Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.

Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.

YEA!!! Let's sanction killing more people! woohoo!!!!

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

No, let's sanction law abiding citizens the right to have guns. The criminals already do.

Melissa

Not all of us that own guns are going around killing people. Most of us in the country use them for hunting.(which was part of the ruling). Before long with the way the food prices are hunting/fishing looks like the cheap way to feed your family. One reason, I am glad I live in the mountains!
If someone would ever break into my home and go after any of my children, then I would use the guns in self-defense.

Whatever. I'm not going to argue w/ you over it. I will say that I find gun owning abhorrent.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

couple of things: criminals will always be able to get guns, regardless of whatever sanctions are in place.

I have heard that people want to stop mentally ill persons from owning guns. Now, I think that is a wonderful idea! But how in the world will any gun dealer be able to check a person's mental status or mental health?? I mean I pay people's medical bills all day long and have to fight w/ provider to get chart notes because those notes are protected under HIPAA ( actually they aren't since we're talking Workers' Comp, but that's another story).
How is a gun dealer going to be able to access those records or even know where to look??

Anyway.....

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

and I'm sorry that you feel that way, but why?

Owning guns doesn't automatically mean you are plotting/planning or wanting to kill another human. Lots of people own guns for hunting for food! Of course, here where I live--you may own a gun to kill a wild animal who is attacking you in your yard

Owning a gun doesn't define a person necessarily---the person's actions w/ the gun defines the person.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I am happy with the ruling. I am okay with keeping a gun in the home for defense or hunting. To each their own and the stats show the murder rate in DC hasn't gone down substantially with the gun ban. However, it does make it hard for the police to know who the bad guy is when everyone can have a gun, so when a hero gets shot by the cops I won't have sympathy.

My mom almost shot me when I was 18; I came home from college unexpectedly. As an ER nurse, I saw more than my fair share of sorrow after gun "accidents." The parents were always surprised. I had no sympathy for the gun owners at all. I never had a dead kid where the gun owner wasn't a parent of the killer or the killed.

I didn't allow my kids in homes with guns I was aware of. My mom had to get the gun out or I wouldn't let the kids come inside. We didn't allow anything that resembled a real gun in our home. I asked up front if other parents had a gun. The question was asked quickly and the parent didn't have time to think and lie. I don't make a judgement either way, but I didn't want my kids in a home with firearms. From a young age, we showed them real guns and told them to RUN and find an adult. We took them to a shooting range when they were pretty little with a friend who is a cop. He taught gun safety and they handled and shot the guns. I did that in hopes they wouldn't fall prey to curiosity.

Thank God we have 5 sane Supreme court judges..I think Ted says it best...............

DC Gun Ban Blown Away - HUMAN EVENTS

DC Gun Ban Blown Away
by Ted Nugent

As I swab down one of my hundreds of privately owned, individually possessed firearms again this fine morning, I snicker and shake my head in disbelief that there are four "justices" on the "supreme" court that do not believe Americans have individual rights. Sure, I am somewhat pleased that we now have a SCOTUS confirmation of the self-evident truth and God given individual right to keep and bear arms, but the 5-4 ruling is another painful example, like Guantanamo and the decree against the death penalty for child rapist decisions that indicate a divisive culture war raging on, and four supreme justices frighteningly disconnected from the heart and soul of America.

Certain that God gave each of us the individual gift of life, and so very relieved that our founding fathers were prudent enough to write these self-evident truths down on paper for future reference, everybody I know needs no confirmation whatsoever that self defense, individual self defense is not only a God given right, but a moral imperative in the hearts and souls of good people everywhere.

Just as we wouldn't need confirmation that our choice of religion is indeed an individual right, or that we could possibly need a government permit to express our individual thoughts in speech, good Americans will continue to fight for the return of our sacred 2nd Amendment rights where someday soon we will not need a government issued license to keep and bear arms. After all, from the supreme court of common sense on the not so mean streets of America, everybody I know understands clearly that "keep" means one thing and one thing only: "It's mine and you can't have it". We know without question that "bear" can only mean, "Yes, I have it right here in my hands or within instant grasp", nothing more and nothing less. And dare I explain “shall not be infringed?" I hope not.

