What are your thoughts on the decision made by the Supreme Court today upholding the rights of gun owners ?

The love of guns still exceeds the love of fellow human beings. What a victory!

I myself am overjoyed. I understand we really don’t need an M16 for home defense, but you can’t rely on cops, either. In a self defense situation, a handgun is your best bet for both ease of use and shooting to wound (a .22 is going to do far less damage than a hunting shotgun to a human being).

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that my tazer-bat project isn’t going too well.

I’m indifferent, as long as no one shoots me.

As I have often discussed before I am a very strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. I am armed, and I think any Jew who is not armed is a fool who does not learn from history.

I am happy about it.

About 15 or so years ago, I was caught in the middle of a gang shoot out in front of my house. I was literally in between the shooters! When we called the cops, 911 said the police would not move in until the shooting stops, and the situation is calmer.
That taught me that you cannot count on the police to protect you, only to clean up the mess.
I don’t own a gun, but this incident moved me closer to ownership.

@filmfann How would you waving or firing a gun in that situation made you safer?
I suspect it would have gotten you killed, maybe even by the police when they arrived or by some other innocent person stuck in the middle like yourself.

When the shooting started, I remember looking back and my friends standing in my doorway, and saying “I’m in the middle of a shoot-out!” and my friend waving me back into the house.
Of course having a gun there wouldn’t have changed anything, but the attitude of the police NOT to intervein until the situation is finished did not instill a lot of confidence from me.

I live minutes from a major city. Spent most of my childhood there. I’ve spent years working and going to school in less than desirable areas of the city. I’ve seen and been involved in some hairy stuff.

Same goes for my wife who trumps me as she spent four years single-handedly removing children from crack and/or whore houses in the worst projects.

We’ve both been threatened with a variety of weapons.

Never once felt the need for a gun. In most cases it would have escalated the situation and made things worse.

I will never agree that more guns is a solution to anything. Nor do I support laws that imply that.

If the people of the Warsaw Ghetto had owned weapons, a lot more Nazis would have died during the uprising.

@dpworkin Under the Nazis, and locked into a ghetto, our people were not in a good position to seek out and keep guns. An attempt to do so would have precipitated their massacre sooner.
They were courageous and fought back very hard just the same.

I’ve used guns my whole life. My family have used guns their whole lives, as have my people and family friends all the way down the line. Literally thousands and thousands and thousands of instances of safety, fun, and utility. My great aunt’s duck casserole is to this day is one of the best things I’ve ever eaten – especially when I was the one who provided the duck.

To my mind the anti-gun lobby is marching to a zero tolerance beat, it’s all about hardball precedence and using the thin edge of the wedge. As such I fully support the NRA in the fight against idiotic bans of handguns, or any other guns, because of a delusionary quest for a false sense of security fanned on by blind fear and raw ignorance.

People who have never owned, used, or actually interacted with a gun at all should shut the fuck up and stop projecting your gimpy fears to try and take away constitutional freedoms, or you might get bitch slapped.

That’s what I think, since you asked.

@Dr_Lawrence Historically there is a recrudescence of violent antisemitism every 75 years or so. I have no intention of being rounded up like a timid sheep. Whoever shall come for me will die as well.

@ipso: So you debate those you disagree with by threatening them with physical harm? And you own guns.

Quite the example you are.

I too am a student of history.
Here in Canada we have a different attitude towards guns. It does not make us right or you wrong.
We do have many fewer gun deaths per capita, fewer murders per capita of all kinds, and we are known as peace keepers around the world.
Still, Canada got involved in fighting the Nazis with guns and armies while the USA sat on its hands while Jews were slaughtered in concentration camps until Japan attached Pearl Harbor.
The US never destroyed any concentration camps to slow down the wholesale decimation of European Jews.

Maybe I just don’t understand US foreign policy, or maybe I actually do!

The USA is quick to start wars and invade countries and wave the flag and talk about freedom.

The decision today did not bar “reasonable limits” on gun ownership. Of course, the devil is in the details, but one would hope that the courts would still allow things like laws preventing guns in schools and laws requiring permits, etc.

Had it been my decision to make, I would have sided with the majority. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear to me. We can argue about what the Founders meant by a “Well regulated militia” but I take it to mean an armed populace, and apparently so did the majority. I see no way to legitimately claim a Constitutional right binds the federal government but not states and cities. The supremacy clause makes it clear that all laws of the land must be consistent with the US Constitution.

As a practical matter, the decision is more problematic. The court decided only the broad issue of whether the clause applies only to federal gun laws or to state and city laws as well. It left open for lower court interpretation just what constitutes a compelling interest in limiting the privileged to own or bear a firearm. This is the same standard that is appleid to limiting free speech, and we have seen with issues such as desecration of the flag and advocacy for terrorist organizations just how far that right can extend—sometimes further than we think it should. Justice Alito did comment that it was clearly in bounds to keep guns out of the hands of the insane and criminals. But you can expect challenges on virtually every law that in any way limits arms ownership.

I was expecting it. The decision is really just clarifying last years decision on the DC gun laws. This only bars prohibition, not reasonable regulation. The decision finally recognizes that 2nd amendment rights, like all others in the Bill of Rights are individual, not state rights.

Ultra-conservative judges showing the Democrats the meaning of checks and balances.

@ETpro I know. It certainly does open up a can of worms. Well, hopefully we can still ban nuclear weapons from getting into the hands of ordinary citizens.~

It won’t make any difference. Guns are already so easy to get in America that everybody who wants one has one. The crime rate will not go up or down significantly. Now, if it moves farther – let’s say it becomes legal for anyone to conceal and carry a gun – you will probably see some incidents. Road rage and guns don’t mix very well, for example. Alcohol and guns don’t mix at all.

The main thing that caught my attention is that they steered clear of defining which types of guns could be regulated.

Personally, I dislike the idea of ordinary folks like myself being barred from any type of gun ownership based merely upon where we live so I’m glad they overrode the total bans enacted by some places (such as Chicago, which prompted this case).

But I am hard pressed to think of a reason why anyone simply must have something like an AK-47 or similar.

So it will be interesting to see how that plays out over time.

@Buttonstc Did you see the campaign add from Republican Congressional candidate, Pamela Gorman. She shows herself “taking aim” at America’s problems in full automatic mode. Wonder if she has a permit for a machine gun?

That was the most amusing thing on MSNBC today.

Yeah, leave it to a Republican to take things to ridiculous levels to pander to their base.

Maybe her next stunt could be a little outing with Sarah Palin and they can both go up in a plane and see who can down the most wolves with their machine guns ~~

That should give her a jump in the polls, huh ?

@Buttonstc Pretty soon anything short of gunning an entire species into extinction will just not be enough.

So far I only shoot at targets. But the point of my guns is to kill people, not Bambi.

@Buttonstc I certainly hope to see a commercial with Sarah Palin field dressing a moose.