Yay.

Herb

This is good news. Gun Ban's don't and won't help in this country.

More guns = more gun deaths. Pretty simple equation.

The facts are in: More guns, less crime.

And the court agrees.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Read it and weep, gun-grabbers.

Herb

The facts are in: More guns, more crime, more death.

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/2/13/opedMoreGunsMoreCrimeColumbineRevisi ted

Read it and weap, death mongers.

So who are you going to call whilst meth addicts bash down your door, Vitalogy?

The police can't be everywhere.

Herb

I'll call the coroner to come and pick then up after I physically beat the crap out of them with my fists.

But, I don't live in fear like you do. I'm less worried about the meth addict bashing down my door and more worried about idiots in my neighborhood that own guns and missuse them.

'...after I physically beat the crap out of them with my fists.'

Never take a knife to a gun fight, elitist tough guy.

You can't trust adults to defend themselves, so you know best. Talk about the nanny state.

And in restricting the options on self-defense, you thereby doom the 98 pound woman who could otherwise defend herself.

How wonderfully PC.

Herb

The 98 year old woman will be a victim of her own gun before being a victim of a crime. The stats prove it. A gun in the house makes it a more dangerous house to live in.

>>victim of her own gun

Vitalogy...your right...almost a statistic myself in my house growing up around guns...minimum...gotta keep em locked up out of the way of kids...main problem.

'The 98 year old woman will be a victim of her own gun before being a victim of a crime. The stats prove it.'

'The real figure for homicides committed with guns in the home is about 14% of total gun homicides, Lott said. But guns in the home also stop crime, usually just by being brandished. When one takes into account the homicides (and other types of crime) prevented by guns in the home, there is a clear net advantage to having a gun in the home. For the majority of households with normal, responsible, peaceable adults, the net advantage is even greater.'

http://www.freecolorado.com/2000/03/moregunslesscrime.html

Herb

Guns in the home
Lott discusses the effect of having guns in the household, focusing on two points. His first argument is that people are almost never killed accidentally by their own guns. That most deaths involving guns in the home are suicides, and children are much more likely to be killed by household items such as 5 gallon buckets, beds, or pools than by a gun.

The second argument concerns the effect of laws that force gun owners to lock their guns in the home. Lott believes that more lives are lost than are saved when these laws are enacted, because people are less able to defend themselves when they need to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bias_Against_Guns

"whilst meth addicts bash down your door"

Again, I'm so glad that I don't live in Herb's sad, pathetic little world.

Kids are much more likely to be killed by a gun in a house with a gun than without a gun. A house with a gun is overall LESS safer than one with a gun. Guns are harldy EVER used for self defense.

I've asked this before I can't remember what, if any, answer was given;

Can anyone find the following numbers?

Number of intrusion incidents that involved the homeowner brandishing a gun against the intruder in any manner. ( Discharging the gun or not - it doesn't matter )

Number or homeowners that have had an accident or purposeful use involving their gun, in the home ( as opposed to hunting or something ) against someone NOT an intruder. ( I'm going to phrase it like that because drunken inbreeds count ).

>>much more likely to be killed by household items such as 5 gallon buckets, beds, or pools than by a gun

yah but it's such a sad irony for a family member to be accidentally killed/maimed by something that was suppose to protect you and your family...and it's happened far too often in America.

Actually, the decision is more complex than, no bans.

Regulation on who can own guns and where WILL PASS COURT MUSTER. Read the entire opinion.

This is the first case, and it's striking down broad regulation.

I strongly suspect more focused regulation, keyed to specific outcomes that are supportable, will survive a court challenge.

The 2nd amendment is not unlimited. We learned that today, along with learning the blanket D.C. ban being not ok.

'I'm so glad that I don't live in Herb's sad, pathetic little world.'

Victims believe they're immune to evil. Contrary to the liberal line, evil exists, and it isn't just about those miscreants who leave a huge carbon footprint, like Al Gore & Bobby Kennedy, Jr.

It's also why crime increases wherever law abiding citizens are disarmed.

Herb

Guns kill more innocent people than perpetrators.

"Friend accidentally shoots Gresham teen in face with shotgun"

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_062408_news_accidental_shooting.37d0ea db.html

Luckily he's gonna live.

The Constitution says folks can own guns and the libs don't want to follow the Constitution. At the same time, they want the Constitution applied to non-citizens living outside the U.S., something our forefathers obviously never intended and something the Constitution does not advocate. Go figure.

The founding fathers never imagined automatic pistols and rifles, but if you want a literal interpretation of the "right to bear arms", let's allow the use of muskets only and have black slaves toil in the strawberry patches. And you women can serve us strawberry shortcake, but not vote.