That these self-evident truths have been bastardized to the point of "gun free zones" is nothing less than heart breaking in America today. Everybody knows that it is in these anti-American, anti-Constitutional "gun free zones" where innocent people are forced into unarmed helplessness and where the highest body count of innocents are stacked up by evil perpetrators celebrating the condition of helpless sheep to slaughter. Since the insane gun ban, Washington, D.C. has been a violent criminal's dream environment where they are assured no resistance. That is a bizarre, immoral condition and a direct result of the cult of feel good liberals who could care less about dead good people as they wring their hands worrying about the rights of the most evil amongst us. For shame.


I am responsible for my personal defense and the defense of my family. Our Founding Fathers clearly believed this as well. Evidence shows that 9-1-1 is a last-ditch call for a clean up crew to sift through the aftermath of criminal activity. I can’t imagine allowing myself to be unarmed, helpless and reliant upon the heroes of law enforcement, who, though always do the best that they can do, cannot and will not be there when we need them. They represent damage control all too often, when quality control is in the hands of responsible individuals. The same Supreme Court determined long ago that cops have no lawful obligation to protect us from anything. Self defense is our job.

Thank God the Supreme Court got it right by striking down the D.C. gun ban, legalizing personal protection in the nation’s capitol and now across America, thereby guaranteeing our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights bestowed to us by God, the supreme authority.

D.C. has been a cesspool of crime for years. This ruling confirms the rights of good people the ability to defend themselves against bad people. Who could possibly find fault with that supreme dose of common sense?

Banning guns hasn't worked to deter crime or make communities safer, in fact just the opposite. All gun bans have ever accomplished is the creation of guaranteed victims. This has been supremely sad, wrong-headed and dangerous. Most of us cannot imagine the thought process by which bureaucrats and courts could force laws on good people rendering us disarmed and helpless, then turn around and send us the bill for their armed security. Obama, what say you?

Various thugs, punks, crack heads and other devils who have victimized innocents at will are on a long overdue notice with this ruling. Good ultimately conquers evil as it should be.

With Independence Day right around the corner, the Supreme Court has affirmed that indeed Americans are independent and have the right to the most basic of rights -- the right to defend themselves against tyranny whatever ugly form it may take. Now the good people of America must fight harder and relentlessly to regain all of our lost Second Amendment rights in each state and city where unarmed helplessness continues, Mayor Daley.

__________________
"It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

I don't find Ted Nugent to be the voice of sanity. Heck, why not let everybody have a bazooka?

We have a gun or two for hunting, but the bullets are kept in another state where my husband has a lifetime hunting license. Consequently, I've never worried about the kids getting into them.

My dad kept a gun at his place of business when I was a child, and we simply knew to respect its presence and not open the drawer it was in. Because of the nature of his occupation, we had pharmaceuticals around and had been robbed during the night two or three times. Our whole family was at the business most of the day, and while he knew it was highly unlikely that any drug-crazed weirdo would show up in the middle of the day in our rural area, he knew he needed to be prepared to defend us if it were to happen.

Unlike nightowl, however, I would feel extreme sympathy for any family who had a gun-related accident. There are a number of dangers in any home that could befall a child for which a parent might technically be responsible in the case of an accident... but that's why they're called accidents. I do think if a parent has a gun in a home for protection that it's vital that they tell their children that the gun is the home, and that it is important that the child always identify himself/herself and never sneak in or out of the house at night, lest they be mistaken for a prowler. We had an incident recently with our teenager sneaking out in the night to TP a friend's car. He fessed up the next day on his own, which I appreciated, but was I rather freaked out at the realization that I hadn't explained to him the potential danger in what he did. Needless to say, he got a bit of an earful!

