Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Supremes Strike Down Gun Ban

June 30, 2010 by  

Supremes Strike Down Gun Ban

The headline Monday morning at washingtonpost.com read, Gun rights extended by Supreme Court. With all due respect to the liberal headline writer at The Post, I take issue with that headline.

The Supreme Court can’t extend a right endowed by the Creator and guaranteed by 2nd Amendment. A better headline would have been, Supreme Court throws out Chicago’s usurpation of power.

Chicago and other cities and states that have sought to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms were subverting the Constitution. Thankfully, five justices sought to preserve the Constitution and throw out Chicago’s ridiculous and worthless ban.

What’s troubling is that four justices saw no problem in taking away a person’s right to own a firearm. And these are the types of justices—and lower court judges—President Barack Obama will appoint at every opportunity.

While Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin on issues of growing government and grabbing more power at the expense of Americans, when it comes to gun rights issues, Republicans are superior. Keep that in mind when you go to the polls in November.

If Obama is able to replace one of the five more “conservative” members of the Supreme Court you can kiss goodbye your ability to “legally” possess a firearm. Once that happens, the One World Government people have won.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Supremes Strike Down Gun Ban”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Angel-Wanna-Be

    This is all the more reason to get the Messiah and Thieves azz out of the White House in 2012!__We can start with that issue, by voting in November! Kagan, Obama Supreme Court appointee, is just another puppet too, and the only reason he’s appointed her is, She’ll say what ever he wants her to say.__BTW, as far as guns go__we we’re broken into in 95, while we sat next door at my in laws for a birthday party___when we returned, thieves ransacked the house, took a camcorder and $400 dollars and numerous small items__Quite angry, I walked through the house with a hand gun, flipped every light on in the house, going into every room, while declaring, that if anyone was in house that didn’t belong there, they were a dead man!__Come in my house WITHOUT an invitation and see what happens_ if my pit doesn’t get them first!
    For two weeks after that, I slept on the couch out of fear, with a pistol on the table. It’s my right to defend my home and family and every other law abiding citizen in America, we’ve got to fight, sadly we’ve got to continually fight to keep them!__God Bless America

    • k1oik

      To A-W-B: my condolences to you for the personal attack on your property. But you are a good example of why this issue should have never gone to the Supremes. Were they deciding a law that should apply to the low-life who invaded your home? Probably not. They were actually deciding whether you had the right to hold and carry a pistol while you chased the felons from your house, your home. That is, frankly, none of their business. The scumbags who crossed the threshold of your home already changed the issue from public to private.

      • Angel-Wanna-Be

        k1oik__and I tell you what else I find quite ridiculous, that thieves of a home invasion, have the right to counter sue if harmed! As For me, when they break in and invade a home, they’ve lost all rights, except a fair trial.

        • 45caliber

          As far as I’m concerned if they enter my house and steal 50 cents they have set the value of their life to that amount. And I won’t mind collecting.

          • Angel-Wanna-Be

            45caliber__I bought a sign a while back___it states

            NO TRESPASSING, VIOLATERS WILL BE SHOT, SURVIVORS, SHOT AGAIN!__
            NUFF SAID.

          • independant thinker

            k1oik__and I tell you what else I find quite ridiculous, that thieves of a home invasion, have the right to counter sue if harmed!

            No longer true in all states. Some have specificly exempted people defending their home from lawsuits. Too bad all states don’t do it.

            NO TRESPASSING, VIOLATERS WILL BE SHOT, SURVIVORS, SHOT AGAIN!__
            NUFF SAID.

            Love that sign but have read of cases where posting similar signs have been used against the people. The claim is the sign shows intent to kill no matter what not just stop a home invasion. I am not disagreeing with you on the subject just pointing out a possible complication. Wouldn’t want you to give some piece of stinky stuff what he deserved and then have the sign used against you.

          • Kinetic1

            Oh, Angel-Wanna-Be, it’s so funny because you are warning people that, should they break into your house and get caught they will die, no matter what! I get the joke! A kid breaks in to steal your VCR, you catch him in the act and shoot him in the leg, and as he lays there, helpless, unarmed and in agonizing pain begging for mercy, you’ll murder him! It’s such a great joke.

          • Kinetic1

            Spoken like a true Christian.

          • Angel-Wanna-Be

            INDPENDENT THINKER__If you peer in my kitchen window, you can plainly see the sign hanging, on my wall!__Mama’s not and idiot!.

          • JC

            She’s absolutely right to finish the kid off Kineticnutjob!
            It’s called the darwin theory and it works.
            TAT is how crime rates fall dramatically in short periods of time and do NOT return in a just society.
            Don’t like it? Stay out of my living room.

          • JC

            Should read: THAT is how…

        • Angel-Wanna-Be

          kinectic, or whatever you go by__first of all a KID ISN’T GETTING IN MY HOUSE WITH AN ALARM GOING OFF!__ AND SECONDLY, IF ANYONE MAKES IT PAST THE ALARM, THEY’LL DEAL WITH MY PIT BULL, THEN ME!__YOU IDIOTS ALWAYS HAVE TO GO WAAAAY FARTHER ON A SUBJECT, THAN IT WAS EVER INTENDED, I WOULD ASSUME, SIMPLY BECAUSE, YOU HAVE NOTHING MORE INTELLIGENT TO SAY,YOU JACKAZZ!!

          • airangel

            Kinetic..there is such a thing as being accountable for your actions! There are consequences for being a “law breaker”…so better idea would be Don’t tresspass, don’t steal, don’t invade another’s property without permission…doesn’t matter what the crime, it’s a crime and a violation against another…you sound like the kid breaking and entering and then stealing is in the right! What’s wrong with You?

          • Kinetic1

            Angle-Wanna-Be’
            I understand your concerns and fears. I have been the victim of a home invasion and I agree that it instills in us a fear that does not soon fade. So I am glade that you now have an alarm and a dog for protection. And I would never suggest that you should not have the right to protect your home and family, but you take things to far when you even joke about killing someone who survived your act of defense.

            “As far as I’m concerned if they enter my house and steal 50 cents they have set the value of their life to that amount. And I won’t mind collecting” 45calibur

            “NO TRESPASSING, VIOLATERS (sic) WILL BE SHOT, SURVIVORS, SHOT AGAIN!__
            NUFF SAID.” Angle-wanna-be

            45 discounts the value of a persons life because of a non-lethal act against his possessions. You find humor in telling potential thieves that they will die, even if they survive the first shot. And you contend that I take things too far? That I have nothing intelligent to say? These are the statements that make average folks question the sanity of “gun nuts.”

          • 45caliber

            Kenetic:

            You say that someone who simply takes an item isn’t threatening my life. WRONG! He is stealing part of it.

            I sell part of my life to an employer to get money to buy whatever I want or need. If a criminal breaks into my house and takes it, I have lost that part of my life and must again sell part of my life, whether I want to or not, to replace what was stolen or destroyed.

            I spend my life trying to help others and make a better world for all of us. The criminal spends his life trying to live free off the rest of us by stealing our lives. He destroys rather than builds. As such, he is a rogue. If you check any animal group will kill any rogues among their population if they can.

            I will certainly kill anyone who breaks into my house. I was NOT joking about it.

          • 45caliber

            Kenetic:

            Oh, and I don’t discount the value of someone else’s life. As I said, he does that himself. Basically, because of his choices, his life is worthless to me, to society as a whole, and – in reality – to himself.

          • 45caliber

            Angel:

            Several years ago, an older couple (late fifties) had a knock on the door about 10 one night. The man answered, thinking it was his brother who had just left. He opened the door and found three young men wearing ski masks. One had a .22 rifle and immediately shot him.

            As the other two ran away, he shot at the wife and missed as she ran down the hall to her bedroom. She closed the door and grabbed a gun. He opened the door and blasted away at her again. She shot back. The husband, who was only wounded, crawled to his chair to get a second gun and then to the hall. Between them they killed the attacker.

            It turned out to be a 14 year old boy who had two friends staying over at his house. They thought it would be fun to rob someone.

            His parents then sued the couple for killing the boy. His life was just starting; their lives were almost over. They shouldn’t have shot back at their son.

            The way I look at it, their lives – even if they had lived only five minutes more – were worth far more than his life would ever be. Anyone who is willing to kill two innocent people for fun is totally useless on this planet and needs to be removed for the safety of all.

          • Angel-Wanna-Be

            45caliber, thankfully the 95 robber was gone, by the time we got home. __Now heres another one for ya____We live in a semi rural wooded area.___Three years ago we had another incident, we had just gotten home from doing a DJ gig, it was around 3:20 in the morning. Our Daughter and Granddaughter were already asleep_ The old man and I, we’re just walking through the hallway to go to bed, when we heard, both the front door and the back door, being jimmied at the same time___Our dog went ballistic!___The old man took the dog and went to go outside,
            I hollared at him, while calling the police, “you don’t have protection”, he said “yes I do, a pitbull!”__Once outside, He heard a couple people take off running down through my inlaws christmas trees,.___In the morning, he walked out through the trees, and found a hat and called the police again.___Later that morning, the old man and I were standing at the kitchen sink talking, and saw four teens one was a girl, run down the bank into the trees. The old man, Figuring these were the kids who tried to break in, and who also lost a hat, returned, trying to find the lost hat. The old man leashed the dog and out they went, he hid behind a large pine tree, and over heard one the kids say, “this is where I lost my hat, I know it”___with that, the old man and the dog walked out from behind the tree. They all took off, until the old man said “STOP or I’ll let the dog go”. All stopped and came back, but one. The old man said “you’ve got til the count of three to stop”__The last boy returned at two.__We took their names and called the police__To make the long story shorter, after that, the kids were arrested___but a red Mustang appeared and had been parked near, or in our driveway for almost two days. We called the police about it, and it just so happens one of the policemen, heard the call and was coming to our place anyway for signatures, and had to go around the car. The police stopped, and noticed the boy in the passenger seat, was one of the kids they arrested for our attempted breakin, and was also wanted in several other area breakins___His Father was driving and parked in our driveway to intimidate us, he was pissed off at us, for having his son arrested.___Now to any and all who think I’m kidding, or know better than me???__ I had my own Daughter arrested for stealing stuff out of my house to sell and my Fathers car, when she was on drugs, she’s solid clean today, 9 years!!______IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO IT IS, CRIME IS CRIME, what’s mine is mine, unless I lend it to you or give it away! Otherwise it’s stealing!!!___NUFF SAID

          • 45caliber

            Angel:

            What is sad is the Father wanting to intimidate you for getting his son arrested. Actually you didn’t; the son got himself arrested. I know similar stories. It explains why the kids decided to break in in the first place. They didn’t expect anyone to be able to do anything to them and besides, Dad would keep them out of trouble.