WTF? Kennedy and Gore?

As I've said here many times Herb-O-Bore, we have an arsenal's worth.

You know, for all those hundreds of local home invasions by crazed wild-eyed strangers that you read about, or see every single night on Fox "News"...it must be hard to get to sleep.

I picture you with your gun in the bed between you and the missuz, fondling it (the gun), just waiting and dreaming for the terrorists, NAMBLA-ites, the Pope, the gay couples, the black/hispanic MAX riders, the ACLU, the drug addicts, and whatever other boogeymen/women you imagine are lurking around your house. I just hope you don't take Ambien, you'll miss the whole fun and excitement of shooting at someone!

If the crazed "meth addicts" ever get past the 2 large barking dogs at my house, well, they'll probably be sorry...

Cap'n: Will it be ice cream, whipped cream, or both?

Actually, I'm more concerned about the aclu than any of the others, as they push to give the other evil-doers protected status.

Herb

I guess now would be a better time than ever to disclose the fact that I am kind of a fan of the Doom computer programmes.........

*notices certain users giving dirty looks*

Ahh dammit!! ;o)

So, then you've seen the movie. I thought it an interesting cinematic take when they filmed that one sequence in game player mode. Makes me want to go home and dig up that old CD. I am still hooked on Starcraft. It reminds me of the movie Starship Troopers.

Oh, and BTW.....IDDQD and IDKFA to ya!

"and the libs don't want to follow the Constitution."

Oh, and the Bush radical right does? Now that's funny!

That's another turd from your keyboard. I thought you had a semblance of intelligent but apparently that is not the case.

"I thought you had a semblance of intelligent but apparently that is not the case.:"

Apparently not.

" Actually, I'm more concerned about the aclu than any of the others, as they push to give the other evil-doers protected status. "

What has the ACLU been successful at that bothers you so much today? Or is it just the attempt?

Great questions CJ!

I would also like to add that either Guantanamo is covered as a territory under our Constitution, or the GOP Presidential nominee is from Panama. So, which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

If you wish to paint the military installation in Cuba as a foreign territory, then it would be fair to paint John McCain as a Latin American dictator in the Panamanian tradition of Manuel Noriega.

Perhaps he could use violence and intimidation against Hispanic voters to show his pedigree. Maybe the Senator can borrow the Van Halen song and have the Mike Huckabee Experience play it at campaign stops.

So, as a follow up to the fine questions by Chickenjuggler: Is a military installation ours or not?

Read it and weep, gun-grabbers.

PURE BULLCRAP!

I own 4 guns Herbocrite....

Herb does not like the ACLU because Herb is anti-American. He'd prefer only a select few enjoy the rights of America.

Darktemper:
Watch as my eyes glow orange and my demon-bustin' BFG accumulates 900 charges........oh yes.

*zap*

Saying of which Darktemper, didja know Commander Keen himself makes a cameo appearance in D2?

If you have it, do this:
C:\>cd\doom2 (or whatever directory you have it in) *hit enter*
C:\DOOM2>doom2 -warp 32 *hit enter*

Now would be a good time to IDDQD and IDKFA while you are at it!

('nuther hint: type IDBEHOLDA then switch to map view.)

I always liked to IDDQD it then walk around with the chainsaw!

Same here.......and "go find some meat". ;o)

Where are all the righties complaining about an "activist supreme court" that "legislates from the bench?"

There is no individual right to own a gun in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment gives the states the right to form militias.

I am not opposed to gun ownership and I don't think guns should be universally banned. Just wondering why all of the sudden all those conservatives who have so loudly complained about "judicial activism" are so quiet?

Andrew

Because they got some legislation from the bench, that's why!

Herb is anti-American

You got that RIGHT!

From the desk of Archie Bunker:
The facts are in: More guns, less crime.

Actually, there are studies that indicate when a community mandates everyone keeps a gun in their house, the town has less crime. I guess even crooks aren't that stupid. One right wing slogan comes to mind here, If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Like it or not there is merit to that.

That being said Herb, I would like to point out you belong to the party of less government, states rights, it this sounding familiar? I do find it a little ironic the "states rights" conservatives on the court take away the power of Washington DC to control crime the way they see fit. It just goes to show, states rights as long as the federal conservatives approve. You would scream bloody murder if the libs took a power away from a municipality the way you right wing buddies on the court just did, but then I always have felt you only see what you want to and you aren't seeing this.

There is no individual right to own a gun in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment gives the states the right to form militias.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

First off, that’s what this case was all about. The Supreme Court says we do.

