une 26th, 2008 12:08 pm ET

"Obama endorsed IL handgun ban. But now he says he is for the right to bear arms".

We will see plenty of changing words and principles as his motto… "change" in everything …….

This was the correct decision on gun control. ALL of our laws need to be in line with the Constitution and the law makers need to realize that!

Read the Constitution, read the Bill of Rights, read the Declaration of Independence. In order to preserve our rights we need the right to bear arms. Our forefathers believed very strongly that in order to protect us from a repressive government the public has the right to protect itself. Why deny a person the ability to defend themselves and their family. Outlawing guns will only deny them to the citizen who obeys the law. Criminals will just break the law and have weapons. Ask Stalin, Hitler and Mao if guns should be illegal, They will agree with you completly that they should be.

June 26th, 2008 10:42 am ET

"Obama is a Constitutional Law Scholar, I'd love to hear his views."

I am sure his views will be what will make him elected…………no principle like we are noticing him changing his words.

Thank Goodness this is finally put to rest! The criminals already had guns and commited crimes, with the gun bans in place. Check the stats! What is an unarmed populous? Answer: Victims.
read your constitution people, it's written in plain english

WATCH OUT FOR OBAMA. He wants to give the death penalty to pedophiles, but he doesn't want gang murderers given the same penalty. What is wrong with him?

I would think a gang murder would be a horrible way to die. I think Obama thinks he is smarter than the Supreme Court members and most of America. I think he is an empty suit.

If for some miracle Obama gets to the White House, he will take our guns away from us and take our money and give it to the welfare queens.

"Oh yes, lament the THOUSANDS of children killed every year by an accidental shooting when they found their parents' weapon. " You mean the tens, not the thousands.

In fact, a child is many, many, many times more likely to die in the family swimming pool than by an accidental shooting. And while each and ever loss is indeed a great tragedy (one I cannot possibly imagine), let us not blow these numbers out of proportion for political reasons.

Given the hysteria on this issue, if our concerns were rightly placed, we'd be talking about Brady Bills for the back yard swimming pool. Pick up a copy of "Freakonomics" for more details.

ET from OMAHA June 26th, 2008 2:04 pm ET

"Go ask why the streets are safer in china or north corea"
____________________________________

Show me some documentation of that, please………besides the official communist gov't propaganda.

It is unfortunate that there is no guarantee that those who support and enable guns in the hands of just about anyone who can lift one are not the same idiots who will get killed by those same weapons–either themselves or those they love.

Instead, it will be MY family or even MYSELF!

What a day to celebrate….Finally! Everything will be a little easier: School shootings, gang crimes, murders….You don't have enough of them yet….

I don't think the court went far enough. Ill. and Wi. are the only two states left that don't allow cocealed carry, other than for retired police officers. Every state that has concealed carry, the crime rate drops tremendously!

I believe that Andy J, NY said the following in his 10:36 am post:

"if people are allowed to own hand guns, law abiding citizen will use them appropriately."

Can anyone explain to me what "using them appropriately" means? It means that they are being used TO SHOOT PEOPLE OR THINGS!!!

If the government in DC decided that it was a good law to ban firearms in their area, why would the Supreme Court feel as though it is their obligation to tell them that they cannot enforce the law that was put into place to protect citizens… Whether the law was actually working is another issue, but for the Supreme Court to step in and supercede the law enforcement community who is on the groudn everyday trying to make their city safer, I think that's wrong…

Finally, law abiding citizens will be able to keep the criminals in DC who are always able to get a gun reguardless of the law at bay. For thirty two years beside the police the only people who had guns in DC were the criminals, you will find that over 60% of the Police Officers in DC do not live in DC and if asked, most of whom would refuse to live in DC if they weren't armed. I wonder why? The Supreme Court got it right.

True, it's what the Constitution says.
Can we update the Constitution to also, finally include respect for LIFE???
Sure your kid can be trained to properly use a handgun. But unless you also teach him to respect LIFE he's gonna be the shooter at the next Columbine-style school shooting. Do you really want that?

I heard someone say that if McCain won they were moving to Canada.
But if Obama wins where can one go?

I expect to see an increase in school shootings in DC in the upcoming years…

I live in Colorado and I still remember what free arms for everybody means: Columbine!
They got it legally, were trained to use them, and the students stood no chance even if the teachers would have had guns. Apparently the one thing their parents forgot to train them in the use of weapons is the RESPECT FOR LIFE!

I respect the Supreme Court and the Constitution. But I'm sure our forefathers didn't have these school shootings in mind.
I'm all for self-defence IF somebody is properly and RESPONSIBLY trained. Otherwise let security guards and the cops handle it!

KIKI June 26th, 2008 10:43 am ET

I just don't get this.
How do you expect violence to be reduced allowing people to have had guns at their home.
Some people will argue for self defence but tell me how many gun self defense cases do we have in this country per year compare to hand gun crimes or succide?
That is silly.

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

I will look up the facts on that. While I do you can tell us how no handguns mean no succide? There are ways of killing yourself besides guns. Going by what you say we need to get ready of cars b/c you can kill your with that…..get ready of rope b/c you can kill your with that…..and so on. Also tell me how you in the "real world" paln to keep the crooks from getting guns????

PUMA PAC people I hope that you are happy with your choise in this election. Hillary will not be voting with you this time. You all look so stupid in the eyes of all the world that I miss you guys on here sometimes. Your leader was on tv and he sounded about as stupid as you all do. Vote Mcsame what a shame. Give up and stop kicking against that stone and come on back home people. Help save our kids from McWAR. He loves the sound of body counts on the news every day. Don't be like him. Stand up to him. It's time to move on and put our house back in order. We must ALL stand behind Obama and change what is going on in Washington.
Obama08

ET from OMAHA June 26th, 2008 2:04 pm ET

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Why allowing people to have guns at their homes or publicly carry hand guns and at the same time have a police in a city? what is the role of the police then? So are we allowing people to render their own justice?
Hand Guns possession by civilians should be ban and restricted all around USA period. Any civilian with a gun other than a hunting gun should be purely arrested, fined or detained.
Go ask why the streets are safer in china or north corea.