            The funniest thing I’ve run into like that was in Kentucky. A boy raped a girl and was arrested for it. He came from a rich family. He spent the night at jail telling the cops how his rich dad was going to get him off. Shortly after dawn the girl’s two uncles showed up to pay his bail. The cops asked him if he wanted to get out on bail or confess to rape. He decided that the jail was much MUCH safer!! He plead guilty to the judge with her uncles sitting right behind him and got a fifteen year sentence. As far as I know, he’s still there.

          • Angel-Wanna-Be

            45caliber, I’ll just bet that kid that raped that girl, felt safer in jail, than with her two uncles posting bail___The crime itself is serious, how the girls family dealt with it is GRAND!!!!!!!__I’m old school caliber, eye for and eye__You need something, ask and it’s yours, take it, or threaten me, you’ll deal with the consequences and I ain’t kiddin’ either!___God Bless

          • JC

            Kinetic’s reasoning is by definition insane and does not warrant a response.

          • momof4

            Angel,
            I saw a great bumpersticker the other day. It said ” Gun control means using both hands.”

          • Kinetic1

            Well, I guess I’m insane, but not so insane as to bother arguing any further with this group. Let me just leave you with a few thoughts;

            1) I would never depend on a pistol in my home for defense. A shotgun is more dependable in a moment of panic, and the sound of it being cocked is enough to scare anyone.

            2)I do not own anything that is worth more than a human life.

            3)I would stop at nothing to defend myself or prevent my wife and children from being harmed.

            Angel, I’m glad your child stole from you and not 45. You had enough love for your child to have her pay for her crime, and now she will have a chance at a good life. It sounds as if 45 would not have taken any chances on her recovery and would have ended any future she may have had.

          • Angel-Wanna-Be

            Momof4, I have another sign, that Say’s
            24 HOUR SURVELLANCE BY SMITH AND WESSON!__LOL

          • Angel-Wanna-Be

            KINECTIC, Bottom line is bud, if you’ve broken in someone else’s home unlawfully, they have a right to protect themselves at all costs. Victims of unlawful intrusion, have no idea of the intent of these intruders. Whether or not they have a weapon or intend to do bodily harm, robbery or whatever._If you’ve broken into a house, you’ve sealed you own fate. and It’s called accountibility!__My Daughter is fine and now thank you,and a married working mother of two!__At that time, She needed to know who was boss in my home, what we’d tolerate, and it wasn’t her behavior or actions!___Tough Love folks__Stand up for yourselves and your kids!!!__I can’t promise tough Love always works and will have a positive outcome, but in our case it did!__Thankn Christ! Having her arrested and Running the risk of her never speaking to me again, was better, than, looking at her, in a casket, Think about it!__I Thank Christ every day!

          • http://SupremeCourtdecisionongunownership Annie

            I wonder if the politicians would defend themselves like us citizens have to, if they didn’t have their bodyguards protecting them. If they kill a perpetrator would they be held accountable like us if they killed someone? Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander. You think?

      • Pugsley

        The problem with gun control, is that it will only control the law abiding citizens. It will not stop the gang members who are already armed with illegal guns like AK47′s Mac10′s and others. How nieve can people be to give up there right to bear arms?? Hasn’t anyone ever seen the “Tienamen Massacre” Beijing 1989? Do some research fool!!!!

        • Kinetic1

          While you’re researching that, take another look at the 2nd amendment. Study the meaning of the words, not just as we understand them, but as they were used at the time of their writing. The “original intent” was not an open invitation for every man, woman and child to arm themselves to the teeth.

          The Bill of Rights was was appended to the Constitution in Dec. of 1791. By May of 1792, Congress had passed a uniform militia act that required “Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock” …”and shall appear, so armed, accoutered and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.”

          One gun, one man, prepared to train and fight as a member of the States’ militia. These are the words of men concerned about the protection of their country. This is the act of a nation that does not have a standing army.

          Justice Story, writing in the early 19th century wrote;
          “And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.”

          Could a man better describe the United States today? Is it not clear that distortion of this bill has lead, not to a well armed militia, ready to defend the nation from “sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.”, but rather a nation in fear of each other?

          William Rawle, U.S District Attorney of Pennsylvania (1791-?) was among the first to state that the 2nd amendment protected the people’s rights, as individuals to posses guns when he said;
          “No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general presence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
          However even he saw the potential for abuse.
          “[a]n assemblage of persons with arms, for unlawful purpose, is an indictable offense, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace.”

          Don’t get me wrong, I own 2 rifles and I’m not offering to hand them over. Had we dealt with this early on we might be able to live without fear of every punk kid on the block carrying a gun, but that’s just not realistic now. We have made a multi billion dollar industry out of arming criminals, and there’s no turning back. But that does not mean that we have to go off unrestrained. Making automatic weapons illegal doesn’t remove them from the streets, but it will reduce the number available in the future. Requiring a license to carry will not stop criminals from carrying guns, but it will allow the police to arrest them just for possession. There is a place and a reason for sensible gun laws.

          • JeffH

            Kinetic, “Don’t get me wrong, I own 2 rifles and I’m not offering to hand them over.” Then what is it you want…I think you want to restrict legal gun ownership! You’ve fooled no one.
            Restrict automatic weapons?
            In case you don’t know, automatic weapons are restricted to Class III and the military and law enforcement. Thus, a law abiding citizen cannot own one without a Class III license which is a very tough jar to get into.

          • alpha-lemming

            To respectfully disagree…….. AND to insert your own qualifier of original intent at the time……. the militia was secondary in scope as a means of protection from invading armies. The PRIMARY reason for the 2nd amendment (and this is an unarguable FACT) was for protection of “We the People” from an out of control government…. DOMESTIC… not foreign!! Having just escaped the “blessings” of King Georges’ monarchy, AND witnessed first-hand the “modus operandi” of the oppressors, this is the ULTIMATE guarantor to insure “We the People” never become “We the Enslved”!

          • 45caliber

            alpha:

            You are quite correct. The British government was not an invasion by any stretch of the imagination. They were the legitamate government … that was enslaving their own people, the American colonists. At the time King George had a war with France going on. The taxes, etc. imposed on the colonists was to help pay for his war – even though it didn’t affect them directly. Further, the taxes were much worse than those on his own people in England.

            The reason for the 2nd Amendment was to act both as a deterent and a warning to anyone in the US who might get the idea of enslaving us again. And if we can’t have weapons to act as that deterent, then it certainly isn’t either a deterent or a warning, is it?

        • Kinetic1

          JeffH,
          Yes, I realize they are restricted and that is why I chose to point to then as an instance where regulation makes sense. Not everyone would have these restrictions if their view of the 2nd amendment were followed.

          What do I want? I’m not trying to fool anyone. I want sensible restrictions on gun ownership and use, and an end to this ridiculous notion that the 2nd amendment protects everyone’s right to own their own personal arsenal to do with it as they please.

          I mention my own guns only to say that I am not afraid of or opposed to guns.

          • JeffH

            Every restrictive gun law is passed with the label of ” sensible restrictions” and that’s bullcrap, you know it and I know it…sensible is a political term for restrictive legislation and those supporting these “sensible restrictions” are as guilty of restricting the liberty and freedom of law abiding citizens everywhere.
            I live in California and fight the likes of Diane Feinstein, who coined the phrase “sensible” with every piece of anti-gun legislation she has championed, and in Congress, Feinstein is the anti-gun legislator who authored the meaningless and now defunct 1994 ban on assault weapon and stated “I’ll pick the time and the place, no question about it” to fight for another assault weapons ban. Don’t stand there and say you support “sensible restrictions” and support the 2nd Amendement because any attack on our 2nd Amendement right to keep and bear arms is not sensible in any way, shape or form. Your’re either “with us or agin us”…there is no middle ground!
            Keep some powder dry!

          • 45caliber

            Our Founding Fathers never intended for us to be restricted IN ANY MANNER of gun control. At the time, the rifles the colonists owned were BETTER weapons than the military of the day used (muskets). Muskets were seldom accurate for more than 20 or 30 yards; rifles were accurate for more than a hundred yards. The British army depended upon volleys to place a lot of bullets out there at once hoping some would hit; basically an early form of a machine gun. The colonists preferred to stay behind cover and aim at a distance.

            But today it is illegal to own guns that are even the equal of the military unless you own a special Class III license that tells them who has such weapons.

            I have to agree with others here; there are NO “sensible” restrictions on our freedom.

            It is like the “sensible” restriction on free speech. If a person yells, “Fire!” in a crowded building, it is illegal. It should not be illegal. Those in the building should have the right to beat that person to a pulp if desired for his “joke”. If a person uses a gun to kill for fun or to aid him robbing someone, he should be stood before a firing squad – without appeals.

          • independant thinker

            The only sensible gun control is

            1. No convicted felon should be permitted to have one.
            2. Good grip, careful aim, hit your intended target.

          • JC

            Amen Independent Thinker.

          • del

            There should be no restrictions what so ever on gun ownership. That applies to full auto’s as well!
            What needs to happen is that when people are caught breaking the law (regardless of whether or not a gun was used )there should be penalties imposed on them that would not only deter them from doing it again but deter anyone else that might be considering breaking a law. I for one like full auto’s and it sickens me for someone outside of my household to have any influence as to whether or not I am allowed to have them. Would you like if I got to decide whether or not you could have sexual relations with your blow up doll thats hidden in your closet. I think not!

        • Angel-Wanna-Be

          Pugsley, these damn gun laws alwasy affect the innocent and never the criminals__Why, because they obviously don’t care!!!

          • del

            Independant thinker, I must respectively disagree with you on (1. No convicted felon should be permitted to have one.) It is in my humble opinion that anyone that has done their time should be accepted fully back into society regardless of their crime. KEEP IN MIND THAT I HAVE NOT SUGGESTED WHAT THEIR PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I say this in an attempt to keep off all of the “what if they done this” comments. The facts are that punishment is decided by society and if X amount of time is deemed enough then so be it. After time spent you should be able to go about your life.

    • http://none Alex

      Apparently your pit was asleep in ’95.

      • Angel-Wanna-Be

        ALEX, AH, THE BRILLIANCE, I DID’NT HAVE ONE THEN!

        • independant thinker

          Angel, I am not being critical of you for your choice of a pit for canine protection, If that is what works for you good. Personally I do not care for Pits but that is just a personal predujudice. Currently I have a Pyranese-Golden Retriver mix and a Husky-? mix outside inside I have a little ear splitter yapping dog and a couple of 20 pound tom cats that will tear your face off. If they make it by them I will be prepared with appropriate means of stopping them in their tracks.

          • Angel-Wanna-Be

            independent thinker, Our pit was 3 months old when we got her__She was raised with our family & Grandaughter, they are both 6__Our Grandaughter and now our Grandson both, swim, play and take naps, while laying on the dog.__She is extremely sensitive and knows the sound of our son’s truck, before he even hits our road!!___It depends how you raise & treat them. These dogs must be disaplined, and they must know you mean it. No I don’t mean beat them!___ On the other hand, I’m not the kind of dog owner, who’s stupid enough, to fully trust an animal, they are after all animals, and can snap anytime__Our eyes are on our dog at all times!__BTW, we’ve had a Schnauzer and a Cocker Spaniel, I’d take a pit any day. I’d never take one from a shelter, unless it was a pup. If your going to have pits, You must get them when they are pups.

