The U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership, ruling the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to bear arms. What do you think of the Court's decision?
17 Comments
LJ said:
Citizens have a constitutional right to own and bear arms. The Supreme Court upheld one of our fundamental rights.
What is disturbing is the 5-4 vote. We have four Supreme Court Justices who don't know the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.
It may be politically incorrect to own a gun, but that just makes owning one all the sweeter.
Greg said:
I think it is great. People who committ crimes with guns should be punished. Not the gun. Any way, not all people who have guns are not killers. It is just a small percentage of those with guns that give committ crimes with them and all should not be punished for there bad judgment. I like a sticker one of the guys at work has on his tool box, it says
A person with a gun is a citizen, a person with out the write to have a gun is a subject!!
"Wicked" Warren said:
Way to go! Wherever gun bans are in effect, only criminals have guns, leaving law-abiding citizens powerless to defend themselves. Also, the cabal whose goal is to dismantle America from within has tried desperately to pass gun-ban laws because it could never hope to pull a successful coup so long as patriotic citizens possess guns. The Founding Fathers gave us the right to own guns primarly to protect us against government tyranny, but they also come in handy to hold bad boys at bay.
stuart Matulich said:
Finally the constitution has been upheld. The govt and the police cannot protect us from criminals.We have the right to defend ourselve's and our property.This is only common sense
Tim McCandless said:
Our founding fathers intended that the people of the United States have freedom of choice. Part of that is the choice to own or not own a firearm. The Majority of citezens in the U.S. feel that we have the right to personal ownership. Unfortunately, the voice we hear is the minority who are the squeaky wheel. They are afraid of guns and gun owners only because they are ignorant of the facts. I'm not saying they're stupid, just ignorant. They have the Hollywood veiw of firearms displayed in the violent 'shoot'em up' movies and the negative exposure of the media when crimes are commited.
The fact is - most gun owners are law abiding, responsible, respectable folks. Many have formal firearm safety training. Most have never harmed anyone with a firearm, intentionaly or otherwise.
Who are these people who would take away our freedom of choice? Who would deny us the RIGHT to defend ourselves and our families?
There are already Federal Laws that restrict former felons, the mentally ill, and the underaged from owning firearms. They need to be enforced. They're reasonable.
To deny the law abiding citizen the freedom of choice is fundamentally wrong and un-American.
If you don't like firearms- Don't own one. Do however get the facts about guns, gunowners, how many crimes are prevented due to private ownership, and honest FACTS about the crimes committed with a firearm. You'll find that the large majority of crimes committed with a firearm were illegally obtained. A law was violated before the crime was committed. Fix That!
If you do own a gun- Be responsible. Take firearms safety training. Keep your guns secure. Train! 'Gun Control' should mean hitting exactly what you intend to.
Mayor Nochols is wrong. All he has done is tell the criminally bent where they can safely prey upon the law abiding. Look for a rise in crime in the city's parks.
Finally, to have the utopian view that if all guns were banned, no one would have guns. Rubish. So long as mankind has the intelligence to build a gun, he will have a gun. They were being made 300 years ago with primitive tools. They are being pieced together in prisons where they are most definitly banned. Be Realistic!
John Karr said:
I agree with the Supreme court decision. A person should also be able to show or use a firearm to stop theft of property as well as personal protection.
John Jones said:
The courts ruling is right on the mark. The right to keep and to bear arms in defense of ourselves, loved ones and property is what our forefathers new to be true and is true for us today. Today is a great day for all law abiding Americans.
anthony said:
It's about time ,it's our right provideed by the constitution. If you need to protect your self don't call 911 just by a gun, when seconds count the police are just minutes away.
anthony said:
When seconds count the police are just minutes away.
anthony said:
That is disturbing 4 out 9 judges don't read the constitution as it was written for the PEOPLE. THATS US! NOT SHEEPLE
Lynn said:
Hurray!!!Finally some common sense in D.C. If I remember correctly D.C. had been the murder capital of the U.S. with a gun ban in place. Look at Chicago with all the killing that has taken place the last few months. A lot of good the gun laws have done there. Still packing after all these years!
Lynn
Casey said:
I'm very happy with the decision. The constitution is very clear on this right. I am just disappointed it took SO LONG to get this issue decided by the court. Can you imagine if cities/states decided they weren't going to abide by any of the other amendments!!
Bobby said:
It is about time. Gun owners have been abused for years . Now if we can get the Mayor and Top Cop in Seattle dialed in to respect gun rights.