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Who is saying people are going to act like the police?
If you want a place where handguns are outlawed you move to China and see if you like it. I will stay here where we have the laws to protect gun ownership.

So if everyone has guns, and just one person draws it in a crowded mall… okay, so the first person to shoot him becomes the hero…
But what if, in that crowd, several other people didn't see the first gunman. They only saw the 'hero?' And, as a consequence, they immediately judge him to be a madman and shoot him. (hopefully on target, instead of randomly injuring bystanders)
Is this the kind of self-defence you really crave?

Marilyn June 26th, 2008 2:12 pm ET

Why not just arm everybody and have shootouts in the streets? I really wish I could afford to just leave this country and go live somewhere peaceful for the rest of my life!

SO WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FANTASY LAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine the following event, made more likely when everyone has handguns. You see a random person on the street draw their handgun, so you act as the immediate judge, jury and executioner (which, by the way violates due process, also in the Constitution) and fire… becoming a hero?

…Unfortunately for you a third person doesn't notice the bad guy. He only noticed YOU firing that gun. So he takes out his gun and shoots you, believing he just stopped a madman.

Are you willing to sacrifice your own life for such cases. (which I'm sure you'll dub 'unlikely')
I believe only properly and professionally trained people should have guns. And they're already called security guards and the cops!

ET from OMAHA:

The streets may be safer in China and North Korea–but if gutless communists ever try to take over in America and deprive us of our civil rights–they'll be shot!!!

The Chinese and North Koreans do not have civil rights–nor guns.

ET from OMAHA June 26th, 2008 2:04 pm ET

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Why allowing people to have guns at their homes or publicly carry hand guns and at the same time have a police in a city? what is the role of the police then? So are we
Hand Guns possession by civilians should be ban and restricted all around USA period. Any civilian with a gun other than a hunting gun should be purely arrested, fined or detained.
Go ask why the streets are safer in china or north corea.

No it is not allowing people to render their own justice. You are only allowed to shoot someone if they are a immediate threat to you , someone present or them selfs. I live about 45 mins from philly and have had to call 911 for help before and it took them almost 2 hoers to find my house. As far as handgun ban i am sorry that you don't like our constitution.

Marilyn:

Don't let the door hit you in the butt when you leave.

The rest of us are trying to exercise our rights and privileges in this historical democracy called America.

I wouldn't have problem with people using guns if they were trained properly, professionally, and responsibly. But they aren't. I'm tired of hearing about school-shootings where the kid got a hold of his father's handgun, who showed him how to work the safety, but apparently missed educating him about the value of human life.

Until then I'd rather just have security guards do their jobs.

Excellent! Now will all you "it's only a collective right to form a militia" idiots please just go away! That was as imbecilic a sophistry as I've ever heard…

"Obama's desire to ban all guns" This is rash, unfounded statement - care to cite any sources on this other than BillOReilly.com?

Why not just arm everybody and have shootouts in the streets? I really wish I could afford to just leave this country and go live somewhere peaceful for the rest of my life!

I'm really torn on this issue. I think that you should be able to protect you and yours. On the other hand, you see and hear of on the news where innocent children and adults have been killed with handguns.

The rest of the world is always startled by this American anachronism : bearing guns for "self-defense." No wonder we have Columbine, Virginia Tech and many other disasters. The more guns, the more violence.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Why allowing people to have guns at their homes or publicly carry hand guns and at the same time have a police in a city? what is the role of the police then? So are we allowing people to render their own justice?
Hand Guns possession by civilians should be ban and restricted all around USA period. Any civilian with a gun other than a hunting gun should be purely arrested, fined or detained.
Go ask why the streets are safer in china or north corea.

Guns—never leave home without them!

I keep harping that if the Supreme Court Justices and republicans are so pro handgun then they should have their offices moved to a separate building that has no metal detectors at the door and where handguns are permitted. If the Supreme Court Justices and republicans love their handguns so much then they should face the same dangers the rest of us do. People are murdered in their offices and Universities by handguns quite often. The conservative Supreme Court Justices and Republicans are all for putting guns in the hands of every yak hoo that wants one, but they lead very protected lives. Let them do without their security like the rest of us and see if they still sing the same tune.

About time the court says gun ownership is an individual's right, not just a collective right.

That is how the bill of Rights always read.

I wish they would ban hand guns. Why does anyone need a gun now a days? They do more harm than good, and this isn't the 18th century anymore. Ridiculous!

The United States has more guns than any other country in the world!

The United States has more gun murders than any other country in the world!

What a great country!

Gun owners - we get it, you love guns. Now how about standing up for the First Amendment and allowing uncensored programming on TV? Freedom Speech is much more important and much, more more under attack than any gun right that allows a militia to be formed. How about standing up for the Fifth Amendment, which is Habius Corpus? Why are you all so keen to defend a portion of the Constitution but not all of it, especially since many of you consider yourselves to be defenders of the Constitution and our rights?

Wait until there is a vigilante incident in the Dixie South, and you might see the current gun laws re-evaluated again.

Obama is on record wanting to ban handguns. Look it up.

Furthermore, the only thing the second amendment offers is actually the right to a militia. So, if I wanted to start an army and wage war on the United States or any other country I see as a threat, I could.

Of course the majority of people in favor of guns can't read anyway, so they wouldn't know what the Second Amendment actually says.

Another ruling to go ahead and show to the world that we're an archaic society with no real chance of every being a super power again due to our "that's the way it's always been" mentality. Statistics in every developed country have shown a decrease in criminal activities once guns became much, much tougher to obtain. I love how the "Christians" of the nation cling to the ideas of destructive self protection and an eye-for-an-eye mentality on the death penalty when Jesus himself argued against such ludicrous ideals. The United States of hypocrisy is a joke. I think the only good outcome of such a decision would be for one of the five justices, George Bush, Dick Cheney, or any other NRA neocon nut job to know what it's like to have someone close to them injured or killed because of a gun crime.