          • Angel-Wanna-Be

            Independent thinker__the only thing I don’t like about pits, they’r yappers!__They’ll yap at the chirp of a bird they haven’t heard before!

        • 45caliber

          The chow and the Peakanese (sp?) are the two dogs that still follow their initial breeding. The chow is a guard dog; the Peak is an alarm dog. I don’t need a dog to defend my house; I just want one to let me know there is a problem. I’ll take it from there.

          • independant thinker

            Had a chow once, good dog. My little yapper is a wiener dog (can’t even begain to spell the proper name) Poodle mix. He has one of the most irritating high pitched barks I have ever heard definately a good alarm dog.

          • libertytrain

            I’ve got a yappy Doxie wiener dog myself – thank God!

        • independant thinker

          Like I said Angel it is my personal predjudice If it works for you good deal.

  • Smith

    So now the million man white, asian, black, hispanic or muslim march can go packing.

    • CJ

      It’s jackasss comments like this that cause all the trouble. If someone goes through the process to legally carry, they are NOT out to make trouble, but to PREVENT it. More violence is commited with guns by people who are breaking the law in the first place. Making laws against gun carrying only serves to disarm the honest… and make potential victims of them. We are very close to loosing every freedom we have, and many idiots are willing to just roll over and let them go without a fight. I pitty the coward who won’t stand up and fight for what is rightfully theirs. The coward dies a thousand deaths, the just, only once!

      • artinthewild

        I never got my license to carry but I took the classes – however I got my first gun when I was eleven…I live 3 miles from Mexico, I am not giving up my gun. I live in the country, with my dogs, alone. I believe the old saying, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” I read somewhere in Fla. they were having troubles with break ins and thief – homes and cars – people got tired of it and started carrying guns. The trouble went down something like 60%. If we leave President Obama in office til 2012 – the man will totally destroyed the country. We will be socialist bordering Muslim with their sharia law firmly entrenched…

        • http://personalliberty.com Jessica

          Here in Florida we have some of the best pro-Second Amendment laws in the country. Aside from the conceal/carry law, we have the Castle Law. It states that you have the legal right to bust a cap in anybody who invades your home with clearly malicious intent, and no subsequent lawsuit is valid. And we also have the Stand Your Ground law. It states that if you are on the street, and somebody tries to carjack you or otherwise comprimise your personal safety, you have the legal right to take him down (providing, of course, that you have a conceal/carry permit). And conceal/carry permits are almost ridiculously east to get. As long as you’re not a convicted felon, all you need is a 4-hour gun safety class and a 60 dollar fee. Then you can pack your heat in your car, purse or pocket, and the cops can’t mess with you about it.

          • JC

            Awesome…Common Sense enshrined in law. How beautifully simple.

      • 45caliber

        Hemingway, who was a mercenary for about 30 years, was once asked by a reporter why he had risked his life fighting like that. Hemingway answered, “There are worse things than dying while fighting for freedom. And if you don’t fight, you will learn what every one of those things are!”

        Unfortunately, we have a number of people who would rather be slaves than risk death. We call them liberals.

    • 45caliber

      Only if the by-standers can go packing too.

    • Anthony

      Smith only has the capability to be a bait artist. One would ask whether he implements a double-standard even on his own family? You do notice Smith tries to “categorize” us all into Groups – this is how you steal private power from others, for personal profit… and it’s quite simple to STOP that nonsense from happening to you…. as long as you are vigilant.

    • airangel

      Speaking of minuteman and militia…this Congressman Pete Stark is arrogant, out of touch, career politician…get a clue!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVpMwqv7QM

      • Palin12

        That guy is a dumbass, symptomatic of all that is wrong with california.

        • airangel

          I know a real jerk!…You have to be proud of the people of Cali/SFO that chose to attend the town hall meeting…(not a lot which is sad) but the ones that did stood up for their rights…we need more of that…more people attending town halls and making themselves heard…letters and email don’t cut…needs to be in your face in person to our representatives then they can see and feel our wrath! Good for Cali…some hope for that state after all!

          • http://personalliberty.com Jessica

            That clown Pete Stark must not be up for re-election this time around. Otherwise, he’d know better than to make such a complete fool of himself. What an arrogant jackass!

  • k1oik

    It is a little bit terrifying to know that one justice – one appointed, unelected justice – was all the difference between respecting a clearly stated intent of a Bill of Rights, or rejecting it. As far as the Post headline, my reply is “never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance.” The caption from the NYT was a little more accurate: “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Second Amendment, which forbids Congress from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, applies to state and local governments as well” as quoted on http://pennydean.org/ That is what these amendments were intended to do: forbid Congress from legislating our rights away. They were never intended to “give” rights to The People…. after all, that is who wrote the damn thing in the first place!

    • Anthony

      The word Im hearing on Internet Radio AND from Judge Napolitano (FOXNEWS) — is that States’ Gun Rights are even more distinct and explicit. Take TEXAS, for instance. They make no bones about it, whatsoever. Or Wyoming still (I believe) has the right to wear your Colt-45 on your hip, like the Old West. In both States, the crime rate is practically ZERO until you get into the URBAN Centers where those who have their hands out for FREE MONEY are just standing around on street corners.

      • Al Sieber

        Anthony, I live in Ariz. you can open carry here, and a new law goes into effect next month concealed carry no permit. I live at least 15 miles from any law enforcement. after my friend was murdered, I put a sign on our gate ” trespassers will be shot”. there will be no survivors. after the bastards came out to my gate at midnight and started shooting, they didn’t expect any return fire. I never go any where without a firearm, and I’m not giving up my guns to anyone, I’m taking a few with me if it comes to that.

      • JeffH

        Herein lies a better explanation from http://www.calgunlaws.com.
        http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/current-litigation/52/886.html

        Monday’s ruling means that the Supreme Court’s June 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, in which the Court finally recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, applies equally to all levels of government.

        The Supreme Court did not actually rule on whether the Chicago ordinance being challenged, which makes legal ownership of handguns within the city virtually impossible, was unconstitutional. Instead, it remanded the case back to the lower courts to issue that ruling.

        The McDonald decision does not mean that every state and local regulation of firearms will be struck down as unconstitutional, nor that any laws will be struck down overnight. Rather, the decision is a vehicle to bring legitimate strategic legal challenges to state and local laws before the lower level courts. These courts will have to define the scope of the Second Amendment right. Some questions that still need to be answered are: whether the right to keep amd bear arms extends beyond the home, whether prohibitions of certain commonly owned firearm are valid, whether certain low-level criminal convictions can result in the permanent deprivation of one’s Second Amendment rights etc. And litigation in the lower courts will be necessary to determine what level of scrutiny courts will apply in reviewing governmental infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

        The Supreme Court’s decision is a huge victory for law-abiding gun owners throughout the country. Although it is likely that many anti-gun politicians in California will not concede the victory easily, the momentum is on the side of law-abiding gun owners. The McDonald case is not the end of the fight, it is just the end of the beginning.

        We, in California are now faced with these Feinstein backed zealots attempting to undermine and remove our “right to keep and bear arms” at every twist in the road and they are about to get approval passed for banning open carry of un-loaded weapons.

    • Vicki

      Actually the First Amendment forbids Congress. It even says so. The 2nd forbids ALL GOVERNMENT. Had the founders meant for it to forbid Congress they would have said “Congress shall make no law…..”

  • Sonny

    With all the cameras we won’t need guns. We will have surrendered our freedom anyway, to the police state.

    • 45caliber

      Many years ago now, a professor in college made the comment: “We can have a crime-free society now if we want it. All we have to do is turn our system into a police state with cameras on every corner and in every house. The police will watch every act we do and punish for the least infraction. But crime will go away too.”

      He was right. I prefer a little crime with the idea I can protect myself. After all, I can’t trust the police to protect me; they are too heavy to carry.

      • JC

        You’re safe in a Police State…until you meet a Policeman.

    • Ricky

      that is why we have guns to shot the cramers

  • steve

    the gun ban in Australia is a huge failure…..

    • 45caliber

      So is the one in England. In fact a person in England is 16 times more likely to be a victim that anyone here is. There are so many crimes that the police have stopped recording and investigating any except the major crimes. It seems as if they spend more of their time protecting the criminal than the victims.

      Recently in Australia, five men broke into a man’s apartment. They were beating him with baseball bats and pipe. He managed to get a katana one of his family had captured in WWII. He killed one of them and injured another. He himself went to the hospital for nearly three months due to his injuries.

      The police were very concerned about his defense of himself. They were trying to determine what to charge him with. And they weren’t even bothering to find out who the other three were or why they were beating him.

      • airangel

        45Cal – that is terrible, to even charge someone for protecting and defending themselves is unthinkable. What is wrong with society when we start giving rights to criminals? They have taken it upon themselves to violate and in many cases “even take anothers life” and for that they deserve to be heard? deserve a defense? deserve food, water and shelter?…ok maybe basic medical rights but I say, if we weren’t so soft and they did hard time, it just might deter others from testing the waters in criminal behavior and those that might think about “repeat offense”…We need to go back to the rock quarries, make them pay real consequences for such vile and evil abuse to another, they can scrub toilets, clean up ghettos, repay the victims with servitude, have just bread and water…it should not be pleasant or even decent…start sending a strong message to criminals and you will see crime go down…and execute murderes…take a life, lose yours…that’s the message that needs to go out to start instilling real fear into criminals and “would be criminals”…we are way too soft and you wonder why our prisons are overflowing! No one is really afraid of going to prison…that is just wrong!

        • 45caliber

          One elderly farmer in England was beaten and robbed of his SS check seven months in a row the day after he received it by the same two men. The cops couldn’t (wouldn’t) stop it. He got a single barrel shotgun and shot the eighth time they showed up. Killed one and wounded the other.

          The wounded man was given six months for assault and burglary. The farmer was sentenced to life in prison – the harshest sentence they have. Both men were about 35 – and both had more CONVICTIONS than years. The farmer came up for parole but the prosecutor argued that he was a clear and present danger to burglars and therefore needed to be kept in jail.

          In another case, an 80+ year old woman was getting beaten and robbed of her check every month. She had her house wrapped in barbed wire to try to keep the thief out. The police made her take it down because some burglar might get scratched on it. (THEIR excuse, not mine!)

        • 45caliber

          I worked for a short time – a VERY short time! – as a prison guard. 4 months. You would be shocked at the “rights” given prisoners by federal judges. We used to have a fed. judge here named William Wayne Justice. He finally died and I celebrated. He insisted that the prisoners can work – but only at work they want to do. They can refuse work if they wish. The worst punishment to give a prisoner if solitary confinement but only for 15 days. No more. And you can cut off their exercise and canteen privileges for a month. Sad, isn’t it?