Why do you feel that way?

I feel law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns and be able to protect their family and possessions from thugs (who usually obtain guns illegally). I wonder if you would change your mind if you and your children were confronted by someone breaking into your home in the middle of the night.

My DH has concealed carry. You would be surprised at the number of people walking around with legal concealed weapons on them!

I could care less if people have guns IN THEIR HOMES. My problem is with the idiots around here who are raising a big stink because guns have been outlawed in parks and such around here. You want a gun fine keep it in your house but to whine & cry you should be able to have it in PUBLIC places is absolutely crazy to me. I go to these public places with my kids and don't need something stupid happening because they feel the need to have their precious gun on them all the time.

I also feel like another poster. My kids are not allowed at ANYONE'S house who have a gun. Family or friends. In fact when I got married my DH got rid of his guns he used for hunting because I don't want them in my house or around my kids EVER. I also don't have sympathy for parents whose kids have gun accidents in the home. That was an unneccessary risk the parent put in the home. And in most cases weren't supervising well enough or keeping the gun locked or put where the kids couldn't get them. Sorry to say the parents should be held completely responsible for the accident.

__________________
Mom to Jake, Zach & Meghan
SJCC STREAKS FOOTBALL!!
CLEVELAND BROWNS FOOTBALL!

You know? I was raised in a house that had several guns (hunting and hand guns), from an early age I knew where the key was to open the locked closet they were in, knew where the ammunition was--knew how to load them even.

But, also at that early age, I was taken out by my dad to hunt and target shoot. I was also taught how to clean and maintain a gun. I was taught it was a weapon and should never be aimed at anything unless you were prepared to kill what you were aiming at. See, the guns had no mystique or mystery. I knew what they were, and what they did. I was never once tempted to handle the guns when I was not suppose to. And I can say with 100% surety that all my friends were the same way. And in all my growing up years I had two friends killed by "accidental" gun fire--one was so high he didn't even know where he was, much less whether the gun he put to his head was loaded. The other was stopped by an officer and had the gun in the gun rack---He went to unload the gun when the officer turned to go back to the patrol car and run his license. It is assumed that the gun went off accidently and killed Chance. But, no one really knows--he was driving on a suspended license and had drugs in the vehicle. It very well could have been intentional.

I said all that to say this---I'd rather my children be taught respect for guns, and how to properly handle the guns, then be taught to be afraid of them and thus creating some sort of mystery and mystique....that's just how I've chosen to handle the situation.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I hate guns. My Dad is/was a gun owner. He always hunted (when able) and we ate what he shot. He never called it a sport. In our family of 7 it was pure economics. For anyone to say shooting an animal is a sport makes my skin crawl. I would not let my kids play at any house that had a gun. I remember vividly the 2 kids who were shot to death by friends when I was growing up (different incidents). Both families in each case were ripped apart. Both families has kept a gun to protect them in case of intruders. What they needed protection from was the gun. People protect themselves everyday without a gun. I wonder how many times has someone actually used a gun to protect themselves from an intruder in their home. It's something people always say, but how often does it really ever happen.Truth is most people don't keep the bullets and guns seperated or in a locked box. If they are locked how much good would it be to "protect" your home? Ted Nugent? Puhlees! If he is so worried about rights where was his outraged as our constitution has been trampled on and basically thrown out the window? He lives on a 900 acre ranch, exactly what does he know about living in a metro area? His house was robbed last year and being a gun owner didn't make a damn bit of difference
(And there is not one valid reason for any person to own an assault weapon. NONE. )

I agree. I had not heard that story about Nugent being robbed. Funny.

I don't hate guns, but I won't have them in the house. Years ago my brother who has, perhaps 50 or so, guns, gave one to my son for his birthday. It was a little rifle and I said fine, but it stays at your house, not mine.