Now I guess its time to legislate responsible use and safeguarding of handguns. Like 2 years jail time, mandatory minimum for loss, of a registered firearm, accidental or otherwise. Maybe another 2 years for inadequate storage and protection of firearms. Maybe a $1000 per year per gun tax in order to enforce responsible ownership. Like maybe 10 years jail time for "accidental" death caused by a firearm. Yes you have a righr to protect yourself with gun ownership, but the rest of society has the right to protect themselves against gun owners. With freedom comes responsibility!

Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it!!!

1. It terrifies me how little so many posters here know about their own rights and their country.
2. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely, positively nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with preventing tyranny with violence.
3. How many people who say "call the cops when you have a problem" have ever been jumped, mugged, shot, raped? Did you have time to call them while you were being attacked, or did they just come and take a report?
4. "Civilians don't need them"? The Founding Fathers warned against having a standing army (what we have now). Civilians need them MORE than the military.

The DC district government should overrule the Supreme Court. Let the idiots in that area shoot everyone down and we can start over with a new Capitol.

It is Police job to protect innocent citizens.

KEEP THIS GARBAGE OUT OF CANADA

Is it a coincidence that the people who are protesting against a band aren't the gang bangers but white people. Our capital is one of the most violent cities in America if you are black and poor because of illegal handguns. Children are dying on their way to school. More children die on the streets of Chicago than soldiers die in Iraq. Yet who cares, right? Let's be real, it doesn't really matter unless it's a crisis with white kids. I mean meth hits the suburbs and rural white communities and there's a national campaign, cough syrup is pulled from shelves, shopping limitations are put on sinus medication. Perhaps, these 2nd Amendment protesters aren't so dumb. Perhaps they truly do understand they are protesting for the genocide of black people. Keeps them the majority and black people a dwindling minority.

proud army and navy mom June 26th, 2008 11:00 am ET

we are slowly going from a civilized society to uncivilized. what goes around comes around though.

the same people that wants more guns on the street, should not be surprised if they become a victim of a violent crime. the chances of that happening increases with more guns in people's hand.

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

With or without this ruling guns are on the street. They are the crooks. How is gun rights being upheld going to an uncivilized world? Give me a break. Only having crooks with the guns and outlawing the right of lawful people to carry/have guns would be going to a incivilzed world.

Go ruling for america's right to own guns.

God help us!!

LOL…DC is now cocked and ready to be a wild, wild west!!!
Man you have 5 Justices that are just idiots!!! Those five should be impeached from the bench!!!

Cue the idiots from both sides who try to make an extremely difficult subject simple.

In my life I have seen both sides of this issue. On the one hand I know a guy who was the victim of a home invasion. They asked if they could barrow his phone, did so, went away, but then came back. This time with weapons and tried to kill him. He owned a handgun, and when they came back he protected himself. He killed one and wounded the other and was wounded himself. But he would have been killed if he didn’t own a gun. To tell this guy now that he can no longer keep a gun in his house is a little ludicrous.

On the other hand I know a guy who suffered from depression. He had a long running history of failing to take his medication. The man was a mature happy human being. He was an Episcopal Priest. One day, while his wife was out-of-town, and not there to keep an eye on his medication, he became very depressed. So he simply went down to the local K-Mart and bought a gun. No background check, no waiting period, no questions asked; walked out of the store with it the same night. Went about 5 miles out in the country and blew his own brains out. What a stupid waist! And so easily avoidable with just a few basic minimally intrusive laws.

This give this extremely difficult issue the respect it deserves please!

Criminals will have guns no matter what the law says. Thats why they are criminals! Having a handgun ban will do nothing to stop "criminal" activity.
I don't believe that having a handgun ban (or any weapons ban for that matter) really does anything to reduce crime. It just prevents law abiding citizens from having handguns. Just like a lock on a door only keeps out honest people.
A weapons ban is a band-aid for deeper social/ economic issues that should be addressed instead. Don't punish the gun owner, punish the gun abuser. Seems like we are way to lenient with those that perpetrate crime than we are with those that don't. Why aren't we making punishment for gun related crimes more harsh?

Final thought:

What about all the car related deaths that occur in our country? If we are just looking at statistics, cars would have been outlawed a long time ago. It doesn't say anything about owning a car in the constitution does it? But it does talk about the right to bear arms…

we should just do whatever president obama tells us we should do.

The Court spoke of the "ancient right to keep and bear arms", especially for self-defense in the home, and the trend in modern jurisprudence toward an "individual" rather than "militia" view of the Second Amendment. The dissenters are not persuasive in their attempt to single out DC for its uniquely prohibitive treatment of that ancient right. What Senior Lecturer in Con Law Obama says on any particular day is hardly important now that the Court has spoken, albeit by a slim 5-4 majority. He has never really practiced law, only politics.

There they go clinging to their guns again.

The second Amendment was created at a time when there was no plimbing, electricity, autos, telephones, computers, and lots of hostile animals, native americans fighting for their lands, little local law enforcement, or militia. A GUN was as neccessary as clothing. THINGS HAVE CHANGED. If people kill people and guns do not…………lets take the gun part of the mix for …say….5 years and see how many people kill people. The results will be interesting. I own a gun……….but would happily give it up if we could stop the street and domestic violence by even 15%. Hunting rights and recreational use should not be part of the mix.

in switzerland,everyone gets an m-16.noone commits violent crimes ,there.

Good! As a Dem and avid Obama supporter, I can still say that the second amendment is far more important then people realize. Criminals get guns regardless. Look at the D.C. crime rate, this ban did NOTHING.