          • airangel

            I so don’t comprehend that mentality…it’s not even sane thinking…beat and attack a farmer? an eighty year old woman? and then get away with that evil low life behavior while the victims are made criminals for trying to feel safe or defend themselves from vermin! It’s tragic but I know it’s true…we are seeing it happen here…the canal crossing for illegals needs to be made safer so law breaking illegals don’t drown…gee what about just not breaking the law?

            What about Arizona Citizens? The Government has signs posted that it is now unsafe to hike or ride ATV’s in the Wildlife Refuge area for “risk of being shot”…Americans are made to be the trespassers on their own soil while the Mexican Drug Cartel hold the once beautiful 3500 acres hostage for their drug smuggling and human trafficking…Gee what about kicking the trespassers off for breaking the law? Arrest for drug trafficking?

            Americans are also made criminals just for not buying the Governments insurance whether they can afford it or not…buy or be fined or arrested! Is that morally right with this new Healthcare bill? It’s all just so wrong! The mentality of it all is just so evil and wrong…I mean, it’s so ridiculous you wonder if the powers that be are possesed and under a spell for such wayward thinking! Big Pharma drugs? the water? RFID chip implants making them do things right out of a sci-fi thriller? The type of thinking to embrace criminal behavior is mind boggling! I know…it’s the Kool-Aid! Oh those kinds of stories make me so sad and so teed off at the same time!

          • JC

            Outrageous isn’t it angel?

        • Angel-Wanna-Be

          airangel__they’d be scared if we had, a Joe Aripaio(not sure of the spelling of his name) the sheriff in Arizona.
          What gets me, There is the ten commandments God has given us, But OH, God forbid we use those, the idiot lawmakers today, think they have a better plan. There is right and wrong for a reason, so we KNOW THE DAMN DIFFERENCE!!_These criminals choose the wrong way of life and the innocent pay for it!__They can take this POLITICAL CORRECT CRAP AND SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DOESN’T SHINE, I’ll protect whats mine!

      • independant thinker

        I read an article from the “Telegraph. UK” that said England had a violent crime rate of 2,000 per 100,000 population the rest of Europe was a little lower (in the 1,100-1,500 range) and the US rate of violent crime was about 450 per 100,000

  • Marilyn

    The law abiding citizens always suffer from ridiculous laws imposed upon them. It is my duty to protect my life and home.If a wild bear crashes through some window, we have the right to kill the beast to protect life and Home. If an unwanted thug crashes down a house door to do the owner and family harm, it is our right to shoot and kill the azzes. Laws are on the books, now, to punish the culprits who take lives and personal property from othes. The 2nd Amendment is written to give each citizen the right to defend thier lives and Homes. It is clearly stated. So, this big hoopla about States or Federal Government taking gun rights away from law abiding citizens only removes guns from law abiding citizens. Thugs will ALWAYS have guns. The 5-4 vote by Supreme Court is scary. That tells me there are four on the Supreme Court who want gun-control and have no respect for the law abiding American Citizen. They are going at gun control back asswards. How intelligent is that from the highest court in the land? I agree with Bob that the headline should have read “Supreme Court throws out Chicago’s usurpation of power.” That would have made me feel the 2nd Amendment was still in force and working for the law abiding American People. The Washington Post just deosn’t get it…pandering to the whims of the Liberals. They don’t want to get on the “wrong side” of their liberal, socialistic leader because Obama may not like the Washington Post and try to take away their freedom of speech. Hogwash!

    • 45caliber

      You said that the 2nd Amendment was written to give the right to citizens to defend themselves.

      This is wrong. It is RECOGNIZING that they already have the right given by God and forbidding Congress or anyone else from trying to take it away.

    • Robin, Arcadia, IN

      Marilyn says: The 5-4 vote by Supreme Court is scary. That tells me there are four on the Supreme Court who want gun-control and have no respect for the law abiding American Citizen.

      What is really scary is that the Supreme Court is divided over the Constitution!

  • James

    The Second Amendment didn’t guarantee the right to bear arms, it simply forbad the federal government from infringing on it. All it said was: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It does not say “The right to bear arms is hereby guaranteed, by golly, to every citizen in these United States.” Rights are not dependent on any document for their existence. It’s only purpose was to prevent infringement on the right by the federal government. However, after the Supreme Court’s June 28 decision in McDonald v. Chicago, it now means ‘no state shall infringe’ on it.
    What isn’t being mentioned is that that action, by the Court, has placed regulation of the right, within the states, under federal control, with the Supreme Court deciding how much regulation is reasonable, which is percisely what the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent. Under the guise of protecting the people’s right to bear arms, the Court has usurped the states’ police power to regulate it.

    • Al Sieber

      you’ll never know what it cost my generation to secure your freedom, I hope you’ll make good use of it- John Adams to posterity.

      • 45caliber

        That is true of today’s vets as well. The problem is that the people who refuse to fight are the ones trying to make laws to govern those of us who do.

    • Vicki

      When the Heller decision was handed down I observed that now we need to clear up the meaning of “shall not” and “infringed”. “Be” having been defined by Clinton (Definition of is is) :)

    • DaveH

      James,
      You lost. Man up.

      • vicki

        How did he loose? Or maybe I should ask what did he loose?

    • JC

      Interesting play on words. I’ll ponder that while I strip my Kimber later.

  • Craig

    “Obama Supreme Court appointee, is just another puppet too, and the only reason he’s appointed her is, She’ll say what ever he wants her to say.”

    You are absolutely correct. I do not know if anybody remembers what Sotomayor told Congress, under oath, at her confirmation hearings. She said she believed that the second amendment affirmed an individual right. When McDonald v. Chicago was announced, she signed her name to an opinion saying that the second amendment did NOT affirm an individual right. She committed perjury in her confirmation hearing, or do we call it something else now?

    • Angel-Wanna-Be

      Craig, I call a spade, a spade__I’d call it a down right lie!__These laws and rules only applying to us the citizens, make me sick in the azz!

      • independant thinker

        If you believe the constitution means what it says like the authors intended it is a lie. If on the otherhand you are an unabashed supporter of Obama and ever more government control of our lives she had a “new revelation” about its meaning.

  • http://www.adobemachine.com Dan

    The one thing that keeps the liberals in check is the private ownership of weapons this is their main agenda both through education and legislation. If they can take away the ammo box then the other two will be easily removed. FIRE EM ALL!

    • 45caliber

      When I was in the military, we used to say, “FIRE THEM UP!”

      • Dan Burke

        “Fire them all” I identify with as all I have ever been is a private citizen. “Fire them up” just sounds great though.

        I don’t own a firearm. I don’t know if I will ever own one. I am not sure I would trust myself. If someone were to break into my house, I would be all too tempted to shoot to kill just because our legal system seems to favor the criminal all so much and make those of us living by the law into enemies of the people it seems. Unfortunately, another reason I don’t own a gun, is that when I shot one in the past, I may have had a good “pattern” back then but all of my shots were far off target. And, now, I probably wouldn’t have a good pattern of shots or anywhere near target….

        • 45caliber

          You need to ‘Point’ shoot. An old gunfighter taught me when I was a kid. You point a pistol like you point your finger and you’ll always be close. You also squeeze the trigger rather than jerk it. You can’t aim in the dark anyway and most people won’t because they get excited. Learn to point and you’ll be alright.

          Actually it is fairly hard to kill a person. People are a lot more resiliant than you would think. TV and movies have caused people to think a gun gives you instant power of lift and death. I know of some men who survived after being shot a dozen times. One recent man who passed away (he won the Congressional) had been wounded 14 times in one year alone! All you need to do is stop him. Generally one shot will do that unless he’s really high on some drug. Don’t be afraid to get a gun and protect yourself. Keep in mind that you have the God-given right to protect yourself and he doesn’t have the right to attack you.

          • DaveH

            I don’t think it’s a good idea to shoot in the dark. It may be somebody you love. Or worse, the police in this age of mistaken nazi-style drug raids.
            They have remote controls now so you can turn on any light in the house which would give you quite an edge on the intruder who wasn’t expecting a sudden lighting.

          • http://personalliberty.com Jessica

            The main thing to remember is that if your life is in immediate danger, and you’re under extreme duress, you aim for the center of mass. In other words the chest, the largest part of the body. Shoot him in the legs to slow him down? Doesn’t work, since he may be armed, too. Even the old west gunfighters had sense enough to know that much.

  • http://? Dave

    What does this do for right to carry permit recipricocy laws ?

  • 45caliber

    I noticed this morning that a group has filed a lawsuit in NC about their law that banns anyone from carrying a gun during a state emergency … such as the snow that closed some roads last winter. I hope they succeed too.

    • DaveH

      Leave it to Government to ban weapons when people might need them most.

      • JC

        Or rather a law that basically disarms you at the whim of a government. Wrong!

  • James

    I would add to my above statement, the restrictions placed upon federal court jurisdiction by Article III, Section 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to…” the types of cases listed therein. That fact alone says federal courts do not have constitutional power to hear all cases. Also, two of those were removed by the Eleventh Amendment in 1795. In McDonald v. Chicago, both parties were of the same State, Illinois, thus the Supreme Court had no power to even hear that case. Why didn’t one of the litigants mention that or file a Motion to Dismiss based upon lack of jurisdiction?

    • DaveH

      Give it up, James. You lost.

      • James

        DaveH, You are partially right, but it was the constitution that lost. Those who view the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms as synonyms, have now acquiesced to federal oversight of the right, within the States.

    • JC

      Mental Bubble Gum. Keep chewing James.

      • http://personalliberty.com Jessica

        Have you ever noticed that humans never recognize History when they’re living it?

        • JC

          I notice it every day Jessica. We’re surrounded by people who either A) Want to strip us of our freedoms, or
          B) Haven’t got a clue what’s happening.

          When I say “we” I mean those of us who are armed and aware.
          I mean Patriots.

  • BLUEEYESOL

    The moment right after they place their hands on a Bible and take an oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of these United States of America, they immediately start to dismantle the Constitution. Why can’t we fire them for breaking their oath, just like the other poster said how Sotomeyer perjured herself by flipping on affirming the right of individual, under oath, then signing onto an opinion saying that the second amendment did NOT affirm an individual right. Not only should she be fired on the spot, but should face criminal perjury charges like the common man would have to.
    Why, why ,why, can’t we get rid of these folks? What is it going to take? I think I know of peaceful, lawful ways to do this, but there is no one in politics with the fortitude to do what is neccesary. And they keep getting re-elected, just blows my mind.

    • BLUEEYESOL

      The deceived are listening to the politicians words instead of following their votes and so, keep themselves deceived.