Anti-Gun said:
You gun toting fools make us ill. Where are your Christian morals? Did David Koresh have it right when he armed his following in Waco?? No, he did not, he twisted religion to suit his needs (and to screw everyone's wives). Handguns do NOT belong in society, it is not a right to bear arms, the Constitution says "only for a Militia," we can bear arms. Since no one here is in a Militia, we need to side with Christian morals and ban ALL handguns like England does.
Rifles for hunting (and self-defense) is OK, but handguns are NEVER OK for ANYONE! By far and away, more criminals benefit from handguns than honest folks do, and that's a FACT.
marcus said:
So Anti-gun what part of the 2nd amendment do you NOT understand? Also there are a a large chunk of us NON religious people who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your lack of knowledge of the Constitution is rather obvious with your "Constitution says "only for a Militia," we can bear arms". Try reading it it's a rather brilliant document and stop acting like a Neocon by disrespecting the Constitution.
VI said:
For those of you apoplectic about the fact that this was only a 5-4 ruling, try acutally reading the second ammendment (it starts with "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."). There were considerable interpretive questions involved in this case - arguments by the District of Columbia that one must be a militia member for the second ammendment to apply being foremost. These are questions that had NEVER been addressed before and should not have been unanimous. Establishing an original precedent is messy, and though the court probably should have overturned the DC law, a 5-4 ruling probably indicates overreaching by the majority, not intransigence by the minority. My foremost concern with this ruling deals with the phrase "well regulated". While I do not support the District's former ban on constitutional grounds (and I am living in DC for the next year), I do recognize that there is a vested interest in reasonable regulation. The court's majority decision - and a great deal of the disenting opinions focus on this in particular - seems to open a floodgate for the possible deregulation of all gun laws currently in place that do not ban them from specific places (schools, courthouses, etc). As written, it calls into question laws that place simple restrictions like trigger locks and gun safes, conjuring up phony-baloney notions of protecting your home from intruders (guns are more likely to be used against residents than a home invader) and take it away from the original intent of the second ammendment - preserving the people's ability to offer armed resistance against a tyrranical government. The fact that the court essentially ruled that having immediate accessibility to a handgun is a fundamental right completely undermines public and private safety involving the second most dangerous piece of equipment in people's houses. The majority chose to place an ideology of absolute gun rights above a thoughtful and tempered curbing of governmental power that has, quite probably, unconstitutionally fettered individual liberties in our nation's capital, much like the lack of congressional representation has done since the 1850s.
C said:
Now I can finally hang that Bear Arm above my fireplace.
Citizens have a constitutional right to own and bear arms. The Supreme Court upheld one of our fundamental rights.
What is disturbing is the 5-4 vote. We have four Supreme Court Justices who don't know the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.
It may be politically incorrect to own a gun, but that just makes owning one all the sweeter.
I think it is great. People who committ crimes with guns should be punished. Not the gun. Any way, not all people who have guns are not killers. It is just a small percentage of those with guns that give committ crimes with them and all should not be punished for there bad judgment. I like a sticker one of the guys at work has on his tool box, it says
A person with a gun is a citizen, a person with out the write to have a gun is a subject!!
Way to go! Wherever gun bans are in effect, only criminals have guns, leaving law-abiding citizens powerless to defend themselves. Also, the cabal whose goal is to dismantle America from within has tried desperately to pass gun-ban laws because it could never hope to pull a successful coup so long as patriotic citizens possess guns. The Founding Fathers gave us the right to own guns primarly to protect us against government tyranny, but they also come in handy to hold bad boys at bay.
Finally the constitution has been upheld. The govt and the police cannot protect us from criminals.We have the right to defend ourselve's and our property.This is only common sense
Our founding fathers intended that the people of the United States have freedom of choice. Part of that is the choice to own or not own a firearm. The Majority of citezens in the U.S. feel that we have the right to personal ownership. Unfortunately, the voice we hear is the minority who are the squeaky wheel. They are afraid of guns and gun owners only because they are ignorant of the facts. I'm not saying they're stupid, just ignorant. They have the Hollywood veiw of firearms displayed in the violent 'shoot'em up' movies and the negative exposure of the media when crimes are commited.
The fact is - most gun owners are law abiding, responsible, respectable folks. Many have formal firearm safety training. Most have never harmed anyone with a firearm, intentionaly or otherwise.
Who are these people who would take away our freedom of choice? Who would deny us the RIGHT to defend ourselves and our families?
There are already Federal Laws that restrict former felons, the mentally ill, and the underaged from owning firearms. They need to be enforced. They're reasonable.