Check out Mexico where guns are banned. Crime there is outta control because criminals know they have guns but law abiding citizens don't…

The second amendment is there for a reason folks…limiting it to just rifles is nowhere to be found. So, while liberals like myself want to stand up for the constitution on issues like civil rights and wire tapping, then they should also stand up for the issue on the right to bear arms.

First, on the statistics, they show that gun crimes increased by 8 last year from the level they were at when the law was enacted 32 years ago. My guess is the population of DC has grown in 32 years, so an increase of 8 probably shows that the per capita crime rate has gone down.

Second, the bill of rights specifies the right to bear arms "in order to form a well regulated militia". Homeowners are not well regulated militias and the law only bans one type of "arms". You are still allowed to have shotguns in your house.

Quick survey though: let's suppose someone is robbing my house and i pull out my handgun and pop off a few rounds. None of them hit the robber, but fly across the street and kill someone. Am I free to go because it was self-defense? Should I pay for my crime?

lame. when is our country going to learn that guns should not be a right unless people are part of a militia (organized police force) or something of that nature. Very few people protect themselves with guns. in fact, more people kill loved ones on accident or escalate problems with guns that cause people to get killed. Amazing that Americans just can't see the writing in the stats.

We need to stop terrorists and insurgents from killing Americans, but if Americans kill Americans it must be constitutional. The reason the constitution was made was so that it could be changed to fit the needs of the era! When it was written, there was still a distinct threat of foreign invasion, not to mention displaced Native Americans. Now we have the world's best military to keep us safe and grocery stores to buy food. So it may be time for Old McDonald to get off the porch and hang up his gun.

Tori, Oregon. Exactly which of your "alternate forms of protection" are you going to put up against a 9MM? Pepper spray? Or are you going to offer some psycho a cup of herbal tea and try to talk him out of raping and killing you?

JB, "YOU DON'T HUNT WITH HANDGUNS!!!!!"

YES, I DO!!!!! .44cal, 12″ barrel, with 4x scope. It requires better stalking skills and makes the hunt much more challenging than with a rifle. And, no, I don't hang 'em on the wall. I, and many people less fortunate than myself, are fed with my kills. Btw, do you think your socialist idea of gov't will hand out fresh meat? I doubt it……maybe beans and rice on a good day……if you're far enough up the line.

Anyway, background checks are good. I don't know of a state where it's not already required. Bans on full auto are reasonable. Otherwise, leave it alone, it IS my constitutional right, and, like the man said….."WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND!"

When will the conservatives and the Republicans and the NRA realize that it;s guns that kill people, not the media. Who in the NRA goes hunting with a handgun? Hasn't Columbine taught these people anything? Michelle Obama was a dope as a candidate's wife to express her opinions in public, but let's face it, there's alot about this country I can't be proud of. And America's stance on weapons is one major factor.

Clearly four Supreme Court justices are not doing their job. These 5-4 rulings make it painfully obvious that nearly half those on the bench are not reading the same Constitution. It is NOT open for interpretation.

This ruling was 100% correct!

So when the people who shoot up the malls and schools buy guns, are they law abiding citizens at the time, or do future actions get taken into account when you're deciding who is "law abiding" and worthy of having a gun?

"Gas prices are soaring……and it is badly hurting Americans, and not only at the pumps. The ecomony is going down the toilet; foreclosures are increasing; rising healthcare cost; food prices out of control; and we are in or near a recession. And what do Americans worry about……..their right to bear arms….so much for priorities."

Thank you. You said it perfectly. And you know the people protesting (literally, not just stating opposition) were the same ones who threw hissy fits when Obama said that they were hiding behind guns and God.

we must preserve the right to defend ourselves,because we have lost trust in our government,after republican's have destroyed our civil liberties.the federal government must stop the war on drugs.it is a war against our own people,and requires those people to protect themselves,from a government,that has been attacking and wrongfully imprisoning it's own people ,for practicing a basic civil right of personal liberty to have control over what one put's in their own body.STOP THE 40-YEAR OLD WAR ON AMERICANS!

ok then. don't complain when another crazy kid goes to school and kills 30 people. dont complain when another worker goes to his job and kills his employees. americans complain way too much for the problems that they help create.

A person who commits such a criminal act of this magnitude should be punished (put to death). Now image, if this was your child who was violated by this demon. What would you recommend for his punishment? The media and supreme court has made him a "star", by allowing him to escape his punishment. Yes, he will spend the remaining of his life in prison at the expense of the taxpayers (but this child will never be the same, what about this child and her family). Why not just award these demons to the families of the person who was violated? That's what I call JUSTICE!!

The conservative justices voted to keep our rights. The liberal justices voted to take them away. In the LA child rape case, the liberal justices voted that a child rapist couldn't be executed. The conservatives voted to fry him. Who do you want appointing more Supreme Court justices, a liberal who sides with rapists, or a conservative who will protect your rights?

The NRA keeps confusing people. The right is to bear arms. Registering guns to ensure criminals don't get it, does'nt infringe this right. In all British former colonies, people need a license to own a gun. The license is issued based on a persons clean record and his reason to keep a certain type of gun. This does not stop any law abiding citizen from buying and keeping a gun.

If we need to register a car to own it, and a license to drive it, what is the problem in registering a gun or even needing a license to use it?

finally someone is willing to stand up for the constiution of our country! fact: if you ban guns, then only the criminals will have guns. fact: if you break in to my house and try to harm my kids, i will exercise my 2nd amendment right and shoot your butt.

i am a democrat but i am a hunter and own many guns i am happy about this and i do wish they can make some sort of permenant law saying we can never take guns away. i wish the court would have made it legal to kill baby rapist…. we have to have our guns because when obama wins this fall king george will declare himself ruler for life and we the people will need our guns to storm washington and take our country back from that texan mad man.