Second off, the word “People” is used in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Why would the meaning of the word “People” be construed differently from amendment to amendment?

First: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does the First Amendment mean that only States have the right to free speech and not the “People”?

I’ll skip the Second Amendment. We know what it says and now we know what it really means. (Of course some of us have known all along and didn’t need the SCOTUS to tell us)

Fourth: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Do only the States have the right not to be subjected to an unreasonable search and not the “People”?

Ninth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Does this apply only to the States and not the “People”?

Tenth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Lastly, does this apply only to the States and not the “People”?

Watching the gun hating liberals on this issue is hilarious.

Now to them the SCOTUS is a bunch of right wingers!!!

They uphold the Constitution of the United States the way it's written and therefore they are a bunch of right wingers!!

I’m truly beginning to see what the LIEberals are all about; If the courts decide in their way of thinking then it’s OK and the Conservatives just need to STFU and take what the courts decide as being 100% correct. If the courts decide against their way of thinking then they are a bunch of right wing nut jobs and are screwing up our country to no end.

No wonder it’s called the ME generation. It’s all about ME. To hell with everybody else. ME, ME, ME.

Skybill writes:
First off, that's what this case was all about. The Supreme Court says we do.

Right - just like a woman's right to an abortion, established by the Supreme Court, huh? Why do you think so many on the Right don't accept that right?

Admit it: social conservatives do not accept "the Supreme Court says so" as justification for "rights" they happen to disagree with. So why would you expect anyone on the left to accept the Court's ruling about gun possession?

Andrew

Exactly.

So, that's what the court says right now. That is subject to change.

Right - just like a woman's right to an abortion, established by the Supreme Court, huh? Why do you think so many on the Right don't accept that right?

Except that when 2 people go into a gun shop they both come out alive.

When 2 people go into an abortion clinic, generally only 1 comes out alive.

Doesn't matter what the reason is.

Either we accept the court judgments, or we don't.

Now, would you consider this court decision settled law then?

If so,

same for Roe V Wade, right?

Bill, you're changing the subject. You said that the reason the Constitution says we have a right to own and possess guns is because "the Supreme Court says so." Why wouldn't that also apply to abortion rights? Does the fact that a gun once was used to kill someone invalidate the Court's ruling on the 2nd Amendment?

But I thank you for re-affirming the hypocrisy of the Right: you hate "judicial activism" unless it goes in your favor - then you are all for it.

Andrew

On the bright side, the Supreme Court has given us the go ahead to blow away dangerous religious zealots that won't go away.

Ducking every day here but still ticking.

Bill, you're changing the subject. You said that the reason the Constitution says we have a right to own and possess guns is because "the Supreme Court says so."

No. I'm saying that the reason we can own guns is the Constitution says so. The Supreme Court just reaffirmed that.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantee’s a woman’s right to an abortion. On the other hand there is nothing that says she can't either.

The Supreme Court says she can, so therefore it's legal. I think its murder, but it's legal in the eyes of the court so until the Court rules otherwise we'll just have to "live" with it.

But I thank you for re-affirming the hypocrisy of the Right: you hate "judicial activism" unless it goes in your favor - then you are all for it.

No different than the left's view either.

Now, would you consider this court decision settled law then?

I would, yes. But I guarantee that the liberal gun haters like Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Ted (wanna go swimming?) Kennedy and Obama and their likes won't.

They will be trying to disarm Americans as long as they are in office.

"They will be trying to disarm Americans as long as they are in office."

I've a hunch they're gonna be busy on other matters until Obama appoints a Justice or two (or 3).


I am curious what is gonna happen at the DC Corral down the road. More methheads dead on the doorsteps of homeowners or a rise in accidential gun deaths?

Just at Herb's house...there'll be a pile up.

Hebr said - " Actually, I'm more concerned about the aclu than any of the others, as they push to give the other evil-doers protected status. "

What has the ACLU been successful at that bothers you so much today? Or is it just the attempt?

"Or is it just the attempt?"

That's bad enough, then when you have stupid liberal judges, it's really bad.


My new bumper sticker.

Annoy a Liberal
Work, Succeed, Be Happy

Deane, what are you having to deal with in your life, on any level, that bugs you the most, that is a direct result of an ALCU case?

Their very existence. And the fact that liberals slobber all over their Communist leanings.

Deane obviously has no sense of history. If he were to do a bit of reading on the ACLU, he'd see that the ACLU has been on the forefront of so many important legal decisions to Americans – including the likes of Archie Bunker. But again, this is typical of Deane’s fascist thinking. I think kangaroo court would best describe Deane's concept of jurisprudence. No surprise here.

