It’s clear what the authors of the Bill of Rights meant and the Supreme Court just affirmed it. If you want to change the law then change the Bill of Rights. The court or at least 5 member of the court applied the law properly.
I am tired of totalitarian judges who base rulings on their personal opinion of what they think is good policy. Here is a novel idea, let the people we ELECT make policy and confine judges to interpereting the law. I wonder if our founding fathers thought of that idea…oh yea THEY DID!

Hey Eric! I don’t know what world Kiwi lives in but he better wake up before a tank rolls down his street and somebody drags him out of his house when trying in this day and age to speak out against the government of a dictatorship or police state not armed. Kiwi read your history. What would have happened to us in America if we did not have guns to fight the British. Throw harsh words.Disarm a nation and see what happens next. Our country is protected by the citizens if the military or government falls. What will you do to an invading force? Cook’em breakfast?! With our military spread across the world protecting everyone else where do we stand? God, Guns, and Guts Keeps us free. I will fight for it till the end!

I should think it sad that we, the American people – my people, may be having this argument somewhere ages hence and, although our voices held softly as not to penetrate the walls of our dingy confines, the rhetoric will possess the same sting as the hands of the guards outside them.  Shame, the liberal minded regard us as enemies when, the undeniable truth is, we will all suffer the same eventuality. 
It humors me when I hear the words “gun control” and “safety” uttered in the same breath, as if they are the same thing!  Besides, when did safety become as paramount as to displace our voracity for liberty?  Especially when speaking of the version whose definition is so highly regarded in this thread; the perceived sense that a greater force, our government, is protecting you.  Franklin said it best, “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security shall lose both and deserve neither!” he knew that true safety comes from our freedom to choose and, most importantly, our ability, our right, to defend those choices.

I can’t agree with you more. Finally another true patriot that knows the price of losing the second amendment.

Lets look at this.Car jacking your vehicle. A family
is driving home one evening and a would be car jacker attempts to take your vehicle by force. Your spouce reaches in the glove compartment and pulls a 357 and shoots the would be car jacker.Same family without the gun is killed by the car jacker. But your car was safely made. For who? You can blow all the smoke you want about the second amendment and the right to bear arms but some ass**** attempts to steal my vehicle or hurt my family he better have 911 on speed dail.

For every non gun owner or anyone who wants to take away our right to bear arms don’t you liberals get it. This right is the only way you are protected from tyranny and attack foriegn or domestic. Take away your gun and you might as well get rid of the rest of your rights because that would follow. I’m tired of hearing about how many people die due to hand guns. What about drunk drivers? Ban cars and drink? Ha! lets see that happen.And as far as assault weapons, a true assault weapon is discribed as full auto. Do you have one? I don’t.A recent article released from gun grabbers state that 200,000 people a day die world wide from AK-47s. Yea, how many from war? Don’t tell you that! Keep the guns.

I like my 1946 Winchester Model 12 Pump 12 gauge. It is a great home protection piece. you don’t even have to fire it, just one pump in a dark room, and all you hear is running feet!

AND if you do have to fire it, you don’t have to have good eyesight or a great aim. just point in the general direction of what you want to hit, and you are sure to get a piece of it!!!

It will be mine till they pry it from my cold dead hand!

Purple Girl,  You’re making my point from my earlier post to 1twenty1 that proponents of gun-owner control don’t take the trouble to read about guns before forming opinions. “Automatic” weapons are illegal across the country unless one holds a machine-gun license and registers each piece. As for the guns you refer to as semi-autos, these are actually auto-reloading rifles, shotguns or handguns. They have many sporting uses, including skeet and trap shooting, duck hunting, handgun competion shooting (very popular) and many other legitimate uses by honest gunowners. This includes self-defense.

