the conservatives and neoconservatives always complained about an activist liberal supreme court has was not that much an advocate for liberal causes. well we now have an activist republican supreme court. i wonder how the crime ridden neighbor hoods of washington dc like the decision made on hand guns. some one ought to kidnap that dago greaser ginny wop Anton Scalia dress him up in his best suit and drop him off at 3:00 am in one of those neighbor hoods.

i wonder how the crime ridden neighbor hoods of washington dc like the decision made on hand guns.

They like it dumbass, now they will be able to defend themselves and reduce crime by killing the scum home invaders and rapists. Gee how did that ban work for the criminals in DC....bet they were scared huh nutbag.

well bonehead they don't like it. that was reported by npr and other media outlets. get it the people that live in crime ridden areas don't like the scalia ruling. your urban myth is not true.

the only people that like it are upper middle class urban yuppies that live in affluent areas and feel better about their hand gun protector.

"scum home invaders and rapists" have bought the farm.

the turpitudes of modern judiciary sometimes favor the perpetrator

I don't know about yuppies (must be my body oil or something), but I do know that people who live in rural areas and off the grid don't call the sherrif until there is a body to report.

There are plenty of illegal methamphetamine labs (Why didn't the DEA target those?) and some rural areas have a way of attracting weird crap someone didn't notice until after they moved there.. Like the guy who buys the house and finds out after he bought if that car headlights come all night long... and sometimes bring folks who lost the money on the way to the meth lab and the house in the headlights looks like they can help..

Who is going to protect them? Sherrif isn't going to make it in time to protect and serve the tax payer. SO here in rural America, a gun (not a rifle or shotgun) but a pistol will save your life and your families life, and one hopes to not have to fire a shot, but it will better lead the way, point the direction OUT for those who think they stopped at the bank, while they're ucked up on meth. LEGALIZE Meth and this is what the government should control and regulate!

Depends on what State you live in. Some states have the right to self defense laws where if someone is caught in your home it is understood that they mean you and your family harm....ergo you don't have to beg and plead before you blow them away.

yeah but they may blow you away. while your sleeping, getting up to get the gun, or just beat you in a shoot out.

how many single mothers living in these crime ridden areas are going to win a shoot out?

how many home owners are going to win a shoot out with multiple robbers?

you big hand gun is like you flacid penis, probably worthless.

What in the world makes you think that the criminals ever paid any attention to the fact that handguns were illegal. I say the more pwoer to the people in DC, that will now legally be allowed to protect themselves. Out here in the sticks, I own 3 guns, 2 handguns and one rifle. This is my philosphy; You break into my home, while me and my familiy are there, I will fire firts and then ask questions later. Pretty damn simple philosphy, and one we should follow more often.

Aw....poor bubblebutt.

Lets see now, you are of the opinion that when the Supreme Court of the land, whose job it is to ensure our laws are within the Constitution, says that it is illegal to state no one can own a handgun, even though the second amendment of the bill of rights in that Constitution clearly STATES, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", THAT is "activism" according to you?

I would like to say how bizarre that is, unfortunately it isn't even unusual for libs.

(Oh, by the way, if you are gonna go with all that "dago greaser ginny wop Anton Scalia " shit, you really should have also put in something about dressing him up in his best suit and dropping him off at 3:00 am in one of those neighbor hoods full of niggers.)

No sense being selectively racist or insensitive. If you wish to be derogatory, do so toward ALL. That way you just look like an asshole, not a hypocritical asshole.

well mr big penis, just what makes you think your going to win in a shoot out with professional criminals. i suspect you scenario would give rise to head lines that read "house robbers wipe out rural family during robbery"

the nationality slur was aimed at one individual, anton scala, not a nation or its members.

regarding the decision:

Stevens emphasized that the right to own a weapon exists only "in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia," while Scalia said that the militia part of the amendment isn't meant as a limit on the pre-existing right to bear arms. The two also sharply disagreed on the 1939 decision that was the last time the issue was analyzed by the court and has been widely interpreted as a rejection of the individual-rights argument for possessing firearms.

scalia is what i said he is and will go down in histroy as being what i said he was for his decision.

I see.

So you and the good Mr. Stevens believe that the right to bear arms is for those in a milita, even though it specificly SAYS, "..the right of the PEOPLE".

But a milita is made up of "the people", right, so it must be referring to THOSE people..................

Of course, using that "logic", in the first amendment when they speak of the "rights of the PEOPLE", it means those who make up Congress, which is mentioned earlier, right?

Not "all" the people, only those who make up the militas or the congress mentioned prior to each, is that it?

my opinion is:

no it is up to the law makers in each state to decide the conditions of individual gun ownership. an individual's right to any weapon is a states right issue not a constitutional issue.

the constitution recognized the right of militas to bear arms. in a modern day sense that is the national guard or the us military. only the national guard and us military have a constitutional right to bear arms.

of course the dago ginny greaser wop anton scalia has ruled differently and lead a group of fools to decide otherwise. now i and all americans have to live with that jackass's decision.

Uh-Haaa.

Let me ask you then, if "an individual's right to any weapon is a states right issue not a constitutional issue", as you believe, why was it mentioned in the bill of rights in the first place?

And, no, it does NOT recognize the right of militas to bear arms, it SPECIFICLY STATES, "of THE PEOPLE". Not of the militas, the people. It speaks of the rights of the people to be armed because the militas were comprised of.......yep,......the fuckin' PEOPLE, and they supplied their own arms. It is exactly as it speaks of the rights of the people in the 1st amendment, not some previously mentioned group of people(the Congress), just like this one speaks of "the people", NOT the previously spoken of prior group of people, the militas.