June 26, 2008

2nd Amendment Protects an Individual Right to Bear Arms...

Carroll Andrew Morse

...so says the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision. Ed Whelan of National Review's Bench Memos summarizes the ruling here.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

This makes my Ruger so very happy.

Posted by: Greg at June 26, 2008 3:06 PM

This was a great decision in spite of the internationalist dirt that sits on the court(Ginsburg,Breyer,Souter)and thinks baby rapers deserve to live.Kennedy is a worm,but he did the right thing here.If this had gone the other way,it could have caused some serious bloodshed.
It is enlightening that a principled liberal like Leahy supported the decision and a snotrag hypocrite like Dianne(I carry concealed)Feinstein opposed it.I get it-she and her elitist filth friends know how to use firearms "responsibly".(A paraphrase from Limbaugh,who I quit listening to when he lost his sense of humor).
The ACLU was against the decision.Big surprise.I wonder how Chucky Bakst feels?
This will actually help Obama as he will be unable to outlaw handguns as he has hinted at in the past.Some strong gun advocates might lose their energy to oppose him.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 26, 2008 5:21 PM

Take it easy. You're safe, sound and snug with your firearms. Be sure to be sober when you celebrate and remember to fire in the air and not at anyone.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at June 26, 2008 5:28 PM

OTL-I don't drink for medical reasons,but guns and booze are a bad combo.
You'd probably feel more at ease around me than Dianne Feinstein.
I would celebrate,but I don't think I have to thank any court for telling me I have rights I already was aware of.
I wasn't kidding about the justices-I believe Ginsburg,Breyer,and perhaps Souter are under the thumb of George Soros-the former collaborator with the Nazis who is trying to eliminate privately owned weapons worldwide.They also push the influence of international law in the internal affairs of this countr,which is a huge mistake for this or any other country.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist,I just see things and make my own mind up.
I am very glad I never had to shoot anyone in the 20+ years I was on the street-but I'm older and not healthy and I have no intention of negotiating with a home invader.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 26, 2008 8:36 PM

This decision made me think of the story and photo in the ProJo a couple of weeks ago about the Utah town that allows people to strut around with guns and not even have to conceal them. Is this what Americans want?
That wasn't about the Second Amendment. It was about pure, naked intimidation.
If Tony Scalia wants to turn Main Street into the thoroughfare in Deadwood, hey, he's got the power.

Posted by: rhody at June 27, 2008 11:14 AM

Rhody-just answer this simple question :if DC had this strict handgun ban for 32 years why did the rate of violent crime skyrocket in the intervening period?Why is violent crime lower in areas with less stringent firearms laws? Please spare me the usual political histrionics and just try to answer.Your attitude about gun control is really about controlling people in their every waking moment-the ultimate aim of socialism.
The people least interested in ths decision?Criminals who use guns to commit crimes.They could careless what any law says.
What makes me laugh is we have a local anti-gun activist named Karina Wood who headed the Millio Mom March-at the time she was a British citizen.She may have since become a US citizen,but in any event back then she was living here as a resident alien(legally) and trying to change US laws.What a lot of nerve!I cannot imagine living as a resident in the UK and trying that crap.
Patrick Kennedy was of course loud about what a poor decision it was.He,fortunately cannot buy a firearm under RI law due to his history of drug/alcohol addiction and mental illness.Some gun control laws do meake a great deal of sense.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 27, 2008 12:21 PM

"That wasn't about the Second Amendment. It was about pure, naked intimidation."

Intimidation of criminals- which apparently you oppose.

Posted by: EMT at June 27, 2008 2:22 PM

Joe, the answer's simple: the bad guys crossed the Potomac to buy their guns in Virginia, with its much less stringent gun laws (witness the geek at Virginia Tech last year).
Bad guys in New York and other cities have also been known to shop for their heat in Virginia.

Posted by: rhody at June 27, 2008 3:25 PM

Rhody-we have no differences when it comes to "straw purchasers"-that's a crime.I don't believe every gun law is wrong.The current system of tracing purchases works.I know from personal experience.
The "geek" from VT was not flagged because of an oversight in the law,which the NRA supoported the correction of.Many of the "feelgood" privacy rules regarding dangerous mentally ill people were introduced by groups like the ACLU.That's just the plain truth.That individual should have been prohibited from purchasing a firearm.The anti-gun people have had a very silly and and frantic reaction to this.It's actually funny to watch.
Is Washington DC safe with Patrick Kennedy driving around?
There are no guns allowed in the UK and I don't think you'd want to spend a night on the streets of most major cities there outside the touristy areas.
Why is Vermont relatively safe?Virtually anyone not prohibited from owning firearms can carry concealed there.
Crime is at its core a matter of behavior rather than technology.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 27, 2008 5:38 PM

"leave the gun..take the cannolis"
The Godfather

Posted by: Phil at June 28, 2008 2:22 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.