Personally, I prefer an old fashion double-action revolver. My 357 mag using high-pressure rounds, is probably the most effective and trouble-free (jam-free) self-defense handgun ever developed.
It’s worth mentioning that if those many young women who have been killed during their late night or solitary walks had been properly trained to protect themselves, they would be alive today. This involves practice and training, of course, to instill confidence and competence with a gun. A good place for these women to start is NOT an autoloader of any kind. It is a small hammerless or rounded-spur 5-shot 38-Special (caliber) revolver, loaded with fast-expanding Remington 110-grain SJHP semi-jacketed hollow-point ammo.
If under deadly assault, break free with a heel strike to bridge of foot or eye poke or whatever, step back and unload all five into the attacker’s clavicle. He’ll drop like a bad of stones.

It’s critical, though, that any person using a gun for defense has to practice often and be fully aware of legal constraints on the use of deadly force.

Funny, the murder of John Lennon made me appreciate guns even more.

C’est la vie

The whole “gun-loving culture” idea is rediculous.  Citizens have the right to protect themselves against criminals or an out of control government.  The government has absolutely no right to regulate or curtail this right and I believe the SC will state as such.  If you do not like a country that protects a citizens right to arm themselves then I suggest you move to a country that does not have that right, such as China, Cuba, Mexico, etc.

More guns = less crime

If you feel threatened, incapable or afraid to own a gun don’t own one.

When the anti-gun people have collected all the guns from all the “bad” people out there and can be “positively sure” they won’t get others, come see me, I’ll consider giving up mine. Since we know the first part will never happen why consider the second. 

J.S. - BTW the drafters, not having a time machine, couldn’t foresee any type of weapons but muskets. They wrote about what they knew. The weapons may have changed since the beginning of time but your basic right of self defense by any means necessary hasn’t.

No court can give that to you or take it from you.

1twenty1, Thank you for your humorous reply to my snotty post. By your first post I got the impression you had bought a handgun unsuited to your needs. I only thought you were a chick because you talked like one. But that’s okay, because I am an even greater danger to society: an asshole with a gun. You’re even right about me having a small penis. I’ve already apologized to your wife.

1twenty1,  forgive me for this but anyone who can be “talked into” buying an autoloader is a danger to anyone around her. I have found that advocates of gun-owner control almost never know a thing about firearms, ballistics, ammunition, safe handling or gun law. In any State, even those like Vermont (very low crime), which do not require a carry-permit, it is a felony to fire a gun at someone unless you or an innocent other are in imminent danger of being killed.
The gray areas involve things like pointing a gun at an unarmed carjacker or someone who makes credible verbal threats. Showing the gun is often permissible, especially if the unarmed adversary is capable of wresting it from you in a fight. Actually firing the gun AND hitting the person enters a different and very painful realm in the legal system. The Kent State argument is irrelevant since any innocents being fired upon not only have a right, but a duty, to protect those being wrongfully attacked if running or cover are not available.

I understand why people wish there were no guns, but for those of us who are smaller and weaker than most, they can literally be a lifesaver.  When armed, women, the elderly and disabled people are not at the mercy of any vicious bully who encounters them, or breaks into their home.
Prior to the invention of firearms, the strong arm ruled.  Now anyone who is willing to invest in some training can travel through life knowing that they are able to effectively defend themselves from assault.
Firearms can be a problem, but in thousands of cases every year they are used to defend honest people from hoodlums.

It doesn’t matter what kind of gun.  The point is to protect ourselves from Tyranny.  Which as of late is becoming a very real threat.  Every time in history that guns were removed from the population GENOCIDE followed at the hands of tyrannical governments.  An Armed populace is a polite populace.

If you follow the theory of those “crazy” conspiracy theorists…All of a sudden gun ownership is a BAD thing ?? The “crazies” have predicted/theorized that gun ownership has now become the opposite of what was “totally” supported earlier.  Is this due to data that supports control, or does it indicate” the plan” in place for total control. They “used” the gun lobby for political power/control but, now, that they have a greater degree of control, it (the ownership of lethal weaponry) needs to be controlled/eradicated.They needed you “gun freaks”, that used the Constitution to justify that right, and “NOW” want to rescind it to protect themselves from the “harm” MADE possible of said possession/rights. I say that you “gun guys” fight like hell to keep these business guys wary. While I’m against the possession and, subsequent use of deadly instruments, I think it ironic that those that were elected to maintain your gun control rights are afraid to be victims of that ability.