    • DaveH

      We get what we pay for.
      In my lifetime the Republicans have been complicit in growing Government, albeit much slower than Democrats. But nevertheless, they still grew it. The problem is that both the Right and the Left have their own pet controls that they want to throw on the rest of the population. So the Government Leaders, who are naturally inclined to seek more power, are quick to support those desires.
      If we truly seek Limited Government and Freedom, then we need to be tolerant of the Freedom for people to live their lives differently than we do. I’m not talking about trespasses on the bodies or property of others. I am talking about victimless crimes. The things that people do to themselves not others. The quickest way for people to learn the error of their ways is to let them screw up. Then practice tough love. That is, don’t pick up after their mistakes. Make them pay for their own.

  • refuse2lose

    This ruling is not a victory for the 2nd amendment,the vote should have been 9-0. It scares me that we have 4 unelected judges who think we don’t have a right to be armed. Give Obama 2 more liberal activists and our Constitution will be null and void.

    • alpha-lemming

      8:1??? In the spirit of bi-partisanship..

    • JC

      And that would be cause to man up, arm up and mount up.

  • Anthony

    Robin, Arcadia, IN – We’re fairly close neighbors, you and I (do you know about Barley Island?)

    I tell you this …. Our so-called Supreme Court Justices have been indoctrinated by the Institutions they got their learning from. I see Kagan comes from exactly the same College as GW Bush, and Obama who (on a very very part-time basis, backed up a real Constitutional Law Professor) also came from there – and that is Chicago Law University.

    This Chicago Law University is “known” for its Neitzschie-ism teachings. In other words, fascist tendencies. Whether it’s communism (from Karl Marx) or the prior, just spoken of, both are approaches of “oppression” by those that somehow got power over others. And, only as long as those around them have no way of fighting back, then they remain oppressed. All of you know this. But, when our Institutions of (higher?) Learning become havens for such training, then it begs the questions of “why aren’t we paying more attention in the first place?”

    THE MAIN REASON we are hearing two distinct attitudes and opinions on the Higher Court, is due to the fact that there ARE two distinct approaches to how a Country may be run.
    1) Monarchistic Monopolies
    2) Republics (notice I do not say Democracy)

    #1 does not allow the people to carry weapons for any reason
    #2 makes sure the People can defend themselves at all times

    #1 can be run by the very few (oligarchs) and while they may have one person who is the front man, there are always those who are in control to a certain extent behind the scenes – for as we all know, ONE PERSON cannot do it all. He/She has to have backup. They may be called Monarchy’s, Dictatorships, whatever – it still remains as an Oligarchy. This is what you progressives gave us, when you elected Woodrow Wilson. This is what remains as long as Progressives constantly frown on returning this Country to the Jeffersonian Principles that achieved the signing of the Declaration and the Constitution (which Obama said: was in the way).

    Again – I push everyone to Bob Livingston’s Book page and review Hamilton’s Curse by Thomas J DiLorenzo. If you haven’t gotten around to reading it by now… then, you should dam(n) well make it a point to do so, ASAP. Until you do, you won’t know how to decipher what any politician might be saying, especially when it comes to fiscal policy and State Sovereignty over Federal Abuse. You want your freedoms back … it’s high time you spent some of your evenings catching up on your own Country’s history … and trust me, the book is attention-grabbing “good enough” to replace mind-numbing boob-tube nonsense coming from CableTV.

    At the end of the day – these Justices are arguing the Jeffersonian Principle against the Hamiltonian Oligarch … and yes, the SCOTUS was NEVER MEANT to have “lifetime” appointments – the Jeffersonian side knew this would cause issues wherein the People would lose their freedoms, even if gradually, because Politicians were who would appoint these persons, and if lifetime appointment were possible, then such decisions would affect generations of Americans along the way .. and they were against such nonsense from the outset.

    It was Chief Justice John Marshall who “assumed” the authority to have lifetime appointments and Alexander Hamilton (at the time, was Secretary of the Treasury) was perfectly ready and willing to have such a stance become the norm. John Marshall always treated Hamilton as a Mentor – always looked to Hamilton for advice on how to run the Court. [ My next investigation is to read up on exactly who John Jay really was, since he was the FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE …. some comments made in Hamilton’s Curse reflect that he was also more of a Hamiltonian than a Jefferson …. and how he got that Job in those days, especially at the age of only 27, is highly suspect.

    I already own the Aaron Burr book and The Naked Capitalist.

    Remember this – it is the Hamiltonians who thought “slavery” a good idea and a so-called right of the wealthy (aka: those who had Land)
    It is the Jeffersonians who knew that man was endowed by his creator, with unalienable rights of freedom for all … and that no man should ever be made a slave…..ever!

    So – you choose which side of the fence you prefer !

    NOTE TO JAMES – I am currently looking into where the distinction was, which allowed the Supreme Court to hear this Case as they have. But, I do believe you are right, in that there was a slight of hand on REGULATION of firearms. As we all know – gun registration has only one purpose — and that is to TAKE THEM AWAY. How many people do you know who have firearms which aren’t registered? You do know they have dogs trained to smell out where your guns are, yes? When the time comes…. will you be smart enough?

    • DaveH

      I have heard that you can sprinkle chili powder around.

    • JC

      An 8 inch piece of PVC pipe with caps on both ends will hold at least one rifle, one pistol, a lot of ammunition and silver.
      And it can be buried…anywhere.

      • http://personalliberty.com Jessica

        Don’t bury your heat, man. What good is a rifle under the ground when the sh*t hits the fan?

        • JC

          Hide spares for the possibility of abandoning your home. An emergency kit so to speak. There are a few of us who have done this and we have a destination figured out. We’ve done all this based on the idea that if certain things happen we’ll collectively move and meet in the never never…

    • James

      Anthomy, there was no ‘distinction’ that allowed a federal court to hear McDonald v. Douglas. McDonald’s attorneys just filed suit in a federal court, and the court accepted it, since no one filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. This has been going on for some time. Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, etc., were all between individuals and agencies of the same State, and were all outside of federal court jurisdiction, as itemized in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Our problem here is that Americans just can’t believe that the federal government would exercise powers that it doesn’t constitutionally have.

  • http://mac.com Stutz

    It is an historical fact proven around the world time and time again: more guns equals less crime, period. Look at the British example. Guns don’t kill, people do. Banning guns only guarantees the “bad guys” will know you don’t have one. GOOD LUCK!

    • 45caliber

      Back about 1965 or so Readers Digest was very anti-gun. They commissioned a study to prove that guns caused crime.

      When the study showed the exact opposite they refused to pay for the study … so the people who made the study sold it to a newspaper chain to cover part of their costs. RD tried to sue but the judge ruled that since they didn’t pay for the info, they couldn’t stop them from selling it.

      What they found was that when the number of guns compared to population was low, crime was high. This was the inner city areas – the slums. Where the number of guns compared to population was high, crime was low.

      The number one place for guns had 2.5 guns PER PERSON. Crime was so low that most houses didn’t even have locks on the doors. Those that did usually had a lock such that you could buy the key at the local hardware store.

      It was where I grew up. The Ozark Mountains in Arkansas.

      • independant thinker

        I am from Arkansas as well, proudly still live in west central Arkansas in fact. I was raised in south central Arkansas (about 35 miles north of the La. line) and things were much different down there. While crime was not as bad then as now you still locked the doors if you intended to be gone for more than a few minutes.

        • 45caliber

          We once left the house to go to California for a few months hunting work when I was 13. We left May 1 and got back Nov 18th.

          On the kitchen table were several notes that all basically said, “We came by but you were gone. See you later.”

          Nothing in the house was disturbed. And we lived on a busy highway.

          • independant thinker

            Where in the Ozarks were you raised?

            My Grandparents lived about 50 miles south of the river in the Ouachita mountains and I do not remember their doors ever being locked when we visited.By the time my grandmother passed away in the 1990′s she locked her doors if she was going out of town for a few days but not if she was going to church or to town for groceries etc. Too bad we cannot get that part of the past back.

    • 45caliber

      The way I feel is that if anyone does want to ban guns they should post a sign in their front yard: “This house has no guns!”

      Then after a year or so they should check to see which houses were most likely robbed.

      Those who insist on me giving up my guns depends upon the guns I have to deter a criminal from robbing their houses since the criminals don’t know who has a gun and who doesn’t.

  • kenn d

    I am not a gun but if they even think of taking our rights away to bear arms I am going out right away and buy one.How do you like me now?

    • Bob B

      Go get a gun ,they are doing more than thinking about it !

      Take instruction ! You are responsible for what is done with that gun .

      Go shooting ,guns ARE a blast !

    • 45caliber

      Join a gun club so you can be with others who enjoy shooting. You will learn a lot and have fun at the same time – even if you don’t own a gun.

    • JC

      Start now. With the anti American Kenyan in the White House, guns, ammunition or both could dry up over night.

    • independant thinker

      Could check out the SASS as well. They shoot old west style firearms and have regular shooting matches. I have attended a couple and they are fun to watch. The guns they shoot are mostly not really suitable for daily cary unless you live in an open carry state but all would make excellent home defense firearms.

  • s c

    The Supreme Court is INFECTED. Its polite name is corruption. It has festered for many years here. Its ultimate goal is to enslave America, and “prove” that no country is entitled to be free.
    As long as we have a Supreme Court that is INFESTED with anti-Constitution HIRELINGS, we will ALWAYS be on the verge of becoming slaves without a shot being fired.
    There are two types of progressives at work in this FDR-style infamy. One group KNOWS what they’re doing. The other stands by blindly, in awe of their ‘superiors,’ ready to do their bidding (like Pavlov’s dogs).
    When/if America loses the 2nd Amendment, it is the second group that will feel our wrath first. The first group is insulated, content in the belief that their unconstitutional laws will do what no invading army can do.
    Get ALL progressive stooges OFF the Supreme Court NOW! Put Kagan in her place, and SAVE America!

    • JC

      And feel the wrath, they will.

  • Wordwaryor

    Think about this question : Since Liberals only make up 20 % of our population….. why should there ever be more than 2 Liberal judges on the Supreme Court ?

  • Wordwaryor

    And the more disturbing question is :

    Given the wording of the 2nd Amendment … “.. the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Why wasn’t the recent ruling not Nine (9) to Zero (0) in favor of the 2nd Amendment and citizens rights to keep and bear arms ?

    • Vicki

      Cause we have 4 Justices that can’t read? No surprise when you think about all the folk in Congress who don’t read the bills they pass. I always thought they were lazy. Maye they can’t read either.

      • kenn d

        Thats right the clowns cant read the Arizona immigration law either.I does not matter who you are you get pulled over for a traffic infraction.What doe the officer as you ,thats right license a registration stupid.If you are an illegal alien you are supposley above everybody else in the country who is a citizen.

      • 45caliber

        They are deciding on laws based on “emotion”. Therefore laws mean absolutely nothing to them. They can decide a case one way and an identical case the other way simply on what emotions they feel at the time. Laws were set up with the idea that EVERYONE must follow exactly what the law says so that one person can’t get an advantage over another.