Before I say anything else, I really don't have a big problem with this SCOTUS decision.

It's become apparent to me that many social conservatives see the process as simply a means to an end. It's the end that they desire, and how / what means are employed isn't really a factor.

Yes, ends justify means.

Pack courts, lie, manipulate, steal, whatever. It really does not matter, so long as there are as few consequences as possible.

IMHO, if that's the way they are going to play it, then I see very few reasons to cut them any slack.

Going forward then, left leaning causes get my attention, and if there is some collateral damage along the way, well... then that's just how it is.

Clearly, we've enough people here not willing to play ball in the American way, that it's justified.

The huge amount of support we are seeing behind Barack Obama is very likely driven by this realization. Call it push back you righties!

Maybe it will go for a generation or so.

Deane, the proper retort here is that you righties get a serious stiffy over your facist tendencies.

See how that works?

After watching the fruits of 30 years or so of conservatives tearing things down, no quarter should be given going forward.

It's clear to me that serving the ideology at any expense is just too costly. I believe a growing majority of Americans agree.

Ideally, we can see some people locked up, fined and held up as an example of what happens when we elect Republicans.

"Pack courts"

How did they do this and what does it mean?

Been there, done that.

Next.

(Seriously, it's not worth it. That's what I mean by no quarter given.)

Edit: Conservative government does not work, period. I'm not better off for the experience, nor are most all of my peers. (there is a case for all of them, but I'm not going to go there)

So, that's it really. If it's something that Republicans really want to have happen, it's got to be vetted by Democrats going forward.

Anything else is just foolish.

There. Does that make more sense?

Another edit: Let's put it this way. Given the Republican record to date, and it's solid 23 percent theocratic supporters, it's a solid given that their efforts are not in our best interests a very high percentage of the time.

So, going forward, the burden is on Republicans to actually show where we are better off with them. The implication that Liberals are wrong, evil, bad for us, etc...

IS OFF THE TABLE for most people. That's the Bush legacy right there. Everybody knows what happens when we vote Republican. The only ones feeling good about that are those 23 or so percent that have some wedge issue they need some attention on.

The rest of us are flat sick of it.

Annoy a Liberal
Work, Succeed, Be Happy

Yeah?

Well I work too, so do my peers.

Guess what they are getting these days?

Significantly lower buying power for their labor. It's not defensible to say that the majority of people are not doing good work. They are, but they are being taxed huge, through currency devaluation, and downward wage pressure.

Been hearing this a lot:

"Yeah, I'm voting for the Black guy."

That's from hard working Republicans Deane. Republicans, who are pissed off at the results they got for their years of support.

I'm one of those, BTW.

Damn happy to be a Democrat now. Thought about the Independant bit, but really that's just denial. Better to just go the distance and push for progressive politics across the board.

There is a lot more in that, for the average American, than there is walking the middle ground, or continuing to support liars, theocrats, cheats and thieves.

Front and center of former US Attorney General Edwin Meese’s agenda was to pack the Federal Courts with conservatives – long term. With help from groups like the Federalist Society, it’s their mission to deconstruct the achievements of the Warren Court and fill judicial vacancies with the likes of Robert Bork. It’s no secret that Meese is the darling of the conservative legal community for making this a central priority. The conservatives fawn all over this guy when they hold one of their self-congratulatory get togethers.

Bumper sticker musings by one with a bumper sticker IQ.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Why should the court be loaded with Ted Kennedy disciples.

Is there a single reason the President should not appoint judges who reflect his political leanings? Any at all?

I don’t want to live in a country where extremist jurists render apocalyptic rulings on issues of abortion, employment/age/race discrimination law, gun control, gay rights, and human rights. We are living in the 21st century, not slave trading, mid 19th century America.

As for judicial appointments, it's advice and consent. That’s why the President cannot arbitrarily appoint anyone he chooses to sit on the federal bench without the consent of the US Senate. There is the recess appointment process, but they too will face US Senate confirmation.

Well, I can think of one good reason why we should have more Ted Kennedy types:

I like them better. Democrats are better for us than Republicans are.

Given current behavior, that's reason enough.

Modern day conservative policies don't work, so why would having more judges leaning that way work?

It won't and that's what this election is really about.

Will we see conservative policies embedded in the law for a long time, or will we stop that and start moving another direction?

Obama means change, McCain means solidifying this mess for the rest of most of our adult lives.

That's also reason enough.

We should do exactly what the Republicans did. Build a majority, then just hammer policies home to the maximum extent possible.

