i can't believe we're going to repeat the mistakes of reproductive choice as we attempt to fix the gun laws.

for those who either don't pay attention, or have highly partisan positions, the problem with roe v. wade is that it was a back door attempt to "create" law where none existed. if you want to ensure (or ban) reproductive rights, all you have to do is draft and pass a constitutional amend. then we won't have to listen to 25 (more) years of whining about how the next supreme court justice will be the most powerful powerful person in the universe and we all have to give lots of contributions to make sure our side wins this vital battle.

now the exact same thing is about to unfold with firearms (full disclosure - i'm in favor of sensible regulation - education, licensing,and insurance in a manner similar to motorvehicles)

but the only thing that we can be sure of, based on yesterdays split decision, is that gun zealots are rushing to challenge laws in places like chicago, and those who hate guns are rushing to rewrite their restrictive laws so we can have yet ANOTHER supreme court hearing.

hello - people - draft a constitutional amendment if you're truly interested in having gun ownership resolved once and for all.

and if you fail to do this, then you're simply confirming that you don't want to subject your viewpoint to the will of the people, and want to make a career of shaking us down for contributions while the case debated endlessly.

seriously. get an effing life.

We've got a constitutional amendment. And it doesn't apply to motorvehicles.

"hello - people - draft a constitutional amendment if you're truly interested in having gun ownership resolved once and for all."

We already have one. Perhaps you should use the provisions of the Bill of Rights to make the law of the land as you would like it. Use your Freedom of Speech , and Freedom of Assembly, to petition the government to change the "right to bear arms."

The 2nd amendment doesn't disallow regulation of firearms, in fact Scalia's decision explicity renders this. It states two major points. First, that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals and does not require a tie to some form of existing militia. Second, that handguns are of commonplace in this country that they cannot be banned, unlike exotic weapons such as assault rifles. Despite what some people think this ruling did not say that just anyone can go out and get whatever type of weapon that they want and walk around in public with it.

>now the exact same thing is about to unfold with firearms (full disclosure - i'm in favor of sensible regulation - education, licensing,and insurance in a manner similar to motorvehicles)

It amazes me that so many anti-firearms "zealots" see red when the pro-firearms lobby compares firearms to automobiles, but turn around and use the model of how automobiles are regulated as a way to 'control firearms."

Even if we did EXACTLY as you said, it would not stop firearms from being involved in crimes. What you, and so many of your brethren, seem to conveniently forget is that people who commit crimes are called "criminals" because they don't obey the law.

I know this same rhetoric goes back and forth in every debate on this subject. I would like to stop it. Please tell me how enacting more laws will make for less criminals? How will enacting more firearms controls stop people who use firearms illegally? Please sit back and think on that one and give me an honest answer. Don't just propose more regulation.

I doubt very seriously that, after firearms were regulated as you envision, that you would be satisfied. You are not interested in regulating firearms, (they are already regulated to death), you are only interested in doing entirely away with them. At least, you could be honest.

>but the only thing that we can be sure of, based on yesterdays split decision, is that gun zealots are rushing to challenge laws in places like chicago, and those who hate guns are rushing to rewrite their restrictive laws so we can have yet ANOTHER supreme court hearing.

Wanting to make the government respect what the supreme court has defined as a "right" makes one a "zealot"? I guess, since you can't make a cogent argument, calling names is one way to go...

>hello - people - draft a constitutional amendment if you're truly interested in having gun ownership resolved once and for all.

WE ALREADY DID THIS. You just don't like it. Why would it be reasonable to assume that another amendment concerning firearms would make the matter any more settled?

As far as I am concerned, it is settled now. Obviously, there is not a large enough majority in this country that sees the issue from your prospective. If there was, the issue would have been changed, by a vote of the people, long ago.

>and if you fail to do this, then you're simply confirming that you don't want to subject your viewpoint to the will of the people, and want to make a career of shaking us down for contributions while the case debated endlessly.

If you think your point of view is held by enough of your fellow citizens, feel free to try to get a constitutional amendment passed. So, I assume your failure to propose a constitutional amendment in conformance with your views means "you don't want to subject your viewpoint to the will of the people."

>seriously. get an effing life.

Yeah, you should get a life. Get over it and stop being so full of yourself. The law of the land is that firearms ownership is legal. The supreme court of the land said that the DC law was unconstitutional. Deal with it and quit crying like a baby who didn't get its way.