      • DaveH

        I agree with SC on this one. They can read, they just have ulterior motives.

    • Kinetic1

      Why do so many people leave off the introduction. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …” This is one point of contention. This introduction would not be necessary if the bill were meant only to guaranty every persons private right to own a gun. It speaks to the fact that we did not have a standing army for protection and the need for national defense.

      The next issue is “the right of the people…” This wording, in most situations would be construed to mean the collective people, not individuals. It does not read “the right of each and every citizen.” Note that in the 4th and 5th amendments, when speaking of 1 or more individuals they use more singular term “person(s)” rather than the group “peoples.” These are the individuals rights to protection from search and seizure or self incrimination. If the 2nd amendment was meant to protect each individuals right to arms, then why wasn’t it phrased “each person’s right to bear arms…? Or “the right of a person to bear arms …?

      So many people in the post have stated that the 2nd amendment clearly states that we all have the right to own guns and carry guns, but that’s just not the case! Some legal minds have, over time interpreted it to mean that we, as individuals all have the right to own all the guns we want. Others look at the words on the page and, taking it literally say that it does not promise such individual guarantees. Either way, it does not “clearly” state anything about your individual right to carry a concealed weapon, or walk into a church with a loaded shotgun. Remember this the next time you argue your case for “strict constitutionalists”.

      • 45caliber

        You should do a little more study.

        An army, whether a permanent one or not, is a trained force meant to fight battles. A militia is a group of armed citizens who are NOT trained but are armed. When you try to insist that the Army or the National Guard takes the place of a militia, you are very wrong. England found that out during WWII. There were several cases where the militia was able to successfully defend the borders of England against invasion. Further the militia of France, even though France was under the military control of Germany, was able to do a lot to defeat the enemy.

        You are trying to say that because we have an army we don’t need a militia. Our Founding Fathers were much more knowledgeable and intelligent than you are despite your carefully worded essay.

      • independant thinker

        “The next issue is “the right of the people…” This wording, in most situations would be construed to mean the collective people,”

        The Supreme Court, in cases on other subjects, has ruled that the phrase or term “the people” refers to individuals. In fact, in a ruling on something else the second amendment use of “the people” was specificaly mentioned along with other amendments as an example of refering to the individual.

      • vicki

        A lesson in English grammar for kinetic1 and others.
        Warning this is a long lesson.
        http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051601.shtml

        An amusing side note is that the argument that the 2nd restricts gun possession to those who are IN the militia fails to notice that all the people ARE the militia.

        “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people…To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
        George Mason, during Virginia’s ratification convention (1788).

        • Kinetic1

          vicki,
          Thank you. This is a very interesting and informative article. While the opinions of the noted grammar experts is at odds with the opinions of many noted historical language experts, it does give me more information to consider and that is always welcome.

          For now, I will continue to hold to my belief that both the gun rights and gun control factions read too much into the 2nd amendment, and that we should neither deny americans their right to own guns, nor give them free reign to own any and all firearms without some control over the most extreme.

          • independant thinker

            All the control we need is felons cannot even look at a firearm much less posess one and the instant check (with no records kept) to insure a felon does not purchase a firearm legaly. All other gun control should be good grip and hit your intended target.

      • DaveH

        Give it up, Kinetic. The Liberals abandoned that approach a long time ago because it is so obviously bogus. If they meant that, they would have simply said “The right of the militia members to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

        • DaveH

          Another point I would like to make is the ridiculous idea that any government would need an amendment to protect the right of their military to bear arms.

        • JC

          We don’t need a law to tell us we have the right to bear arms.

          • http://personalliberty.com Jessica

            To Independant Thinker: Felons don’t care about gun laws. All they have to do is go to the nearest meth trailer or crack house, and they can buy an 800 dollar semi-automatic firearm for 100 bucks. And if you catch those zombies when they’re hurting, you can get it for 20 bucks.

          • independant thinker

            Jessica…………I know that that is why I said legally.

    • Steve

      Steve says:
      July 1, 2010 at 7:24 pm
      EVERYONE THINK ABOUT THIS !!!

      Attorney General Eric Holder testified under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that neither he nor the President were going to institute any form of gun control. HE LIED UNDER OATH !!!

      Justice Sotomayor testified under oath, in front of that same Senate Panel, that she believed in the right of individuals to own a firearm.
      She was one of the dissenters in the minority opinion in MacDonald vs Chigago. SHE LIED UNDER OATH !!!

      Elana Kagan is now lying just the same as Obama, Holder and Sotomayor all did. They are all LIARS UNDER OATH and we have the videos to prove it. The Constitution provides for their removal from office in the impeachment clause. Where the hell is the only good lawyer out there who would take this on pro bono.

      Reply

  • bob pa

    kiok I think you do not understand the constitution. It says admendments 9 and 10 all rights not granted the federal gov are reserved to the states or the people. And I take that the people are supreme to all as that is what the declaration of independence says and the constitution.

    • Vicki

      9 says that people have many more rights then are enumerated in the Constitution.

      10 says that all powers that are not reserved for the Fed gov (coining money for instance) and all powers that are not forbidden to the states by the Constitution (2nd fir instance) belong to the States and any powers the people did not give the states belong entirely to the people.

      Governments can NOT HAVE RIGHTS. They can only have powers delegated to them by the people. Note that even if the people should want to give the states and/or the fedgov some powers the Constitution specifically forbids the people from doing so.

  • http://N/A Maddoganirishman

    Somehow I missed the commandment that said; Thou shall carry a gun.
    “The Supreme Court can’t extend a right endowed by the creator”.
    We had two young Tampa cops shot dead by a felon yesterday. They both died with their guns holstered. They don’t do any good if you don’t know how to use them.
    Thanks to Obama guns can now be carried in national parks, the greatest expansion in gun rights in many years. It’s only a matter of time before we hear of park rangers shot dead. The more gun rights are extended the more people die. Keep up the good work righties. When these birds come home to roost they don’t [offensive word removed] they shoot!

    • Jeff

      What are you stupid. Where does a felon get a gun?????? Not a gun shop. They get them on the street. Dah! You must not be thinking clearly. Many guns are shipped from oversea and sold on the streets. The progressives continue to use that same stupid argument. The more guns the more people get shoot. Bunk! Answer this, why did the crime rate from guns go up 900% in D.C. and Chicago after the gun ban was in place and the Nazis took all registered guns? Why did those two cities become know as the murder capitals of the country. Why did the death rate from gun shots go up? Why??? If I am a criminal and know that not one house on the block has a gun, I will break into any house I want. If I know that 50% have guns I am more likely to not break in. Use your brain.

      • DaveH

        And it is notable that Mexico has very strict gun laws. Are they doing any good? I think not.

      • JC

        And why is Florida’s crime rate down 35-40% with stand your ground law and castle law as well as conceal carry law?
        Because the criminals are afraid of the citizens…simple.

    • independant thinker

      You are only half right about the national park law. What Obama signed (actualy he did not sign it but rather signed the credit reform law which had this attached) said that If you have a CCW permit then you can carry in the national parks subject to the law of the surrounding state. It did not grant unrestricted right to carry a firearm in a national park.

    • Vicki

      Maddoganirishman tell me again why a park ranger was safe from a felon before the law changed? Last time I checked criminals don’t obey laws.

      The 2 cops that died was a really unfortunate thing. Who were the killers? Nice law abiding folk? No. They were CRIMINALS. Why, and be precise, would they care about your little law saying they were not supposed to have a gun.

      The death of the 2 officers does however remind the rest of us that guns are NOT MAGIC. But then we know they are a tool not a living thing that will go out and kill. (Those stupid headlines “2 people killed by a gun….”)

    • JeffH

      WOW! I’ve heard it said “ignorance is bliss” and it is true too… Right Maddoganirishman? Law abiding citizens don’t break laws, felons have and criminals do…where do you fit in?

    • 45caliber

      You remind me of a girl in a local college here a few years ago. The professor mentioned something about gun control. She was immediately all for banning all guns. When someone pointed out that if guns were banned, the criminals would be safe and could do as they wanted. She insisted that they would give up their own guns because the law said so. When it was pointed out that criminals get that name because they DON’T obey laws, she insisted they would obey that one. Even the liberals in the classroom thought she was an idiot.

      • independant thinker

        Good one 45, enjoyed it.

    • JC

      First of all, back up your story. Secondly the statistics don’t bear out what you “feel”. Quite the opposite in fact. As an Irishman myself, I’m ashamed of you. Now go lick someone’s boots.

    • http://personalliberty.com Jessica

      The deaths of those two young Tampa policemen have hurt the soul of this state. One of them had four young sons, the oldest only nine years old. The other one had a pregnant wife. Those kids will never know their dads. And they still haven’t caught the perpetrator, a prison parolee who is now suspected in five previous murders. Where did he get his firearm? See my previous post.

  • Jeff

    Kinetic1- If I am in my home with my family and some low life piece of poop breaks in for any reason they better be sure they kill me. I will shoot them til they are dead. No questions asked. I will shoot them at point blank range. It’s MY property and I will protect it. If someone thinks it is ok to break in and steal or hurt anyone in my home they better be prepared to fight for their life. I will only stop beating, shooting until they are dead. If they live they will only do it again to someone else. And that person could be your Grandmother.

    • JC

      And you would be entirely within your rights.
      Thing is, with all these “liberal” laws in place, you’re much better off killing the perpetrator so that only one person is telling the police what happened.
      Another unintended consequence of “liberal” laws.

  • Steve

    AMERICA: AT THE CROSSROADS

    In times such as these, we need only to look at world history. The ancient civilizations of Persia and Greece come to mind. One might consider the history of the British or Roman Empires; Napoleonic France or Spain; also the dynasties of the Chinese and Japanese Emperors, along with the Egyptian Pharos, or the Mayans and Aztecs. All of these republics, empires and dynasties have fallen upon the dust heap of history. Do these once great societies have any meaning in our present day? Oh yes! Big time!

    The study of these civilizations was the basis and foundation for our Constitutional Republic. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and all our founding fathers studied how these civilizations emerged, evolved and eventually failed. Our founders answered these rises and collapses of past civilizations with the Great American Experiment; The Constitution of the United States of America; our map for continuing success.

    Our grand document is based on the creation, evolvement and failure of every civilization in history. It was conceived through the wisdom of all the grand thinkers in world history. (Thinkers and philosophers who knew that their history would be important to some future civilization and they were intelligent enough to write it down or carve it in stone) Our Constitution is a document written to preserve individual liberty and to organize a union of separate states, into a Federal Union; The United States of America.

    Why do we now fail our Constitution? Why don’t we teach more of it in public and private schools? Why do politicians and judges say it’s outdated? The reality is that we are at the crossroads between the success or failure of our Constitutional Republic. This Great Document needs to be honored and cherished dearly.