************************************************

JUST DON'T GET THE GUNS FELL INTO THE BAD GUYS HAND.
NOW, HOW DO WE DO THAT.
1.) BETTER BACKGROUND CHECKS
2.) RECOVER UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.
3.) EDUCATE PEOPLE WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNING A FIREARM.
4.) GET RID OF BAD GUYS (LIKE BUSH)

STOP THE MADNESS. VOTE OBAMA.

Hey Sarge, I'm a former staff sergeant myself and there's no reason a soldier should have an M-16 either!

Guns will always find their way into the hands of criminals. If you think that a ban on handguns will somehow change this, then you are either totally blind or completely stupid.

If you are for banning guns, then you must ban knives, or fertizilers, or airplanes. How about banning your SUV while your driving with a Starbucks and cell phone going? You probably will kill or injure more people with you lack of attentive driving, than I would ever with my gun.

Grow up, be an American. Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to tell me how to live my life. LIFE LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS applies to everyone, not just people that fit your view of the world.

A so-called "civilized" society…take a good look around you…
you must be kidding me right !

I've never felt the need for a gun myself.

However now that whatever has said by the Obama Camp to Humas has Israel so upset that they are about to start WWIII…..

I think I will buy one so that I can protect myself from the invasion which is sure to happen if BO wins!

The Left Wing is going to be the death of us all!

McCain 08

Every other first-world democracy has very strictly enforced gun laws on the books in order to protect thier citizens. These laws work. As an example, Canada as a whole has fewer gun-related injuries/homicides per year than the small U.S. city of Wilmington, DE.

Why doesn't data like this mean anything to us?

Why isn't public safety put before someones "right" to own a firearm?

It IS unconstitutional!!!

It's a good decision. Criminals always find ways to get around gun laws and fly under the radar. Why punish the law abiding segment of the population for the transgressions of the criminal element? Changes to the criminal justice system that ensure appropriate punishment for criminals might be a better goal. It seems that government entities are always trying to take the easy way out by diverting responsibility to those to whom it shouldn't belong.

I've owned a gun for several years. I have yet to kill my first person, however, nobody has broken into my house either. Leave me and my guns alone.

It's only logical that the second ammendment applies to individuals just as the rest of the Bill of Rights do.

And please, this right has NOTHING to do with hunting and everything to do with the protection of ones self, ones country and from the powers of a tryannical goverment.

Without the 2nd, there is no way to protect your remaining rights.

Absolutely the right decision.

Now think about this in another mindset. It's several years down the road. Obama, is our president and has had the opportunity to appoint several liberal judges to the Supreme Court. Who thinks the decision would be the same?

If you think it's a good idea to take guns away from people, well, you are right there with Lenin, Mao, and Castro. . .

Owning a handgun is constitutional. All we are asking is for people to be reasonable by keeping guns away from those who have no meaningful use of it than just to kill people with it.

I just can't belive it was a close vote. we have the right to keep and bear arms as a form of protection not only from individuals who may try to harm us but also against a tyrannical government. case in point, Nazi Germany, where Hitler disarmed thecountry.

i think the cops are scared, they go around shooting people like mike bell 500 times, now we get to have fire power, come though my hood harrashing me, now i also think they should make sure they change the self-defense law, it seems to me everytime a cop shoots someone they get off, now we get some firepower and we should be able to shoot the cops if they come around disrepectin………………law biding citizen

Like the old saying…If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws would have guns. I'm a single female who own 2 guns for my protection. I'm glad the Supreme Court upheld that ruling. And for those who disagree with the ruling, what would you do if your life were threaten? Remember, the police isn't always around to protect you.

I wish that Charlton Heston had lived to see this!

Andy J, NY, Funny thing you come up with there… The founding fathers made that law, because they were afraid of UK coming back and take over again…

After having served in the military for 7 years i must say i don't see any reasons for civilians to carry handguns, they are made for one purpose, to kill, so if you wanna kill you should have a rifle or shotgun and go hunting.. Then again, why cant we have machine guns, automatic weapons, hand grenades or explosives, after all they are just weapons??

joe DeSoto, MO.

And why are we then trying to disarm proud citizens around in the world, why should they not be allowed to carry guns for their own safety ??,
And what do we have a big military for then ??? and the biggest navy in the world… Thought those should be protecting us, just like the police force and FBI should be on our side..

Guns are outlawed in a lot of western countries but it doesnt stop gang warfare. So no matter what the ones that want to use guns for disgusting purposes will get them without problem- legal or illegal

Contrary, to some of the arguments here, the Constitution doesn't give a citizen the right to own a gun. I says the government can't infringe on the right to bear arms because of the necessity of a well-organized militia. A strict constructionist, like Scalia claims to be would have to admit that a plain reading of this does not make gun ownership an individual right, but rather as a collective right of a well-organized militia. An argument, that "bear arms" means the right to own a handgun (which is all the law prohibited, duly secured hunting rifles were still allowed) could be construed to mean any weapon. What makes a gun "arms" under this interpretation that would exclude biological or chemical weapons? Would a law banning possession of anthrax be overturned on the same reasoning?

Obama does support the right to bear arms as a Federal Law. Additionally, he also supports local governments (city, county) to be able to amend that right if that is the will of that specific location.

I do not believe he would be in favor of this decision. This was covered in one of the last Primary debates.

State and local governments do need to have a say. If Washington DC wants to outlaw guns, they should be able to do so. No one is going hunting for deer in the capital.

Any legitimate right to own a firearm is driven by the citizenry's potential need to protect itself from government. I wholly support gun ownership to this end. What bothers me about gun rights judgments, or, to be more to the point, the reactions to them, is the propensity of gun rights proponents to rail about government keeping its hands off "my guns." Very rarely, if ever, do I read or hear of complaints about government coming to get "my 'gun.'" It seems to me that those who are so concerned about these issues are those who desire the legal right to own an outright arsenal, and that disturbs me deeply. I cannot imagine any legitimate reason to keep more than one firearm, or perhaps two of different type for different purposes, i.e. home defence versus hunting. In short, demonstrably responsible ownership of a firearm for demonstrably legitimate purposes should be a right of every citizen; any activity that falls beyond this definition should be dealt with severely.

