Well said!

__________________
President-elect Clinton fooled the American people

Ask these refugees from New Orleans about the differences in Texas.

These drug dealers from N.O. thought they could rob, mug, steal etc in Texas like they did back home and when the citizens started shooting them, they all of the sudden wanted to go back to their shit pit in Louisiana. Hmmmmmmmmmm

Needless to say, people with targets on their foreheads get the hell out of Dodge City.

__________________
President-elect Clinton fooled the American people

Read the decision Scalia wrote. He based it on English law because the meaning couldn't be found in the words. Now a good conservative drone would complain that activist judges should be writing their legislation by looking at what other nations do.

And Scalia's decision is very limited in scope. The only thing you can be sure of is he believes you can have A handgun loaded and ready in your house, but not in the court house where Scalia walks the halls or in schools where he teaches.

And let me be clear, I don't give a damn how many guns you have, how many are automatic, or the caliber, or how many land mines or rocket launchers you have. It is clear that the police departments have at least one person who is gung ho to set up a special forces unit that is experienced in insurgency repression, and who would love to have a reason to purchase UAVs with rocket launching capability to take out insurgents. Thus, I true the police will end up with superior fire power, and will manage to find ways to use them to kill unarmed people.

And I trust that people like you will claim that all that is needed is for citizens to have their own UAVs with rocket launchers so you can defend yourself.

Basically, rate you as ten times more of a threat to me than terrorists, but the threat of terrorism is that if I live to 10,000 years, I won't be killed by terrorists, so I have no reason to fear that you will kill me. Hey, as far as I'm concerned you can make nuclear weapons in your backyard.

I would ask that at least be consistent and argue that by being well armed you will be safer and society will be better and apply that to US policy with Iran, the Taliban, Hamas, and drug cartels.

My motto is give all the conservatives all the guns they want; maybe they will kill each other off.

And that is clearly what Scalia fears, so he made it clear that the right to have a handgun is very limited.

You far left boys are a damn hoot. When the court actualy legislates from the bench you say they are not because it side with what you want. When they actualy do their job and rule and uphold Americans actual constitutional rights you try and call it legislating from the bench. FUCK OFF GUN HATERS THIS IS AMERICA AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SO KISS OUR ASS.

__________________
When you came into this world you cried.
Live your life so that when you die.
The world cries. the shadow

I people know that the homes they are going to break into are armed then they are going to think twice about doing it. I continue to be perplexed that many Democrats don't understand this.

Why thank you!

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Silver Bullet
June 27, 2008; Page A12

The 2008 Supreme Court term ended with a bang yesterday as the Justices issued their most important ruling ever in upholding an individual right to bear arms. The dismaying surprise is that the Second Amendment came within a single vote of becoming a dead Constitutional letter.

That's the larger meaning of yesterday's landmark 5-4 ruling in D.C. v. Heller, the first gun control case to come before the Court in 70 years. Richard Heller brought his case after the Washington, D.C. government refused to grant him a permit to keep a handgun in his home. The District has some of the most restrictive handgun laws in the country – essentially a total ban. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision by Judge Laurence Silberman, overturned the ban in an opinion that set up yesterday's ruling by taking a panoramic view of gun rights and American legal history.

In writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia follows the Silberman Constitutional roadmap in finding that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an individual right. The alternative view – argued by the District of Columbia – is that the Second Amendment is merely a collective right for individuals who belong to a government militia.

Justice Scalia shreds the collective interpretation as a matter of both common law and Constitutional history. He writes that the Founders, as well as nearly all Constitutional scholars over the decades, believed in the individual right. Many Supreme Court opinions invoke the Founders, but this one is refreshing in its resort to first American principles and its affirmation of a basic liberty. It's not too much to say that Heller is every bit as important to the Second Amendment as Near v. Minnesota (prior restraint) or N.Y. Times v. Sullivan (libel) are to the First Amendment.

Which makes it all the more troubling that no less than four Justices were willing to explain this right away. These are the same four liberal Justices who routinely invoke the "right to privacy" – which is nowhere in the text of the Constitution – as a justification for asserting various social rights. Yet in his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argues that a right to bear arms that is plainly in the text adheres to an individual only if he is sanctioned by government.

Justice Breyer, who wrote a companion dissent, takes a more devious tack. He wants to establish an "interest-balancing test" to weigh the Constitutionality of particular restrictions on gun ownership. This balancing test is best understood as a roadmap for vitiating the practical effects of Heller going forward.

Using Justice Breyer's "test," judges could accept the existence of an individual right to bear arms in theory, while whittling it down to nothing by weighing that right against the interests of the government in preventing gun-related violence. Having set forth this supposedly neutral standard, Justice Breyer shows his policy hand by arguing that under this standard the interests of the District of Columbia would outweigh Mr. Heller's interest in defending himself, and the ban should thus be upheld.

But as Justice Scalia writes, no other Constitutional right is subjected to this sort of interest-balancing. "The very enumeration of the right takes [it] out of the hands of government" – even the hands of Olympian judges like Stephen Breyer. "Like the First, [the Second Amendment] is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people – which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew."

In that one sentence, Justice Scalia illuminates a main fault line on this current Supreme Court. The four liberals are far more willing to empower the government and judges to restrict individual liberty, save on matters of personal lifestyle (abortion, gay rights) or perhaps crime. The four conservatives are far more willing to defend individuals against government power – for example, in owning firearms, or private property (the 2005 Kelo case on eminent domain). Justice Anthony Kennedy swings both ways, and in Heller he sided with the people.

Heller leaves many questions unanswered. Contrary to the worries expressed by the Bush Administration in its embarrassing amicus brief, the ruling does not bar the government from regulating machine guns or other heavy weapons; or from limiting gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill. Any broad restriction on handguns or hunting rifles will be Constitutionally suspect, but legislatures will still have room to protect public safety.

Heller reveals the High Court at its best, upholding individual liberty as the Founders intended. Yet it is also precarious because the switch of a single Justice would have rendered the Second Amendment a nullity. With the next President likely to appoint as many as three Justices, the right to bear arms has been affirmed but still isn't safe.

Yep, this is the ironic thing. This decision as well as others this week can easily be viewed as 'activist.' The decision reflects that, you have to 'interpret' the 2nd amendment in order to get any meaning out of it.

have you looked at the city ordinance from kennesaw? they are talking of people WALKING around with loaded handguns. they dont come right out and say it, but when they say, if you cant, or dont want to, its okay, there cant be any other meaning.

So, that means that home invaders are safe walking around with loaded guns because that is the law, and when the break in to a home, they will break in shooting, and wearing body armor.