?t own a gun, and have no plans to do so in the future.  The ruling has no effect on my community, where gun ownership is legal - the guy I bought my house from had a cabinet full of hunting rifles.  My father and grandfather both kept guns in their houses; they were both combat veterans and knew how to use them.  I learned how to shoot when I was a boy, but I was always more afraid of guns than fascinated by them.  It is thus today.  The Supreme Court ruling does not make me any less afraid, but it doesn?t make me any more so, either.     Sources: Opinion   IchtheosaurusRex's Recommendations Gunfight at the O.K. Corral Amazon List Price: $9.98 Used from: $3.24 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5(based on 35 reviews) Not gonna happen any time soon. IchtheosaurusRex 80 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Dakotah]

A large step in the right dection. Now that the supreme court has clearly established that the words "the people" in the second amendment refers to individuals rather than being tied to any sort of state militia it is my sincere hope that it can be used to prevent any further encroachment on our right to keep and bear arms and, perhaps, even be used to roll back recent legislation such as banning certain "ugly" guns by erroneously labeling them with big scary terms like "assault weapons". For those of y'all interested, here is a link to a poll regarding the recent decision:http://js.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/quiziframe.php?poll_id=36862 YoBob 80 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.