And those of you who think your kids won't touch the guns are naive. Just because you didn't when you were little, or because you have told them not to, or because they know better, does not change the fact that they might.

Years back, I think it was 20/20, they did a test with young kids whose parents were absolutely positive their kids would not touch a gun. Guess what, they were left alone, told not to go near a box with the gun in it and most of them did, and found the gun and handled it, while the horrified parents watched from a hidden camera.

You just never know what your kids will do and more important you never know what your kids friends will do.

It really comes down to teaching your children respect and responsibility on using guns or anything for matter.
My children are around lots of things most kids are not normally around. We have tractors, backhoe, dump trucks, chain saws, log spitters, lots of power tools, table saw, planners, portable saw mill, 4 wheeler. In reality they could get injured on anything even in a "normal house". We have stressed that anything can kill you.
A child can be injured or killed in anyone's house with just household cleaners, lighters, kitchen knives, bedshetts (hanging), prescriptions. You can not protect them from everything. You have to teach them the right way.

I agree, you do have to teach them, but the point of the show I mentioned was to let you know that no matter what you teach them, that some things will attract them and they will not always do as you have taught them. These were admittedly very young children, but many of them ended up with a gun in their hands. Some even pointed them at the other kids and pulled the trigger, if I remember correctly. Like I said, these parents thought they had taught them to never touch a gun, but touch them they did.

Exactly. The criminals will always find a way to get guns. The law abiding citizens need the right to have guns for self defense against the criminals.

I'm sorry that so many of you must live in such terrifying areas.

And what world do you live in, hon?

Well I live in the regular world. Hopefully at least a few of you do as well. I live in an area, (St. Louis suburb), that does not see gun action on a regular basis. If it did, then I would move. Fifteen years here and the closest thing to violence with guns was a neighbor who lived five blocks from here went off her meds and pulled a gun on a UPS driver about a mile from here. Middle of summer, hot as hell and she was wandering around with a fur coat on and a gun in a state of paranoid delusion. Police came and killed her. That's it.

Seventeen years in my prior neighborhood and not even that much happened. Five years in Clear Lake TX many many years ago and nothing ever happened. Did have an incident in Fountain valley about 33 years ago with a gunman who robbed a nearby store. Grew up and lived in the city of St. Louis for over 20 years. Never heard a gunshot.

Husband born in Brooklyn and lived there his first five years. Moved to Lake Telemark, New Jersey, then to upstate New York for college, Baltimore, Denver and here and was never anywhere near any violence.

Like I said, I'm sorry if all of you have to live in such violent places. It must be tough. Do you personally live in an area riddled with gunshots? If so where? I don't think I could live like that and I'm sorry that anyone does.

Wildwood, apparently, many people here live within urban crime areas where break-ins and murder are an every day occurence and only a handgun, not a shotgun, can protect them. I bet they have had to use a handgun to protect their home and if not, I am sure they have neighbors and friends who have. Personally, I would move or put in an alarm system. But, to each their own.

Oddly, I live in a pretty big city with a relatively high crime rate, yet I don't experience the terror many here apparently do. We have an alarm system and two dogs. Mostly, those who might rob my home want my things. I can't imagine killing someone over a TV or computer. But, again, to each their own.

A friend of mine kept a handgun and a shotgun at home. Her home was broken into while she was at work and they stole the handgun along with some other stuff, but they left the shotgun She wasn't as upset about her things as she was at the thought her handgun might be used to kill an innocent life. She got an alarm system and still has the shotgun - I gave her one of our dogs, too. The police indicated the shotgun was left because the bad guys can't hide a shotgun. Which is EXACTLY why, in DC, the ban was on handguns and not shotguns.

Do you believe owning a gun is a right under the Constitution?

I'm very liberal. I have always thought that the bill of rights gives the American public the right to own guns.

Yes, I do believe that.

I wondered, if bearing arms was found to be a group right, not one of individuals, what that would mean to other amendments. If you can limit one, you can limit others, and that's pretty scary. Do you want to risk limiting free speech because firearms scare you?

