First piece of good news I've heard from the government in a while! WOOO I'm going to celebrate with uhhh.... some more coffee and cigarettes (also still legal, barely).
I'm disappointed to hear the ruling. Another very close case decided by the court on a 5-4 basis. Clearly this courts rulings define very political interpretations of various cases. Having lived in and around major cities with bad crime and murder rates for most of my life I'm dissapointed in the results. I'm not sure on the subsequent responses and answers going forward but major cities, especially those with large poor areas within them suffer from amazing levels of violence, shootings, etc. and have for years. DC is simply one of those cities. Nobody knows for certain if the DC law in place for many years has served to reduce gun violence or has been ineffectual in reducing gun violence. Since the early 1990's when the city was at its worst, statistically, the murder rate has been reduced on an overall rate and on a statistical--gun deaths/population rate. Still it is bad, high, and the local news is regularly full of recent shootings in DC and suburbs. While statistics in DC have dropped for gun deaths, one of the neighboring suburban regions has seen a big increase over the same period. I look forward to reading the ruling by the majority, dissenting opinions if any, and where DC will move in an effort to reduce gun violence.
How could a constructionist ruling be a disappointment? If the 2nd Amendment no longer serves us or is flawed, we should change it. But clearly, from the Federalist papers and other sources, the founders felt that an armed citizenry was a check on tyrannical government. As far as I am concerned, the only defense against martial law and a totalitarian state today is that the citizens are still armed. If you want to reduce violence in the inner city decriminalize drugs. Stop putting fathers in jail for a victimless crime. Stop driving people to steal and rob to support addictions which are medical conditions. It's been shown time and time again, but liberals choose to ignore the data, that public gun ownership reduces crime. Even hardened criminals have said they would avoid robbing someone or their house if they thought that person may be armed.
That is your opinion. My best example of where that skews negative is Lebanon. Show the evidence. Show the evidence. Look at US data for the two examples above and also look at evidence from nations that have tough gun laws. Is there statistical evidence that backs up the anecdotal comments of criminals who say they wouldn't rob a house if the home owner might be armed. I wouldn't. But show hard facts beyond commentary.
Here ya go, lots of comparative data on violent death rates Right off the bat, its pretty obvious to me that factors like population density and income distribution have a lot more to do with violence than any gun or weapons laws. "higher violence levels to be associated with higher poverty levels (r = .571), higher levels of corruption (r = .548), lower levels of income per capita (r = -.505), higher values for social hierarchy (r = .423), and lower levels of trade with other countries (r = -.353), all statistically significant (p < 0.01)"
Yeah. There is no mystery on where the gun associated and other levels of violence are occurring. The violence levels in cities and poor surrounding areas are significant. One reading on the 2 opinions from the court read that the majority opinion is not absolute. My 2nd comment on it was the strong disagreement on interpretation of the clause that relates to gun ownership. The issue will continue to be raised going forward.
Am I the only one that sees the unfortunate irony that DC is run by the federal government, and it has massive crime and terrible education?
That's where the 'well regulated militia' clause comes in. Congress has the power to appoint officers and regulate. Alito and Roberts can in handy. That's why it's important that a republican is elected President. All these important decisions are 5-4.
Bad decision. I wanted South Dakota to secede so we could start dissolving this disgusting system ASAP.
Earl's favorite libertarian Austrian writer has this to say... http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021703.html re: The Great Gun Decision Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at 04:49 PM Today's Supreme Court decision that we have individual rights to arm ourselves highlights more than any other recent decision the absurdity of allowing the federal government, through its courts, to determine the limits of its own powers. This came about in the post-1865 era, once states' rights/federalism was destroyed. (Yes, judicial review existed for a long time before that, but presidents, state legislatures, and citizens viewed it as merely the Supreme Court's opinion, not THE FINAL WORD, ONCE AND FOR ALL on constitutional issues). The shocking thing about today's decision is that if one man -- Anthony Kennedy -- voted the other way, then what -- we would all be forcefully disarmed? A judicial dictatorship is what nationalists like Alexander Hamilton and his disciple, Justice John Marshall, wanted, and that of course is what we've ended up with. But imagine if the Court declared in 1805 that Americans do not have individual rights to own firearms. Do you think Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Washington would have given up their firearms and genuflected to the black-robed deities of the Court? Hell no; they would have reached for them and commenced another revolution.
McCain supports the decision and Obama is inconsistent saying that he supports peoples rights to guns and the government's right to regulate them. Btw, Alexander Hamilton was shot in a park dueling
I agree. True. Likewise, it is funny (sad) that the government can't even manage stop crime and drugs in prisons, where they have the absolute right to search at will and the right to limit freedom and yet they still can't stop it. How the in the hell do they think they are going to do any better in the real world while still respecting people's civil liberties? Only a fool would think they have any chance at success. The drug war is one of the most misguided efforts of our government.
Well duh. Stop respecting people's civil liberties. I though the Patriot Act woulda taught us something.
This is the key. The constitution states "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is pretty clear. If you don't like it, the founding fathers have put in place a procedure to change the constitution, and it is not through court rulings and laws. Regardless of how you feel about guns, when the court rules in accordance with the constitution, it is ALWAYS the right decision. I would argue that the vast majority of gun laws infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and are thus unconstiutional.
They're plenty of gun laws on the books that need to be inforced to solve problems. I wish more people would have license to carry a gun. I am sure someone can find a link of someone that was permitted that committed a gun related crime. That' an excellent point.