Supreme Court has been busy !!

The right decision, let americans chose what they want to do with their past-time.

Wow….scary thought….people in DC being able to carry guns. If you've been to DC, you know all the areas around the WH are ghettos for the most part. Bet the gangs think this news if great!
Can't believe the Court has gone so far as to actually define the 2nd Amendment (they never have before). Will be interesting how this gets translated into WHO can own what KIND of guns (arm themselves). Does this mean they can carry AK-47's?)
One important question that never gets asked when discussing the 2nd Amendment is WHY in this day and age of not needing to hunt for food or defending against civil war opponents one NEEDS a gun? Why do Americans feel a NEED to carry a gun?

Obama endorsed IL handgun ban. But now he says he is for the right to bear arms.

Still have not heard from Obama–he always waits until the decision so he can pander wherever he needs the votes. Glad to see McCain is a true patriot and respects my right to defend myself.

To the liberals who think that people having guns in a country is not right and should only be held by the police and the military. After spending twenty years in the militart and serving in a lot of foriegn countrys . I can tell you why there are not that many countrys that are true democracys like ours. They had laws that gave the guns to the police and only to the military. Guess what , they are no longer free.

if this is your constitutional right to carry gun then it is constitutional rights of fello citizens that your guns dont go in wrong hands or in hands of kids.

GUNS DO KILL PEOPLE!

Anyone who is interested in this should read a "courts and civil liberties" textbook, like the one my wife had for a course she took as a political science major. I'm sorry that I don't have a more specific title handy, but if you read a book like this, that contains written opinions (both rulings and dissents) by justices throughout this country's history, you will see that how to interpret the Constitution is a very complicated legal question that rises far above our simplistic stereotypes of "conservative" and "liberal" justices and whether or not they are "legislating from the bench".

Now more than ever we have reason to distrust our government. The #1 protection from the tyranny of a government is the right of it's citizens to possess the necessary guns and ammunition to rebel and reclaim their liberty.

That's why it's in the bill of rights–because our revolutionary beginnings suggested there may again some day be a need for the citizens to rise up–and reclaim their liberty/freedom from a government who did not listen to them nor represent them.

Above all other liberties–we should always retain the right to remove an undesired government in power–even if it requires the use of force.

Thank God . I thought for a minute they might make another dumb decision like they did for the terriost.

To Scott, Wichita:

I believe that was the great Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D) who said something to the effect that people don't kill people, guns don't kill people, bullets kill people and tried to ban som black talon ammo or something like that. More great reasoning from another 'progressive' thinker.

I agree.

All supreme court decisions are deciced by Anthony Kennedy. The others will always cancel each other out.

***The 2nd Amendment protects all the other Amendments.***

Thank God. The US Constitution wins as does the American people. The criminals now have to think twice.

Oh, I forgot the city is changing, becoming more upscale…so now it's okay to own a gun in your home.

I am glad because I should have the right too blow someone away if they break in my house or are threatning me and my family. And no I am not a member of the NRA. I just think people would think twice about breaking into your house or trying too car jack you if they weren't too sure if they were going to get a bullet in between their eyes.

I'll bet the people of Zimbabwa wish they had a hand gun when the military showed up at their front door and hacked off their arms with machetes because they didn't want to vote to re-elect the dictator….

You anti-gun fools need to read the world news once in a while to gain perspective on reality.

Any bad guy that wants to break into my home has to ask himself the question…..does this guy have a gun………..outlaw all gun ownership and he will have his answer……now, he has to take a chance on getting killed if he breaks into my home……CASE CLOSED.

What is wrong with the USA? Why can't we get over our obsession with guns? I don't understand what is wrong with people's minds? The rest of the **civilized** world doesn't need to have guns all over the place. Why do we?

God help us.

The US is mourning about the more than 4000 victims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just count the number of people shot to death by handguns in your great country. Do you really think you can protect your family and home with a gun? Grow up and get rid of the lobbyists of NRA and similar "cowboys". Kiowas and Apaches are US citizens and the "bad" Russians don`t exist any more. I am afraid of only one thing. A "cowboy" in the White House and the BUTTON close to his fingers.

Do you think bad guys are following the law? No, they're going to get a gun any way they can. This was for the good guys who obide by the law which allows us to protect ourselves. Good decision.

The Bush Legacy:
Unparalelled profits for big oil
Unregulated policies for big business
Food and energy prices soaring
Thousands of Americans, Iraqis and Afghans dead; trillions squandered in a war of choice
NOW, unrestricted access to guns…

I can't think of a better idea than loosening restrictions on guns at a time when frustrations and despair are at an all time high.

But I guess as long as they and theirs have money and security, the Republicons don't really give a crap about anyone else…how Christian of them.

Criminals get guns by stealing them from people that have them. More guns just equals more guns. It has nothing to do with safety, it has a little to do with crime, and a lot to do with making gun manufacturers rich.

"Keep and bare arms" eh? Hand guns are not exactly what they were talking about. You KNOW that if those guys knew what a mockery we were going to make out of that compromise par of the bill of rights they'd have left it off.
Hand guns are for men who feel insecure and woman with no sense.
I will say that to anyone who owns a hand gun.
It is much more likely to shoot you or someone you know than to protect you from some stranger.
Hand gun ownership is based upon fairy tales from the moves not statistics and facts from the real world.

Wonderful news. It's about time.

This was a great decision made by the supreme court. Citizen should be able to protect themselves with guns against gun carrying criminals.

I agree with the ruling but I disagree with the way that the 2nd ammendment is interpreted.

