<p>[McCain</a> backs gun decision, Obama straddles issue - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_guns;_ylt=AviOYOMtTXXZKbzaXn6o1phAw_IE]McCain”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_guns;_ylt=AviOYOMtTXXZKbzaXn6o1phAw_IE)</p>
<p>This one arrived just in time for the election…</p>
<p>I’m surprised nobody brought this up today. I guess the left thought it was going to lose and just ignored it.</p>
<p>I don’t own guns but I don’t see a problem with it. My kids both know how to shoot and respect guns. I’m curious how many licensed weapons are used in non-self defense shootings. Maybe someone will have that numer.</p>
<p>Reading the article, I was struck by how many times the language indicated that Obama either straddled the issue, took different positions coming and going, or declined to actually take a stance. I was going to try to highlight & quote all of the conflicting or wishy-washy statements, but that was just too much work.</p>
<p>Then I read this:
</p>
<p>And I realized that when the guy does take a stand or actually casts a vote - it’s wrong!</p>
<p>barrons - you’re right. I knew there was no chance of the Court going the way I would have liked.</p>
<p>Speaking only for myself, I also didn’t think the success or failure of this particular law would have much of an impact on anyone. DC is way too small, and its borders too fluid, for a local ordinance to matter. Therefore, I didn’t think the opinion would be very enlightening, and what do you know…it’s not.</p>
<p>Now, if we were talking about the state of California trying to legalize grenades, or the federal government requiring trigger locks on all newly manufactured guns…those are the kind of laws that attract my attention when they are challenged. That kind of case will tell us a lot more about how Justice Kennedy – um, I mean the Court – will interpret the Second Amendment in the breach.</p>
<p>The ruling is important though. This is the first time the Supreme Court has said that the second amendment means the “individual” right to bear arms. It has opened the door to challenge every single gun control measure out there, and if the Court moves more to the right - with McCain appointments for example - any control will be a target - pun intended.</p>
<p>Obama was in a tough spot, and he should have kept his story straight, but we dont need another ■■■■■■■■ cowboy in office.</p>
<p>Hanna - I hear Chicago is next on the list.</p>
<p>The only gun control we need in this country is to enforce the laws on the books. If the laws aren’t harsh enough then increase the penalties. Commit a crime with a gun lose your freedoms forever. The way you accomplish that is to get back to the days of jails being hell-holes and stuffing as many criminals a possible into a jail cell. There are plenty of desolate, god forbidding places in this country, where no one will complain, to build penitentiaries to send these people and forget about them. That would make people think twice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is considered a tough spot then heaven help us all if he becomes president.</p>
<p>Building more jails isnt a soultion, imo. The actual yearly expense of jailing a criminal is incredible these days(and considering the state of the economy, we dont need that).</p>
<p>pmrlcomm, I guess you dont hold any reverence for human rights.</p>
<p>First off the reason jailing became so expensive is the ACLU decided we were violating the criminals rights by treating them <gasp> like criminals.</gasp></p>
<p>I’m not sure why you would make the statement about human rights. Let me know specifically what I said that would lead you to believe that. The fact that I have no regard for criminals (who obviously would have no regard for me or my family) isn’t a lack of human rights… Give me any good reason why I should have sympathy for someone shooting someone else wilfully and with intent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…um…Gitmo?</p>
<p>I didn’t say to beat them or mistreat them, did I? I didn’t say to not feed them or make sure they had access to adequate health care. DID I SAY ANY OF THOSE THINGS? There is no reason their accomodations have to be anything other than jail cells. If you think that criminals are deserving of being treated as anything other than criminals then you are part of the problem.</p>
<p>Have someone you love violated and watch the criminal be given all the rights and have the victim be drug through the mud. Talke to me then about what criminals deserve.</p>
<p>Despite this decision’s obvious importance in ruling that the Second Amendment’s operative clause provides a right to the <em>individual</em> keeping and bearing of arms, and, accordingly, striking down as unconstitutional Washington D.C.'s prohibition of all handgun ownership (as well as the requirement that all firearms kept in the home be disassembled, etc.), it hardly means the end of all gun ownership regulations. If you read Scalia’s opinion (which I already have – it’s about 65 pages, but it goes quickly if you’re used to reading Supreme Court opinions!), he expressly states that a variety of restrictions would be presumptively Constitutional. Including a licensing requirement (so long as it isn’t the effective equivalent of a prohibition), prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, prohibitions on bringing firearms into sensitive areas such as schools and government buildings, prohibition of gun ownership by felons, the mentally ill, etc., certain restrictions on commercial gun transactions, and prohibitions on private ownership of <em>types</em> of firearms not reasonably related to the theoretical purpose set forth in the Second Amendment’s preamble, i.e., the type of weapon that a private individual might conceivably bring along to the militia. So, prohibitions on machine guns, M-16’s, rocket launchers, etc, etc., are AOK.</p>
<p>In other words, there won’t be gun stores opening up all over Manhattan anytime soon, selling anyone who walks in off the street a handgun without a background check or waiting period. </p>
<p>Donna</p>
<p>Stuffing as many criminals into a cell as possible isnt exactly a preface to excellent health…</p>
<p>If the People in DC, wanted control, they enacted on their desires. My question is whether the Court made New law and Contridicted the wishes of that voting district? What say you other R’s?</p>
<p>“There is no reason their accomodations have to be anything other than jail cells.”</p>
<p>The ACLU hasn’t said anything to the contrary, either. I don’t know what non-jail-like luxuries you think are driving up the costs of jails.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is it unreasonable to own the standard issue US infantry weapon (M16A2)?..especailly in light of the militia clause…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure if I misunderstood what you were saying here or not but… The court did make any law. It mearly applied a constitutional test to the law that was already enacted. I’m sure there is a lawyer around that be more informative than I.</p>