Today's decision will almost certainly kill some Americans? Now, as a firm Roe v. Wade supporter, allow me to point out that that decision also ensured that some Americans would be killed. I imagine that today's dissent didn't make that point because they realize how retarded it sounds.

Dahlia has said some stupid things before, but farsical stupidity has finally been reached.

Cheers. She's preposterous.

What's farsical is pretending that an "American" is created the moment when two gametes fuse into a zygote.

This is an apple, and this is an orange. Study them, please, until you can tell the difference.

I would say a better comparison would have been when the conservatives claimed that habeus corpus rights would get Americans killed. Even so, the argument is laughable because the DC law wasnt really doing much good. Laws in most states add a special clause to crimes committed with the aid of a gun or other weapon and this accomplished the goals the DC law was aimed at. Possession being 9/10 of the law, in this case I agree with the convervatives-if you arent using it illegally then you shouldnt be considered a criminal for having one.

That said, the addition of the gun lock requirement to the right to bear arms is akin to allowing cars with no breaks. This is a safety regulation and not about owning a gun. If you own a gun and the municipality asks that securing it from accidental use by a child or someone other than yourself is a safety requirement then you are not being "inconvenienced" any more than someone having to unlock their car is being inconvenienced. The SJC shouldnt be putting these two issues into a single ruling-they are not the same issue.

Responsible using gun owners should agree here that responsible includes the safe storage and consideration of your environment including having children in the home or the possibility of theft of your weapon. Convenience is a good argument for a cop or a soldier, but not for a homeowner. This isnt the wild west and no one is going to be in a quick draw contest. If you hunt or if you intend to remove your pistol from its hiding place to be used against a burgler, you should have it locked up until such time as it is needed. To leave it loaded and accessable with children in the home is irresponsible gun ownership.

'To leave it loaded and accessable with children in the home is irresponsible gun ownership.'

people are too stupid to have guns around. right PMS? especially those negroes in DC, chicago and other inner city democrat run places.

that is what you are saying PMS you racist jerk. that's what these gun bans are you know. racist to the core. you liberals think negroes are too stupid to have guns.

A fetus isn't a human life until it reaches the age where it can be delivered and survive. Abortion after that point is illegal. Abortion is not murder, its abortion.

In any case, no one should force a woman to carry a fetus she doesn't want. Aren't conservatives all for personal choice and keeping the government from being too intrusive?

Further, abortion occurred long before it was legal. Every little town had someone that would do them, often unsafely. Many women died or were made sterile by these abortions. Want to see people die? Make abortion illegal. Then, only the wealthy will get them. The poor will die and suffer.

The only purpose of a handgun is to kill another human being. The citizens of DC should be able to ban them if they want.

"people are too stupid to have guns around. right PMS? especially those negroes in DC, chicago and other inner city democrat run places."

##### Did you bother to read my post Chang? I agree that the city of DC had no right to keep people from legitimately owning guns. I merely added that they also had to be responsible for them-and that means the use of gun locks.

"that is what you are saying PMS you racist jerk. that's what these gun bans are you know. racist to the core. you liberals think negroes are too stupid to have guns."

###### Oh come now Chang. Negroes use guns to invade Iraq and kill people there without too much trouble. Im just saying if a brother wants to own a gun he needs to follow the responsible use of said weapon-including gun locks. But if he pops a cap in your ass because it was convenient, well who am I to question that?

Actually, the citizens of DC voted for the handgun ban. You may not like it, but that's what they wanted for their own community. Aren't conservatives supposed to be for keeping the federal government out of a local communities decision to govern according to its own values? Apparently that's only true for prayer in school and the like...

Why are conservatives forcing them to let people keep handguns in their homes? Maybe the conservatives like inner city violence? Maybe they want people in the inner cities of the USA to stay poor and powerless?

'You may not like it, but that's what they wanted for their own community. Aren't conservatives supposed to be for keeping the federal government out of a local communities decision to govern according to its own values?'

not when it violates the constitution. but, hey, you libs don't give a shit about the constitution and never have. heck. the libs on SCOTUS figure they could force private citzens to sell their property to the evil drug companies.

"not when it violates the constitution. but, hey, you libs don't give a shit about the constitution and never have. heck. the libs on SCOTUS figure they could force private citzens to sell their property to the evil drug companies."

###### Well Chang, as this ruling proves, activists come in all colors and shades. This one was clearly a conservative activist win. They threw out a democratically elected law the MAJORITY wanted. I also would love to see how a gun lock law is a vioation of the constitution.

And the SJC didnt force anyone to sell their property to a drug company-but Bush signed away the right of the government to negotiate prices on drugs....limiting rights is after all what the cons do best.

Conservatives sure didn't worry about the constitution when they wanted to have prayer in schools, baby jesus on the town square, and to ban flag burning...

In the end, the supreme court decides what violates the constitution. The constitution provides no guidance what to do about handgun violence in inner city DC. So, you are using circular logic here.

Either you are for a community governing itself according to its values or you aren't. You can't pick and choose.

Can you get beyond your knee jerk reaction to "liberals" and use your brain for once?

'Can you get beyond your knee jerk reaction to "liberals" and use your brain for once?'

nope. i can't stand you self important dipshits. liberals as a whole are the most self obsessed, emotionally driven, and dangerous people on the planet.

you think the world begand the day you were born, get your info from heart tugging, overblown hollywood movies, and dabble in socialism which will turn this country into a fourth world shit hole, skipping the 3rd world altogether like they did to new orleans and detroit.

you will create dependence and misery to keep people ignorant and enslaved. that is your game. you are so self important and emotional, you can't even see what you are doing. but, it never was about them anyway, it's always been about you.

The Real RML said: "Well Chang, as this ruling proves, activists come in all colors and shades. This one was clearly a conservative activist win. They threw out a democratically elected law the MAJORITY wanted. I also would love to see how a gun lock law is a vioation of the constitution."

No, dumbass, the Court threw out a law that was unconstitutional based on a right that was CLEARLY DELINEATED IN THE CONSTITUTION. No penumbras, no fairytales. IT'S THERE!

If that's activism, that's the right kind of "activism". That's the way the Court should act, instead of making shit up as they go.

don't worry about PMS lady. she thinks the constitution can men anything she wants it to. we had a stalemate the other week about gubmint health care and she thinks it's a constitutional right. how the hell she figures that, i'll never know.

she whups out the general welfare clause and it makes me want to wretch. she still thinks the general welfare means laquineeeeesha jackson's welfare.