Please explain this leap in your logic. The 2nd Amendment specifically references the militia in defining the right -- which the majority in this case conveniently parsed away -- but no other amendment references "group" rights.

So what on earth are you talking about?

LII: Constitution

The people have the right to peaceable assembly, to keep and bear arms, and to not be searched unreasonably, among other things. Why would one of those rights belong to a group, and others to individuals, when they're referenced in the same document, with the same phrasing? If you're trying to be clever with phrasing, it looks like the only individual rights apply to those accused of crimes, or those who don't want their houses used as barracks.

A 1960's Federal law prohibits the sale of guns to anyone found to be mentally ill by the court. There is a national FBI database that gun sellers must check. Reporting is voluntary. About half the states don't report because either their data systems are a mess or they have specific state law related to privacy issues.

Some states have pretty restrictive gun purchase laws. Maryland requires a gun purchaser to sign a waiver releasing their mental health records. Mental Hope News: Md. mental records to be checked in gun buys - Washington Post

When the gun seller puts a name into the database, they don't why it was rejected. It could be because of involuntary commitment or it could be due to a past felony, or it could be a screw up that the buyer has to get corrected.

You've blended three different amendments there . . .

What amendment, standing alone, says the people have the right to keep and bear arms, period? None. It's only found in the context of maintaining a militia.

I don't really care how the Supremes interpret the 2nd Amendment, but I don't want to hear any more BS from McCain, Bush, Scalia, Alito or Thomas about "activist judges," because this interpretation of the amendment is about as activist as it gets. They throw away half the amendment to get there. Pretty activist.

When, if ever, do you believe the government has the ability to narrow or remove that right for some individuals or groups of individuals.

For example ~ The 1st concerns, among other things, freedom of speech, yet we can't yell fire in a movie theatre.

The right to freedom of speech is not absoulte. Your right to freedom of speech is regulated. For example, you can't yell fire in a theatre. You can't defame, slander , libel, or use hate speech.

I'm all to familiar w/ the FBI database (I've actually had to run background checks for concealed weapon permits, stolen itmes, missing people, wants and warrants).

So, again, it all depends on someone making the system "work"---and only people who have been judged mentally ill by the courts. I'm talking about all the "undiagnosed"....

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Speech is limited all the time now. If the president is in public speaking, you can't get within a half mile to protest. The, so-called, free speech zones have, in all practicality shut down most political protests in this country. What does that say about "free" speech? Our privacy is limited, our phone conversations are listened to, the books we take from the library can be monitored, so why can't there be some limitations on the right to bear arms? I don't think we ever had that right the way it's been interpreted but since we do have guns I think we need to find a middle ground. I'm not advocating that everyone has to get rid of their guns. I just think that some guns should be not available to the public, some guns should require having a license and some people should not be allowed to have them at all.

Don't forget that the president threw away our right to privacy, as well, with the help of the phone companies and the roll over and play dead Congress. Anyone could be listening to your phone calls at anytime.

[quote=wildwood;3012218]Speech is limited all the time now. If the president is in public speaking, you can't get within a half mile to protest. The, so-called, free speech zones have, in all practicality shut down most political protests in this country. What does that say about "free" speech? Our privacy is limited, our phone conversations are listened to, the books we take from the library can be monitored, so why can't there be some limitations on the right to bear arms? I don't think we ever had that right the way it's been interpreted but since we do have guns I think we need to find a middle ground. I'm not advocating that everyone has to get rid of their guns. I just think that some guns should be not available to the public, some guns should require having a license and some people should not be allowed to have them at all.[/QUOTE

So, you are ok with your freedoms being limited by "government" on the pretense of making your safer?

It really doesn't matter if you try to keep some types of guns from the public..crimials will always find a black market to get them from.
I do not think we are safer by giving up our freedoms. I would rather have all my freedoms and be free than live in a country where the government spies/intrudes in our lives.