    Our Congress; the Senate and House of Representatives, is now failing us by passing legislation that they do not read before they vote on it’s passage. Our President is failing our country by signing this unread legislation into law. We might call this a failure of their Oath of Office. Or we might call it a failure of our national identity. Either way, we can not continue to exist as a nation under these failures in government.

    Ancient Rome is a prime example. Senators of the Roman Republic sat in their Coliseum seats, along with the Roman Emperors. They watched as slaves fought gladiators and cheered for blood. They watched as Christians were eaten by lions while the minions screamed for more blood. Those Senators allowed the decline of the Roman Republic by their lack of concern, accession and decadence. Eventually, their appeasements to the Caesars contributed to the decline of the Republic and the Empire. All was lost as hoards of barbarians over-ran a militarily-over-extended, over-taxed, Roman Empire.

    That barbarism was unmatched until the 20th century, when Marxist/Socialist/Communism overtook Russia and Eastern Europe, culminating in the deaths of 50 million human beings. All of them murdered and starved by a mentally ill, psychotic-paranoid, Joseph Stalin; along with his secret police.

    Adolph Hitler murdered 6 million Jews. Joseph Stalin murdered 50 million of his own Soviet people. The German people were compliant with Hitler and the Soviets with Stalin. They followed those leaders to their graves. The Roman Senators were compliant with the Caesars. Rome fell, as all great civilizations did in time. None of those civilizations had a living Constitution: a map for success throughout the ages. Our nation has one and it’s high time our Congress and our President start abiding by it.

    The failure to follow our Founding Fathers’ map has lead America down the wrong road; to the crossroads we find ourselves looking upon. A “fundamental change in America”, we do not need. What we do need, is to return to a “foundation based on our Constitution”. We should command the respect due to us and their Oath of Office, from all our elected officials in city, county, state and federal government. Only that respect to their Constitutional Oaths and to the People, will save this country from the dust heap of history. We, as a free Nation, still have the right to demand that of our elected representatives. This is the duty and the responsibility of every citizen in a Constitutional Republic. Demand it! Vote for it! Pass it on to everyone!!

    If you are an American Patriot, then please, remember this on November 2, 2010. God’s Speed America!

    • 45caliber

      Every time I hear a politician say, “Look to the future!” I look to see what he wants to hide.

      History is supposed to be taught so that everyone will know what happened when something was done in the past so no one will try to do the same thing in the future. In other words, learn from our mistakes.

      I think the only reason the politicians say that phrase is because they know they are repeating something that failed but don’t want you to know it because they are trying to con you.

      • independant thinker

        Kinda like saying “I’m from the government and I am here to help”.

        • Angel-Wanna-Be

          independent thinker, yeah, just like the oaths they take when they go inot office, they don’t mean a stinking thing!!!

          • independant thinker

            Ain’t that the truth.

      • vicki

        Evidence that our politicians are neither smart nor wise. Or they are evil and hiding something.

        A smart person learns from his/her mistakes.
        A wise person learns from other peoples mistakes
        In both cases history must be remembered.

    • Kinetic1

      Steve,
      You used the term “living Constitution”. It seems to me that this would normally cause a commotion among the many individuals who post on this site. Do you intend it to suggest a document that changes with the times, or one that was written as a foundation that can be interpreted to guide the state, even though our present day realities are very different from the founders? Perhaps you have even another meaning?

      • skycruiser

        The constitution CAN be change. There is a process for that written into it. We can add AMENDMENTS. If we, the people decide that something in the constitution is out of date we can change it by amending it. We can even nullify an amendment if we discover we were stupid.

        Unfortunately we have had presidents and legislators – and judges – that have abused the constitution for generations. So much so we’ve been lulled into acceptance. Even now we don’t seem to be doing much more than sitting at our computers and griping.

        I’ve recently become active in the republican party. I’m a disabled senior but if I’m not doing enough, I’ll do more. And I’ll keep doing more until I make a difference.

      • Steve

        Kinetic1

        I meant the term “living Constitution” in the sense that the Founding Fathers created a document that can be amended. It can be adjusted and added to in view of things that they may have overlooked. That when they studied all the failed governments in history it was obvious, to them, that times change; so they created a map that can be altered by amendment or Constitutional Convention.

        They framed it so that it could breathe new life into itself.It wasn’t written in stone like the Ten Commandments. They also made it very tough to change by those two processes. They were brilliant thinkers.

  • Annie Ladysmith

    This is why the biggest assignment the Jackass has been given is to see to it that a communist-Marxist, corrupt judge gets into the Supreme Court, and they are very close. A corrupt judge would have swung it in the opposite direction. They won’t give up, get ready now!

  • airangel

    Petition Congressman Pete Stark of SFO…he’ll give you guns to fight with…he thinks are borders are secure too!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVpMwqv7QM

    • JeffH

      airangel, I just seny off a email letter to that maggot Stark. Here it is:

      Mr. Stark. After watching and listening to the dis-respectful comments you made to the “Minutemen” in the “town hall” meeting I am asking that you voluntarily remove yourself from office and not embarrass yourself, your constituents and the good people of this nation any longer.
      If you think for one minute that your being “cute” with your dis-respectful comments represents the people of California and that of US Congress then you are sadly mistaken.
      Sir, and I use the term very loosely, you are an embarrassment to humankind. You certainly fit the mold of a Democrat and a California politician such as Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein and are not worthy of holding public office.

      Washington Office
      239 Cannon Building
      Washington, D.C. 20515
      (p) 202-225-5065
      (f) 202-226-3805

      Fremont Office
      39300 Civic Center Drive,
      Suite 220
      Fremont, CA 94538
      (p) 510-494-1388
      (f) 510-494-5852

      http://stark.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1524&Itemid=98

      • airangel

        Good Job Jeff – the last guy on the video had it right – YOU NEED TO RETIRE! These career politicians are so out of touch! It makes me sick!…Good for California though..those that showed up to blast him!

        • JeffH

          airangel, there are still plenty of good people left in California and I can only hope there are enough to start turning Sacramento around. I just hope it’s not wishfull thinking.

    • vicki

      Mr Stark certainly is an embarrassment to the office. Hopefully he will be retired by the voters soon.

  • ONTIME

    Here’s my take.

    The count was 5 to 4 in favor of the 2nd amendment which states with clarity the right to own firearms and allow the citizenry to have a militia on call as well as defend itself and property from criminals and the threat of tyranny from a intrusive overbearing government.

    Now I don’t see that as being to tough to understand or support but the four that voted against must be unclear on the concept of freedom and it would behoove them and us to look for new jobs…..

  • Steve

    You people are in the wrong time zone !!!! My posting was in the early afternoon 1:30 or so on 6/30/10,. What’s up with that ?

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Steve,

      We’ve been trying to reverse time here at PLD in order to take us back to the early part of the 19th Century and somehow we messed up the space-time continuum. Our apologies.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • JC

        Good Luck in your continued efforts Bob. I missed my calling by at least 120 years so can I go with you please? ;)

        • libertytrain

          I’m going as well —–

      • Steve

        Dear Bob Livingston,

        I hear you and thank you Sir for all the great work you do enlightening the people of this Nation. God Bless you and Keep you on this path you choose. No matter what time zone we are in.

        God’s Speed Bob

      • http://personalliberty.com Jessica

        Snap! Doesn’t anybody understand the time-zone differences? I am posting this at 2:48 AM, Florida time.

        • libertytrain

          Yep – everyone understands that the time zone of this blog is what determines the time zone one will see posted – even if it’s different than our own particular time zone – however, I’m still going with the others back a century or two.

  • 45caliber

    I’ll bet Daley messed his pants when the SCOTUS made this decision.

    • DaveH

      He’ll try to find some way around it.

  • Da Norseman

    A big blow for gun control advocates who shot themselves in the foot (pun intended) in an attempt to disarm law-abiding citizens. The judicial branch has finally spoken up to fall in favor of what is written in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, stating that the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” applies to all Americans and not just to law enforcement, our military or any other agency that are required to carry weapons. This is America! “The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!!!” Not some oppressed socialist or Marxist country led by a tyrant that the nut job Progressive Democrats or RINO Republicans are trying to steer our nation toward.

    A good example of enforced gun control laws can be found in Australia where the Canberra government voted in favor of strict gun control measures to include disarming all law abiding Aussies. Once that law passed and was put into enforcement, armed robberies and assaults soared to an alarming rate. Armed thugs could literally break into a home with its occupants present in broad daylight, knowing that their victims are unarmed. The Canberra government was stunned to the point of disbelief, not understanding why this type of crime all of a sudden escalated. One may not understand that criminals do not just walk into a gun store to buy guns. No! They get weaponry of all kinds from an outside source by having them smuggled into the country, and Australia has no physical land boundary with another nation as the United States has.

    Gun control lobbyists in Washington are only following recommendations from all that global garbage such as the United Nations, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and other international institutions in favor of globalization. American support for gun control is probably around thirty percent and getting smaller. Without gun control in place, how can these international tyrants take over the United States?

    • 45caliber

      A “hot” burglary is one where the burglar enters a house KNOWING that the owners are at home.

      In the US about 10% of all burglaries are hot.

      In England, where they banned guns, about 90% of all burglaries are hot.

      The reason? They want to force the owners to give up their money and they know the owners can’t fight back.

      • Da Norseman

        You must be really doing a lot of studying. That’s why it’s great to have someone like you who goes in depth on these issues. Keep it up!!!

  • 45caliber

    When people tell me that it is wrong for me to have a gun and to defend myself at home, they are in fact telling me that the criminal’s life is more important than my own life.

    When I work I am selling part of my life to get enough money to buy something I want or need. When someone breaks in and steals that item, I have been robbed of the part of my life I sold.

    I work, pay taxes whether I like it or not, obey the laws, go to church, and in general try to get along with everyone. The criminal, on the other hand, intends to take so that he won’t have to do any of these things – and thinks he is superior for doing it.

    If someone is doing NOTHING to help our life or our country and is doing something that will harm others, then his life is worth less than that of someone who does try to help.

    So if I kill that lowlife, then I am actually helping our country.

    And don’t say that lowlife might change. The chances are very slim in the first place, if he changes while in the pen for life it is meaningless, and even if he is released, his chance of actually doing more good than that he destroyed is even lower. To help society, our country, and me, he is much better off dead.

    And if he breaks into my house I intend to make him that way.

  • Joseph

    Have have read some (not all) of these posts and kind of do understand both sides.

    That being said…
    If someone breaks into your home, they have already demonstrated that they are ready, willing, and able to break the law. Breaking and entering, trespassing, intent to steal come to mind. A homeowner has literally seconds to determine if the person holding their possessions is dangerous. Frankly, with my family’s well-being at stake, the thief forfeited any rights the second they broke in. That they have a “right to sue for damages” if they get injured” is beyond ridiculous! Why should they be able to steal using the legal system if they were thwarted at the site of the crime?