To claim that the victims of street crimes, were so because they didn't have a conceled handgun is ludacriss. Generally, those who are victims of street crimes would not be the type to carry a gun. If they were, how would this curb violence? When there is an altercation on the street between two people and one has a gun, one person loses thier pocket book and no one gets hurt. If both are armed, then one or both people ends up hurt or dead. How is this any better. DC is one of the most dangerous citys in the country. Citys and municipalities should be able to write and enforce thier own gun control laws to better suit thier own circumstances. This ban was only on handguns. It doesn't infridge on a person's right to bear arms as a whole, but only on the most easily concealed and therefore effective type of arms for urban crime.

Obama was against it, before he was for it.

Flip-Flopper gun owner hater.

Vote Obama to help destroy the Constitution one Justice at a time.

The Answer to your question Saad is that only Justice Kennedy, the swing voter, was in the majority of both opinion. The "liberals" of the Court (Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens) all agreed that the death penalty for non-homocidal child-rape was not a "proportional" punishment (See the 8th Amendment — no cruel and unusual punishment).

The "conservatives" (Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia) were in the dissent yesterday, saying that the death penalty should be available depending on one's perception of the "heinous-ness" of the crime. Something that, IMHO, is not contemplated by the 8th Amendment at all — the 8th Amendment is not about reasonableness.

Frm the discussion above, you can clearly see that the majority of the court switched from one case to the other. The "liberals" actually lost today; not having yet read the opinion I can only guess as to what it actually says, but again, I would guess that the four dissenters argued more for "reasonable regulation" of guns, than against the individual right to actually own a gun.

Just some insights.

As someone who has never touched a gun, let alone own one, I applaud this decision. Let's face it these judges stuck to the constitution as how it should be. Activist judges create rulings where they have no business in implementing upon the land. The constitution is there for a reason, it should not be construed "creatively". I'd like to see McCain in office and three more non-activist judges on the bench.

It's funny to me that the two different sides of the issue don't pose any real threat to each other. And you can argue if this gun ownership and/or gun availability has any impact on crime till the cows come home but what I don't understand is why all the hostility.

As one poster above said…all you read about in the DC papers is who got shot, so the ban was not working. People have to understand that most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns, not legally purchased and licensed weapons. Anyone who believes that banning guns will stop or slow gun crimes is simply living in a fantasy world. Criminals know where to get whatever they want. Guns, drugs, stolen property, it doesn't matter.

Law abiding citizens don't know these things because we don't want to. Criminals know where to get all of this because they DO want to, it's that simple.

I agree, but I do think there should be tougher laws on M-16s or M-4s or the like. There is no reason a civilian should own them.

Just remember… Guns don't kill people…

Bullets do.

Thank you Supreme Court for reading the Constitution. For those who say the 2nd Amendment applies only to government militias, you need to go back and read about Lexington and Concord. The Minutemen who fired "the shot heard round the world" leading to our independence were not militiamen. In fact they were individual citizens who were defending their right to bear arms against British soldiers and Tory militia who represented the legal government of the time. The framers of the Constitution were not worried about foreign invaders but government tyranny. One of the first acts of the Nazi regime was to ban individual ownership of guns. Besides criminals who use guns are not worried about legality. The only ones threatened by gun control are law abiding citizens.

Not everyone lives in a gated community where they can live without fear of violent crime. Reasonable arguments can be made both pro and con. The facts are that criminals will prey on those who can not defend them selves. If any humor is to be found in this, it is that now the criminals (who are bullies and cowards), will probably be shifting their activities to the suburbs where the majority of the anti-gun population lives, since they will be far less likley to be resisted / shot by their intended prey.

Those five guys on the big court can't read! Why do they think the 2d Amendment ties the right to bear arms to "a well-regulated militia" ?

Oh well, at least they said the government can regulate them - even if it cannot ban them.

It's too bad the Court pulled its punch and did not decide once and for all what that bit means where it says "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state…." I defend gun ownership, but "well regulated" sounds like government control to me.

Okay, now scared folks can run around with guns shooting anybody that scares them. What's so ironic about this is that, guns have no name or judgment, those who carry guns IS AS GUILTY AS THOSE WHO KILL WITH THEM. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

YEA BOY111 THE MORE .25 CALIBERS WE HAVE OUT THERE THE LESS PROBLEMS WE'LL HAVE!

"Obama wants …." wrote: Time to revisit Obama's written desire to ban all guns. Although he'll lie and say he didn't we all know better.

Never have I seen a candidate that tries to hide his true positions on issues as much as this one….and never have I seen an electorate that is willing to let him get away with it as much as this one.
——————————-
You really should read more before you spout off. Senator Obama's not hiding anything. His position on the Second Amendment is clear and unequivocal. Here's the pertinent statement, direct from his website:
"As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms."

Barack Hussein Obama/ Wesley Kanne Clark '08

Pot is illegal but you can get it most likely within a few miles of where you live or work. what makes you think that makeing some thing illegal will take out of the hands of people that don't care what the law says .

BTW guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you want to argue that to many people die every year by guns, you should look at the number of people that die in cars every year. By the same logic maybe we should make cars illegal, or smoking or drinking. maybe we should look at the number of people that die on the job we could make working illegal.

AMEN!!!!!! Thank you Supreme Court.

Although the text is concise, it is far from clear. “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.”

The "intent" of the framers 2nd Amendment was to ensure the right of the people in states to form their own militia, as they were concerned that congress might try to create a federal standing army limiting states powers. As Justice Scalia admits, times have changed since the 18th century, yet the Court (majority) failed to interpret the Amendment and history of this issue correctly

The Court clearly ruled in Miller (1939) that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but doesn't curtail the Legislatures (the city of DC in this case) power to regulate the non-military use and ownership of weapons. DC's handgun ban was a clear example of this, being a regulated citizen use of gun ownership, that should have been upheld.

I dissent with the majority opinion of the Court.