Just a couple of quotes that I find interesting
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. --James Madison

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." -- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -- Mohandas Gandhi,

I don't live in fear and terror, and I don't keep a gun in our home for protection. There hasn't been a shooting locally in the 20 years I've lived here. We live in a rural town of under 10K on the 'nice side of town'.

However, two weeks ago a man apparently high on meth entered the home of a family at 6:00 AM with a gun a mere three blocks from me. The father and a teen daughter of theirs happened to be leaving the house to go work out and saw him walk in their front door. This is a 'nobody locks their doors' kind of a place - especially not during daylight hours while the family is awake. The father, unaware that the guy had a gun and fully aware that his wife and other kids were in the house, went in after the guy and said, "Can I help you?" The guy said, "My sister lives here." The homeowner said, "No, I live here." At which point the guy bolted and ran through the house and out the back door. When the man called the police, he found out that there were already officers combing the neighborhood because that was the fourth house he'd entered, and he'd pulled a 45 on the family in another house (and fortunately did not shoot them!)

They found the guy eventually - within 45 minutes - and took him in. Unfortunately, he did not have the gun with him anymore. It took them six hours of combing the neighborhood before they found where he'd hidden it - in the backyard of a house three houses away from us.

I go walking in the mornings at 6:00 AM, but didn't happen to walk that day. My kids would have been home alone (two of them are teenagers, but still...) and the front door would've been unlocked. In this town, in this neighborhood, at 6:00 AM, one certainly doesn't expect a drug addict to come waltzing through the door brandishing a gun. But apparently, it can happen.

If someone felt the need to protect their family from intruders such as that, and is able to do so responsibly and reasonably by maintaining a firearm in their home, I wouldn't take that right away. I know that that one episode left me rather unsettled - as did the fact that a week later I found a beer bottle with a cigarette in it sitting near our deck in our backyard. We don't drink or smoke, nor do our kids (who happened to be gone at camp, anyway) so obviously, someone was out there. It was an extremely unsettling feeling to realize that someone had been in our backyard at some unknown time for some unknown purpose that week.

So yeah... I don't live in terror, but I do have a heightened awareness of the possibility that someone with bad intentions might appear out of nowhere. If someone feels more protected having a firearm in their bedroom closet, I can certainly understand it.

I think it's great that you can so passionately articulate what you feel are your own Constitutional rights.

What I hear you saying is that if you don't hurt anyone else, your rightful activties should not be regulated any more or less than anyone elses . Period.

I'm a non gun owner, but will support your right to own a gun.

Thanks..for your thoughtful words.

I am not okay with it, but there is little I can do about this, except vote and voice my opinions. All of our freedoms are being attacked, including our right to privacy, our right to free speech, our right to protest, habeas corpus, our right to marry who we want, and on and on.

Since I don't believe that the original intention was what has been achieved, I don't have any problem with requiring a waiting period, or a license for handguns, limiting the sale of guns whose only relevance is war related or mass shootings, or denying criminals, minors, and mentally unbalanced people the ability to buy guns. So criminals have guns when they commit crime? Let's put them in jail for that then. No plea bargaining down if you have a gun.

But I also admit that my stance has softened just slightly with Bush in office. I have become much more flexible in seeing the possible need for an armed citizenry.

By the time someone got to that gun the chances are that the felon would be gone or there would be a shoot out leaving who knows how many dead. You ended with the best possible outcome for your brush with crime. The average person is more dangerous with a gun because they have no training and have usually not faced those circumstances before.

Your story could have happened anywhere at any time with totally different results. And I personally don't care if you have a gun. I just think that everyone who keeps a handgun in their house should go through training and have a license to prove they have gone through training. I'm truly glad to hear your story ended so well.

If one amendment has to be read a certain way, others do too. The 2nd amendment seems archaic, but choosing to reinterpret it opens the potential to do the same with other ones. If laws are wrong, we need to petition to change them, not argue that we don't see them the way others do. Knowing that we've had previous abuses there doesn't make it okay to continue the problem.