    I think the homeowner has every right to protect his property and family, using whatever force is necessary. And he should not be held responsible if someone else determines that they used excessive force. They are doing what they need to do to the best of their ability. I doubt if anyone here seriously (all kidding aside here), would willingly and unnecessarily take a life.

    But a person makes a choice when they trespass with intent to break the law. The onus is on THEM not ME to ensure their safety. The surest way they can do that is LEAVE–or frankly, not enter in the first place.

    • 45caliber

      You are correct. I doubt if anyone here would willingly and unnecessarily take a life also. I wouldn’t. But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t shoot to kill if one broke into my house.

      I would do exactly as I taught my wife: Shoot at his widest point until the gun is empty – no matter what he does – reload, and then check to see if there is any further danger.

    • independant thinker

      ” That they have a “right to sue for damages” if they get injured” is beyond ridiculous! Why should they be able to steal using the legal system if they were thwarted at the site of the crime?”

      Fortunately a few states have passed laws preventing criminals or their families from suing for damages when injured or killed in the commission of a crime

    • DaveH

      Better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.

      • JC

        Liberty or Death.

  • Marilyn

    Here is another something for the Supreme Court. I hope the Republicans take it to them:
    WEDNESDAY UPDATE:

    Pres. Obama reignited the Amnesty debate this week after two White House meetings that will be followed up with a Pro-Amnesty speech at American University tomorrow.

    On Monday, Obama met with his pro-Amnesty Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis, and pro-Amnesty lobbyists Ali Noorani (National Immigration Forum), Richard Trumka (AFL-CIO), Janet Murguia (La Raza), Eliseo Medina (SEIU), Juan Rodriguez (Florida Trail of Dreams), and Karen Narasaki (American Justice Center). On Tuesday, the President met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Obama obviously met with nobody from our side of the issue!

    Pres. Obama’s speech tomorrow will call for an Amnesty for the nation’s 11-18 million illegal aliens. The new White House strategy is to place blame on Republicans who are demanding increased border security before considering an Amnesty.

    IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN AMNESTY FOR ALL ILLEGALS, START PHONING OBAMA AND ANYONE YOU CAN THINK OF ON CAPITOL HILL. It’s time the jackasses started listenig to the American Citizens.

    • airangel

      I actually heard he was going to try and go behind Congress with this one and pass it…UNFLIPPIN BELEIVABLE!

    • DaveH

      The guy is just plain oblivious. I have never known a President to step on so many toes.

  • Donald

    Just the other day two police officers were killed while pulling a guy over for a traffic violation. The Officers were experienced and armed. So was the driver. Moral: Carrying a gun doesn’t always insure protection, even if you know how to use it.

    • JC

      I still like the odds better than being unarmed and having no chance whatever.

    • independant thinker

      Either the second officer forgot his training or the department needs to do a much better job of training their officers. The second officer should not have been right beside the one who had made the stop he should have been several feet away. I live in a small Arkansas town (4,500 pop.) and our officers are better trained than that. They patrol alone and when one makes a stop another responds and stays in or by his vehicle he does not stand by the first officer.

  • JC

    I hope Richard Daley choked on his donut!
    The vote should have been 9-0.
    Still it’s better than going the other way.

  • Willie

    when guns are outlawed in this country, I have news for the idiots in Washington and else where that think all the guns will be turned in or face stiff fines, etc…. Here in Texas, many of my friends have a cache of guns that will be used by a militia to pick off those, at long distance, who think they can get away with thievery, murder, rape and other horrible crimes. When they find out who the perp(s)is/are or if the courts turn them loose, they will be taken out immediately. I think we will see a blood bath anyway as the liberals who hate guns probably will have as many guns as those who claim to be gun owners. You can never really know who has a gun on their person or in their homes regardless of what they claim. Only an idiot enters someone’s home thinking they will get away with perping a crime and the owner doesn’t have a gun. Guess again freak!

    I personally don’t have a gun. I have a 33 inch razor sharp sword and I know how to use it along with a bevy of other knives used for close combat.

    • JC

      Gun control always has the opposite effect of what the “do-gooders” intend. I also have rifles that hit consistently at 1000 yards.

      • independant thinker

        Wish I could afford one that shot that far accurately. Actualy I wish I could afford a Barrett 50 with the proper optics and a couple a thousand rounds of ammo.

        • JC

          If it comes right down to it…a 30-30 with a scope works well enough.

          • independant thinker

            Never heard of a 30-30 that was a 1,000 yard gun but a 30-06 could be. Since I cannot afford better I will stick to my surplus Mausers, for longer shots and my SKS for closer rifle work and of course a pistol if it gets up close and personal.

          • JC

            Oh no, I wasn’t thinking of a 30-30 in terms of distance, just as a quick shooting 30 cal.
            For distance I’m using a Remington 700 series / .300 Ultra Mag with a Zeiss 1000 scope parked on top. Works pretty good.
            I’ve got some old 5 groove / long barreled .303′s with sliding peep sites that work pretty good (depending on your vision) for distance too.

          • independant thinker

            Miss understood what you meant. I agree the 30-30 would make a good quick shooter good for closer rifle work.

    • 45caliber

      About twenty years ago, New Jersey passed a law banning all semi-automatics. My boss at that time was originally from NJ but had been gone about 15 years. He got a letter informing him that a .22 rifle he had bought was illegal and he must either turn it in or show proof that he had gotten rid of it.

      They estimated that there were over 300,000 semi autos in NJ. A total of just over 500 were turned in. The next election had the biggest turnover of legislators in the entire history of the US. They repealed the law. The governor, who was not up for reelection, vetoed it and the legislature immediately overturned his veto. He was gone the next election.

  • http://causapatet.blogspot.com/ C. Cope

    Excuse me … the Supreme did no such thing. They left out “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

    Sure, they said we have that right … BUT…

    The Bill of Rights do NOT give us any rights, they codify Rights that PRE-EXISTED before the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights are nothing more than a reminder to the government that these rights are inviolable.

    Hamilton was right about one thing though … do try to wrap this around your minds:

    Federalist Paper No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, states:

    “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

    They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

    For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

    Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

    I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

    They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”

    Was Hamilton right, or not?

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44696

    Your government has used the Bill of Rights as a colorable pretext to put a boot on your faces.

    • Steve

      C. Cope

      Hamilton was right on the money.

      I live in New Jersey which has a one-gun-a-month infringement against the second amendment; among other laws passed by idiot politicians.

      But just think of clamor we would hear from print media if New Jersey passed a one-editorial-per-month law against the free press.

      • independant thinker

        If the voters can propose amendments to your state constitution perhaps a group could create an amendment to be voted on stating that about the editorials. If nothing else it could start discussions and a carefully worded opinion used in argument for the amendment could show the dangers of un limited editorials then be turned around to show the absuderity of the one-gun-a-month law.

  • animal

    i think that there will come the day that noone will care about getting caught “with” a gun but be worried about getting caught “without” one

    • 45caliber

      Unfortunately, I think you are right.

  • cerebus23

    Long live guns, because places where they are banned crime goes through the roof for one. Point of fact for the gun control freaks criminals do not give two spits about the laws, they will get guns if it is legal or illegal.

    Drug cartels and other crime groups that run drugs into the country would just have a new black market to exploit if guns were ever outlawed here or anywhere, tax free profit will insure anything outlawed is a sure fire bet for lots of money.

    The only people that get hurt when you ban guns is the law abiding citizen. Criminals will have guns you will not period. In this world someone breaks into your home with a gun and you do not have one your life is most likely over period. Or your wife and daughters are raped, your possessions are stolen or anything a criminals mind can dream up if you have no way to possibly defend yourself.

    I heard people from england say they want the right to own firearms back, since all these things do occur, they want the right to defend themselves from thugs and punk that get firearms illegally while they have no recourse or hope for defense.

    Bottom line they gave all of us the right to bear arms to take the country back if we ever get a government like the one we have had say for the last 40 years or more period. Discouraging criminals and defending your life and property from random idiots that would seek to do you or your family or you property harm is just a fringe benefit.

    Far as some of these “horror” stories about kids getting ski masks and thinking it would be fun to rob someones house and getting shot, well tough. Darwinism at work, if kids want to play at being bad guys they are taking their chances and being stupid in the process. Maybe their parents should have payed more attention to them given them more of an allowence or taught them better morals and honor, to think that robbing a neighbors house in ski masks would be fun. Their parents have no legal leg to stand on at all, you get people in ski masks you do not know how old they are or who they are and there is only one intent you can have going to someones house in a ski mask.

    For every mishap you can probably find 100 stories where a gun has saved someone life, or the life of their family. Moreover ending the right to own guns only two people win the government and criminals.

    • JC

      Let’s not forget another aspect…NATO Troops on American soil.
      They can be here legally now. Why?
      Interpol granted diplomatic immunity, meaning they can abscond with an American citizen out of this country with out ever having to account for that person.

      Two more very good reasons to stay armed and ready.

  • john

    If you brake into my home too steal, you have a choice, 1) live and go to jail.2) die and go to the grave. If you brake in to murder, you have no choice you die…..PERIOD!!!

    • independant thinker

      Just remember when questioned you were in fear for your life and/or the life of your loved ones and shot to protect.

  • B.Sierra

    To those who don’t get it, you’ll never get it. To those who get it, stand up always to protect it.

    Did anyone actually read the SCOTUS opinion on this remand? It is so long it took me a few days. What was so interesting were the dissents by the ideological justices.

    Note that Sotomayor did the opposite of what she said she would do during the confirmation hearings. Elena Kagan will be 100 times worse.

    This, and only this is why you absolutely cannot elect (be he or she republican or democrat), a progressive liberal as president.

    The U.S. Constitution dangles on a 5 to 4 majority in this country. Sotomayor and Kagan will be there for 40 more years. Don’t forget that on your way to the polls November 2nd.

  • JC

    LAWN SIGN

    <——————————
    My Neighbor is AGAINST GUNS
    Out of respect for his opinion
    I will not use MY GUNS to protect
    him or his property.
    <——————————-

    • Denniso

      Way more innocent people ,including kids, are killed by guns compared to those who are saved by guns in self defense.

      • independant thinker

        LIER

  • http://personalliberty.com Jessica

    The other day I visited a more informal site where you’re allowed to use profanity, and the posters are encouraged to insult each other in the most imaginative ways that they can come up with. And I ran across this one: “Like you all don’t have enuff guns & ammo salted away after U got scared when Obama got elected. Puleeze!” I thought that was lol hilarious.

  • RickM

    Break into my home at night and I will leave you as full of holes from a 357 Magnum as a piece of Swiss cheese and I will do so with God’s blessing.Amen!

  • http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3479601944742&set=p.3479601944742&type=1&relevant_count=1 夜櫻四重奏

    Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point.
    You clearly know what youre talking about, why throw away your intelligence on just posting videos to your site when you could be giving us
    something enlightening to read?

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.