"Obama Supporter", are you aware that Mr. Obama is staunchly against the right to bear arms, and as a consequence of that, his city of Chicago is one of the most dangerous cities in the country? Hmmm…

Michael Lorton, Virginia wrote:

"… And what do Americans worry about……..their right to bear arms….so much for priorities."

When someone's trying to kick down your door, I think your priorities will change quickly.

Saad from NJ wrote:

"Carrying guns is not a good thing - it results in unfortunate situations."

Concealed carry is a separate issue. This deals with guns kept at home.

If guns are banned, the only people who will be without guns are those that obey and respect the law. Criminals will always have guns.

Liberals simply don't get it.

Funny thing I've noticed about Obama and his supporters. They refuse to just come out and say what is the RIGHT thing to do but they will sit back and armchair quarterback everyone else and tell them they are WRONG…

Deporting illegal aliens is WRONG - so what is right, repealing the laws that limit immigration? You either have the laws and enforce them or you get rid of the laws - pick one.

Offshore drilling is WRONG, nuclear power is WRONG - so what is right? Rationing gasoline? Oh, yeah, your guy has a suggestion on this one - taxing the oil companies will lower the price of gas and free us from our addiction to foreign oil…

Now that the pro-gun people got their wish, I am EXTREMELY curious to see what happens to crime in DC, since that city was their darling in their "gun bans don't work" argument. I'm not saying crime will go down or not, but I simply cannot wait to see if this works or not.

Also, as an aside, I'm extremely curious to know just how many pro-gun self-protective people actually live in moderate/high-crime areas and not calm suburbs or countrysides.

Kiki-

Would you break into my house, or come after me at my house, if you knew i had guns?

Its as much a deterrent as it is an item for protection.

Great decision!! When only the police have guns we are all in trouble. They are only human and they can't be trusted!!!

They bout to be strapped in the District, but it will be LEGAL. I'm loading up the truck to get the AMMO, right now. Ya betta go get ya guns, playboy. They not playing out here.

BIRDMAN!

@ Tori
What alternate forms of protection could replace a gun? Really? Have you ever used a gun? Every had one stuck in your face? I can say yes to both of those, and nothing is like owning a gun for protection. Its a right, and the Founding Fathers made sure that right would never be taken away, regardless of what liberal nut jobs think they can shove down our throats about not needing them or having them will only cause more crime.

I have several guns, and none of them would ever be used for anything other than target practice and self defense. And let me tell you, i let everyone know i have guns, and do you think someone is going to break into my house knowing i have a big dog and multiple guns? You decide.

THE CONSTITUTION LIVES!!!!!

Victory for freedom-loving Americans.

TO Michael Lorton, Virginia.

It's called our constitutional rights and it saddens me that you are more concerned about the rise in gas prices (which is inevitable) than for standing up for our protected rights as citizens of the United States.

We are citizens and not subjects. When you open the door to take away one right you risk losing them all. People who commit crimes will find a way to commit crimes regardless of the laws. It would be a great injustice to take away our constitutional right to protect ourselves .

The Supreme Court made a good call.

toni says :You know I don't understand why people want guns in their home.

Yesterday, here in Ohio, a man broke into the house of a 71 year old woman in a wheelchair, she was living with her 42 year old daughter.. at gunpoint he raped the old woman while her daughter was made to watched.. then did the same to the daughter…then he shot them. He stole nothing. IN MY HOME>> THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN!!!

Guns were banned in DC just prior to this decision, as some on this thread want to do now. Were there no guns because they were banned? Of course not. DC has one of the highest gun murder rates in the country, WITH a so-called ban.

In my opinion, this was the only correct result. The language in the Constitution is pretty clear. Some in here would like to limit this right, but would scream bloody murder if the First Amendment were limited in a similar fashion, e.g., freedom of the press doesn't include radio, tv and internet, since not specifically mentioned…

Ted,

Talking about statistics, perhaps you should go back and have a second look. In 2004 the National Research Council headed a study on the impacts that gun control has on crime and came back with this result:

“In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”

The UK banned guns and their crime rates increased. Japan has one of the world's toughest gun bans and is still plagued with drug and gang violence. The reason is simple, criminals don't care if the gun is illegal because the robbery/murder/rape they are planning to commit will net them more jail time than the illegal gun.

Doesn't Obama agree with this decision? He is on record as supporting the right of citizens to own guns.

that woman needs to spend less time in fear of her active imagination and more time on her diet. i am quite certain she will die of natural causes due to poor nutrition, NOT by a crime in which she would need to defend herself. maybe get into shape, learn a martial art, and then you won't be so fat that you need a gun to fend off a minor burglar. most americans are cowards and fools.

I agree that this law was only punishing law abiding citizens. Great call by the majority of the Supreme Court!

I don't understand why lawmakers went after guns. Why not ban certain types of ammunition such as the armor piercing ammo? Or limiting the amount of ammunition that you can buy in a given month. Other than for the use in the military where you may have to shoot at an enemy tank, what is the purpose of this type of ammunition?

For those Bots that slept through 8th grade civics, the right to bear arms is about keeping the Federal Government in check. If citizens can bear arms and belong to state malitias then they can resist an oppresive Federal government.

A lot of you people ar e missing the big point. During the entire time of this ban criminals STILL HAD GUNS. They are going to have guns regardless of its against the law or not. THEY ARE CRIMINALS, THEY DONT CARE ABOUT THE LAW. As a resident of DC and a female I feel a lot better knowing that I can live day to day feeling safe. The criminals have guns and now I will have one too. No one is going to be able to make me into a helpless victim.

There is no Constitutional right for individuals to have guns in the Constitution. That is an interpretive figment of the imagination of the Supreme Court and Americans who want guns.

"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."

The Constitution grants the right to bear arms to people in a well regulated militia–an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

Since when are individual citizens owning individual guns for individuals use part of a militia? Only in the fertile imagination of those who distort the words of the Constitution.

The right to bear arms and unfettered access is there in the Bill Of Rights clear, plain and simple. If you start sc