Am I the only person who saw this decision as being more important in terms of legality than in the guns-are-good/bad debate?

I guess I don't understand what you're asking. Who is reinterpreting, the Supremes or someone else?

It probably is more important in terms of legality, but the impact of the Supreme Court decision seems to be striking down a DC law. That makes it a little different than if they struck down a specific state law. I'm not sure I understand the exact way DC fits into our law system, since they are not part of a state and presumably can't argue for states rights. I also assume that DC can now pass a law with stringent licensing requirements to help keep their previous stance somewhat alive. Am I wrong on this? All I've really heard is little bits on the TV news shows.

I suppose I figure that choosing to interpret the 2nd amendment as a group right opens up the potential to interpret other rights that way, which scares me. No matter how you feel about the rights in question, I don't think it's ever beneficial to let them be eroded. Regardless of how we feel about guns, we shouldn't let lawmakers try to bend the constitution to ban them.

As stated in previous postings, so many of our rights have been eroded for the last eight years and probably beyond that to the point where it's hard to convince some people that they ever had any to begin with.

You can't ban guns, any more than you can ban drug use, abortion, drinking or smoking. I'm not sure what the DC law stated, that was, forgive the pun, "shot down" by the Supreme Court. Did that law ban all guns or just handguns? I think there's a difference and they probably should be treated differently. I also think if the government can tell you whether you can drive a car, teach in school, be a doctor, etc. then they should be able to put a few laws into place to require a license for a handgun.

Totally banning obviously does not work, regardless of what their law stated. So it seems kind of a moot point where DC is concerned. Banning does not work, but regulating, if it were done right, might help. But the regulating has to come from the federal government. It will not work if it's piecemeal, state by state. And it would take time and lot's of education and money. So I guess I don't see it happening any time soon if ever. And frankly, I think guns are one of the least of our problems currently.

I have been told something along the lines of most crimes being commited with guns in the house, i.e. a gun in the house, and the spouse murders his /her spouse. IOW, they are not going to go out and buy a gun specifically for that, but, if the gun is already there, they will use it. It makes it that much easier. Also, not properly locking a gun, it can go off and kill or harm someone. Many of the "incidents" you hear about are from people who own their own gun.

I still think we should be allowed to bear arms, but, we personally choose not to own a gun at this time.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I agree except that we do have hunting guns. Every accidental death is tragic, but guns aren't the only thing that causes such deaths. Automobiles cause accidental deaths. Buckets of water cause accidental drownings. Bicycle accidents result in head injuries. Guns cause accidental shootings. The top four causes of accidental death after auto accidents are overdosing, falls, choking, and drowning. I assume most all of those are preventable... but we don't seek to outlaw the items that cause them. We do assert the need for safety and child-proofing. I think guns should be no different.

Purposeful killings are perpetrated by baseball bats, ropes, vehicles, knives.... and guns. I think someone intent on killing another will use whatever weapon it takes.

True. But, of all your examples, when operated as directed, the gun is the only thing that kills. I have stated I don't care if someone feels the need to have a firearm. Just read the statistics and know the facts.

There is no such thing as a gun accident. They are supposed to fire when a trigger is pulled. An accident is an unexpected or unforseen event.

Your Child | Safety: Guns and Kids

What are the statistics about kids and firearm deaths and injuries?
The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [1] :

In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
214 unintentional
1,078 suicides
1,990 homicides
83 for which the intent could not be determined
20 due to legal intervention
Of the total firearms-related deaths:
73 were of children under five years old
416 were children 5-14 years old
2,896 were 15-19 years old

According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

Are my children at risk if I own a gun?
This is a controversial subject. Many people feel safer when they have a gun at hand. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)* has reviewed the current medical research on the subject and concluded that if you have children, it is safer not to have a gun in your home