To deny the law abiding citizen the freedom of choice is fundamentally wrong and un-American.
If you don't like firearms- Don't own one. Do however get the facts about guns, gunowners, how many crimes are prevented due to private ownership, and honest FACTS about the crimes committed with a firearm. You'll find that the large majority of crimes committed with a firearm were illegally obtained. A law was violated before the crime was committed. Fix That!
If you do own a gun- Be responsible. Take firearms safety training. Keep your guns secure. Train! 'Gun Control' should mean hitting exactly what you intend to.
Mayor Nochols is wrong. All he has done is tell the criminally bent where they can safely prey upon the law abiding. Look for a rise in crime in the city's parks.
Finally, to have the utopian view that if all guns were banned, no one would have guns. Rubish. So long as mankind has the intelligence to build a gun, he will have a gun. They were being made 300 years ago with primitive tools. They are being pieced together in prisons where they are most definitly banned. Be Realistic!
I agree with the Supreme court decision. A person should also be able to show or use a firearm to stop theft of property as well as personal protection.
The courts ruling is right on the mark. The right to keep and to bear arms in defense of ourselves, loved ones and property is what our forefathers new to be true and is true for us today. Today is a great day for all law abiding Americans.
It's about time ,it's our right provideed by the constitution. If you need to protect your self don't call 911 just by a gun, when seconds count the police are just minutes away.
When seconds count the police are just minutes away.
That is disturbing 4 out 9 judges don't read the constitution as it was written for the PEOPLE. THATS US! NOT SHEEPLE
Hurray!!!Finally some common sense in D.C. If I remember correctly D.C. had been the murder capital of the U.S. with a gun ban in place. Look at Chicago with all the killing that has taken place the last few months. A lot of good the gun laws have done there. Still packing after all these years!
Lynn
I'm very happy with the decision. The constitution is very clear on this right. I am just disappointed it took SO LONG to get this issue decided by the court. Can you imagine if cities/states decided they weren't going to abide by any of the other amendments!!
It is about time. Gun owners have been abused for years . Now if we can get the Mayor and Top Cop in Seattle dialed in to respect gun rights.
You gun toting fools make us ill. Where are your Christian morals? Did David Koresh have it right when he armed his following in Waco?? No, he did not, he twisted religion to suit his needs (and to screw everyone's wives). Handguns do NOT belong in society, it is not a right to bear arms, the Constitution says "only for a Militia," we can bear arms. Since no one here is in a Militia, we need to side with Christian morals and ban ALL handguns like England does.
Rifles for hunting (and self-defense) is OK, but handguns are NEVER OK for ANYONE! By far and away, more criminals benefit from handguns than honest folks do, and that's a FACT.
So Anti-gun what part of the 2nd amendment do you NOT understand? Also there are a a large chunk of us NON religious people who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your lack of knowledge of the Constitution is rather obvious with your "Constitution says "only for a Militia," we can bear arms". Try reading it it's a rather brilliant document and stop acting like a Neocon by disrespecting the Constitution.
For those of you apoplectic about the fact that this was only a 5-4 ruling, try acutally reading the second ammendment (it starts with "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."). There were considerable interpretive questions involved in this case - arguments by the District of Columbia that one must be a militia member for the second ammendment to apply being foremost. These are questions that had NEVER been addressed before and should not have been unanimous. Establishing an original precedent is messy, and though the court probably should have overturned the DC law, a 5-4 ruling probably indicates overreaching by the majority, not intransigence by the minority. My foremost concern with this ruling deals with the phrase "well regulated". While I do not support the District's former ban on constitutional grounds (and I am living in DC for the next year), I do recognize that there is a vested interest in reasonable regulation. The court's majority decision - and a great deal of the disenting opinions focus on this in particular - seems to open a floodgate for the possible deregulation of all gun laws currently in place that do not ban them from specific places (schools, courthouses, etc). As written, it calls into question laws that place simple restrictions like trigger locks and gun safes, conjuring up phony-baloney notions of protecting your home from intruders (guns are more likely to be used against residents than a home invader) and take it away from the original intent of the second ammendment - preserving the people's ability to offer armed resistance against a tyrranical government. The fact that the court essentially ruled that having immediate accessibility to a handgun is a fundamental right completely undermines public and private safety involving the second most dangerous piece of equipment in people's houses. The majority chose to place an ideology of absolute gun rights above a thoughtful and tempered curbing of governmental power that has, quite probably, unconstitutionally fettered individual liberties in our nation's capital, much like the lack of congressional representation has done since the 1850s.
Now I can finally hang that Bear Arm above my fireplace.