Supreme Court Rules on Right to Own a Handgun

by Kerri-Lee on June 26, 2008 · 7 comments

CLICK HERE TO WATCH KLTV on the 10PM NEWS!!!!!!!!!!! 

We had FOX’s Greta Van Susteren talk about this on KLTV tonight.  I know you have an opinion, share it!  Is this a bad thing for a city plagued by gun violence, or a good thing, so people can protect themselves in their own homes?

BLOG HERE and on: www.gretawire.com

Supreme Court Gun Control Ruling Could Be Landmark Case

Supreme Court Gun Control Ruling Could Backfire

High Court Ruling to Spur Flurry of Legal Challenges

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

1

Kevin T. 06.26.08 at 9:35 pm

I think it is very important for people to be able to protect themselves, and the Supreme Court’s decision fully shows that guns are only for private use and to protect the country. I don’t believe that people who have guns without valid permits will trade in their guns for food and store vouchers.

2

Jon Pastor 06.26.08 at 9:41 pm

Read the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Only an idiot — and yes, I am calling the Supreme Court justices who voted to invalidate the DC law “idiots” — for whom English is not a first language can possibly read this as saying anything other than “Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Looking at this in terms of logic, the premise is “a well regulated Militia (meaning, at the time, a citizen army bearing their own arms) is necessary to the security of a free State,” and the truth of the conclusion is entirely dependent on the truth of the premise.

The premise is FALSE under modern conditions, where there are well-regulated government-sanctioned forces guaranteeing the security of our free State.

In order to believe that citizens have the right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment, it is necessary for one to believe that the existing well-regulated government-sanctioned forces are either inadequate or illegal. I hope that no NRA member believes either of these to be true, and thus they have no basis for believing that they have a right to own weapons. Period.

3

crazy 06.26.08 at 9:45 pm

I’m glad I have the right to own a gun…I don’t, but I should have the right.

4

Tom 06.26.08 at 9:47 pm

I applaud the decision today. Remember, it’s a right and a RESPONSIBILITY !!! I also support closing the “loopholes” at gunshows. The registered dealers at these shows are required to do background checks. These dealers get a black eye from unlicensed dealers. If you want to sell guns, do it right. I also want to see more prosecution of those who violate gun laws and commit crimes with guns. I applaud the crackdown on “straw” purchasing in PA. Gun “buybacks” or “Guns for Goods” programs are well intentioned, but they allow guns that may have been used to commit crimes fall through the cracks. These guns should all have ballistic testing done when they are turned in at these programs.

5

Kerri-Lee 06.26.08 at 10:03 pm

Great comments everyone, thanks for giving me your take… keep them coming, I’ve got to think there are opinions out there about this…

6

Tom 06.26.08 at 10:06 pm

John Pastor, read the Second Amendment in it’s entirety. Those well regulated “government sanctioned” forces you speak of are controlled by the government. The Second Amendment was put there to help the people should the government become tyrant controlled and those “government sanctioned” forces are used against “We,the People”. I think you need to brush up on your U.S. history. NRA members do not fear these forces. We just enjoy the shooting sports. Shooting sports that are amongst the oldest of the Olympic Games, by the way. You don’t fear the weapon, you fear the criminal who is holding the weapon. Your statement reeks of ignorance and intolerance. The First Amendment lets you say it. The Second Amendment was written to protect your rights. There is no way the Founding Fathers could have forseen today’s society,but they came pretty darn close.

7

Ed 06.30.08 at 9:09 am

Anyone who thinks that more gun laws will stop gun related crime need only look D.C. They have (HAD) a handgun ban for 30 years, but is the murder capital of the world. Oh, look at drugs, too! There is NO state that allows the use, sale or distribution of marijuana (a few medical exceptions) or cocaine, yet you can get them easier than guns. All the laws and “drug czars” and DEA have put a dent in things, but they are everywhere. More gun laws are “feel good” laws, to show the law-makers are “doing something”, but in reality they are only making it harder for the law-abiding citizen.

Face it, the only way to stop gun crime is to get rid on EVERY GUN made. Good luck on that…. If we get rid of the guns in America, the drug runners will add guns to their list…

We’ve become a country of sissies, thinking that the criminals will abide by the laws, and that we can sit back and let the judicial system protect us. Get real! I’m not saying for everyone to pack a gun, but we don’t have a police officer parked in our driveway 24/7.

Yes, I own a gun. Yes, I am a hunter. Yes, I WILL teach my children how to defend themselves, with deadly force in necessary. Government can only do so much, but don’t forget, WE are the government. You know… “of the people, by the people, for the people”…. Be part of the “of the people, by the people” and less “for the people”!

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>