Comments on: Supreme Court’s best decision ever on gun regulation

By: collegeboy

collegeboy — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 04:25:21 +0000

Lol! You are an idiot man. “Under what lawful circumstances does the typical person need to carry a handgun, or benefit from possessing one?” Are you kidding with me? Because good law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry them for protection. I don’t understand how people like you just don’t get it that criminals will ALWAYS have handguns, machine guns, and anything else they want. It’s only good people that follow the rules. People who have a perfect background, know the rules, and are well trained on how to use a gun have every right to carry a handgun on them. It is safer for them, as well as everyone else around them. Have you ever had a thief pull a gun out on you in a parking lot? I bet not. Well, my friend…I have, and I’m not joking around. And as soon as I pulled out my .45 Colt Commander 1911 and shoved it in his face, he went running. The fact that I had that gun with me very well could have saved my life. My dad has had to pull a gun on someone as well, and my brother in law has done it twice. (It’s great having to go to downtown often isn’t it? haha.) I can not believe how some of you just don’t get it.

By: BagOfWater

BagOfWater — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:38:04 +0000

DifferentPOV-

We have a bond to our Constitution because we believe in rule of law, not rule of men. You may point to some esoteric sentence fragment that has become obsolete, and claim that the entirety of the document must therefore be invalidated, but you would be wrong to do so. The U.S. Constitution is a framework designed to limit the powers of the government. It was designed so that our government would be focused on doing what it was supposed to be doing, without tyrannical rule. Taking one look at how the power grab by the federal government over the past several decades has degraded our liberties and put us on the precipice of financial ruin, it is plain to see why the Constitution was designed as it was, and it is also unfortunate to see how our federal government has practically shredded it.

By: Jacolyte

Jacolyte — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 07:21:50 +0000

There is no legitimate use for handguns?! Uhm… women who work at night in dangerous areas perhaps? Who can’t fit a 12 gauge in their purse?

No legitimate use for handguns… ha!

Also, I disagree that the sole purpose of the 2nd amendment was because the framers wanted to go hunting and lacked an army. The British destroyed a depot full of military supplies in Concord. They emphasized the importance of the right to bear arms after this, because the oppressive British government destroyed them, leaving them defenseless.

By: BastHotep

BastHotep — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:45:01 +0000

After reading the above article, I have come to the conclusion that Reuters has no corporate policy against its employees taking hallucinogenic drugs.

By: DifferentPOV

DifferentPOV — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:51:57 +0000

Having now been in the US 10 years, I still don’t understand this strange bond to every single word the constitution says. This was written over 200 years ago. Granted, much of it was written broadly enough such that it remains open to interpretation, but there as Samuel Allito indicated, there are areas of it which are antiquated and no longer relevant. Let’s be reasonable – there is no way the framers could possibly anticipate modern life and to believe every word of the constitution remains valid 200 years later is not something that the framers would have believed reasonable. It was written to the best of their knowledge and abilities at the time. It will and should evolve. We can’t anticipate what life will be like in another 200 years, but let’s assume ‘phasers can be set to stun’ and are guaranteed to do so by being able to programmatically determine the right amount of stun needed for each individual irrespective of that persons size. In this scenario, why would a regular homeowner need a weapon that isn’t designed for markmanship or hunting (e.g. a handgun or machine gun) and why therefore should it remain legal?

By: borisjimbo

borisjimbo — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 05:34:02 +0000

US Constitution, Art. I, sect. 8, paragraphs 12 and 13, “The Congress shall have power . . . to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; [Congress shall have power] to provide and maintain a Navy.” Between the two of them it sounds to me like the founders intended a permanent navy but only an army as needed by whatever emergency existed at the time, hence the purpose of the Second Amendment. As to murfster and others who believe in a Second Amendment option to the results of the ballot box, I refer them to Art. III, sect. 3, para. 1 defining treason as exactly what they are proposing.

By: Cranberries

Cranberries — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 04:51:16 +0000

LOLS!! Need a pistol to defend yourself from crime do we?? And someone mentions that we can have a revolution if the gov was oppressive? LOLs Tank, pistol, rifle, tank wins:). This is not the 18 century anymore pple, gov can own u if it wanted to. Just look at Iran and Ayatollah. That could be anyone, even pple with guns. Best form of defense against oppression is boycotts and marches. Dont get me wrong, I like guns but plz dont scare youself into buying that 50 caliber desert eagle on account that you think everyone is out to get you. Just admit that its ur urge to play vigalantte lol.

By: Thenonaligned

Thenonaligned — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 03:13:52 +0000

There really isn’t an argument here. The 2nd amendment. That is all you have to say. In switzerland, everyone is issued a military style firearm. In fact, most nations allow guns to a certain extent. The US is not different from others, in fact the country with the most violence due to guns is Brazil. But, then again, guns don’t kill people; people kill people. In China, they use knives to kill little children at schools.

By: GA_Chris

GA_Chris — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 03:11:35 +0000

Look up Kennesaw, GA… Guns are mandatory and it’s got one of the lowest crime rates around. I’m no fan of guns but it works

By: thickhamsteak

thickhamsteak — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:17:59 +0000

It’s pretty clear you didn’t read either the Heller or McDonald opinions and have no idea what you are talking about. If you had you would know both of those cases specifically called into question HANDGUN bans in urban settings. So claiming these cases will somehow allow handgun bans is pretty naive and uninformed. Yes, the opinion allows for some regulation of the right, like forbidding criminals or the mentally ill from owning them, but that does NOT mean nation-wide gun control will suddenly become easier.

You keep talking about “hunting” and “marksmanship sports” as if those are the only legitimate reasons to own a gun. Again, if you had read the opinions you would know this is entirely false.

The entire article is full of errors and misinformation. It would take a repose just as long the article to refute everything wrong with it.