Why not? It's fair right? Returning the favor given seems to me exactly the right move.

I'm sitting back chuckling at you guys. You've fallen so totally into the liberal mindset that says you are so right, there is no other possibility that any other viewpoint should even see the light of day.

It's a sick position to be in, and it will eat you alive.

Me thinks you've gone batty in the head. But hey, even nutbags are allowed opinions -- its just that we won't be electing them POTUS anymore.

I'm sitting back chuckling at you guys. You've fallen so totally into the conservative mindset that says you are so right...

Feel sorry you've swallowed both the dogma and the ideology whole.

What we know today is that YOUR position Deane, is not a good one to take. So, let's do something different.

How about something equitable perhaps? Let ordinary Americans get a fair shake?

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Times are tough. Can't afford to worry about big corporate America, flag burning, abortion, gays, and other silly wedge issues.

Let's start talking solid wages, nationalized health care, campaign reform, alternative energy projects.

Deane reminds me of Nero, playing his fiddle while watching Rome burn, or in this case, watches his beloved president continue to prove himself unworthy of an office held by the likes of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. You’d have to be a complete dullard not to realize just how awful the past eight years have been for this country. Eight years of conservative leadership that has resulted in some of the worst domestic and international policy decisions in the history of the republic. Quite frankly, the GOP brand is toast right now – and not only in liberal western Oregon. The vast majority of the country is thoroughly disgusted with the lies and failed leadership of the current president and years of GOP mismanagement when it led the Congress.

George W. Bush had a golden opportunity to make the GOP the majority party – and he royally blew it. I have no idea what he was smoking or snorting, but he dropped the ball – and in such a way that has put the GOP on notice that the next election cycle will look really abysmal – comparable to the 1964 November elections.

So laugh all you want, but it's purely a crocodile guffaw. The tide is turning – and in a major way. And it’ll be a Democratic Senator from Illinois that will clean up the mess left by your incumbent dunderhead and his administration of failure and deceit.

The real killer is that Bush administration represented the pinnacle! All those years building up to the biggest clusterfuck the world has ever known.

Yeah, that's really going to build the Republican brand like no other, isn't it?

Ever notice how they don't say Republican much? GOP is seeing more use now too.

Not even one of those public relations firms who represent companies or individuals with dreadfully compromised reputations could save the Republican brand this time around. The Republicans are as popular as Robert Mugabe.

" Their very existence. And the fact that liberals slobber all over their Communist leanings."

So you can't name one case, can you?

You've gone from " ACLU is bad " to " OK. It takes judges." to " All rulings against my beliefs are communist." without citing ONE example of what I asked.

Not one.

Deane, believe and feel whatever you wish for whatever reason you want - but you cannot show ONE reason why.

And that makes you a fucking dick.

I gave you plenty of chances to discuss it like an adult - you can't. And the absence of the word " fuck " gives you no high ground.

You are TERRIBLE at this. Simply awful. Tragically, you represent a faction that is going to, I hope and believe, get kicked around so hard that you get what you deserve; Nothing.

Because that's what you bring to the table; Nothing.

NOTHING.

I'm sitting back chuckling at you guys. You've fallen so totally into the liberal mindset that says you are so right, there is no other possibility that any other viewpoint should even see the light of day.

It's a sick position to be in, and it will eat you alive.


We feel the same way about you and your RADICAL EXTREME RIGHT ways.

I got pissed. And if I really seek to have a conversation, which I claim to want, language like I used doesn't exactly further it. You know?

So Deane, I admit, your way of discussing things infuriates me - but I should be able to keep it in check without coming off so loaded for bear.

I don't know if it's just a generational thing - or if you are purposely pretending to answer questions, but don't, in the hopes that I wont notice. Or perhaps it's just a pride thing. I can't help but recall the time you said " Nobody has ever gotten the best of Deane - although many have tried." ( Paraphrase - but it can't be THAT too far off from what I rememeber ). Therefore you just cannot admit when you have been proven wrong or whatever.

In any case, I have proven you wrong. I should be able to just say that without calling you a fucking dick. I mean, so what if you are a fucking dick? You know you've been called worse and it doesn't seem to bother you. But me saying " You fucking dick " doesn't mean that you are a fucking dick. It's just my opinion that sometimes you act and seem and define being a fucking dick - doesn't mean that I should call you a fucking dick. Calling you a fucking dick, by your template, means that I must not have anything else to hold an argument besides resorting to calling you a fucking dick. I accept that. Although I disagree and have didn't call you a fucking dick in the early stages in my attempt to have a conversation with you.

In conclusion, while I believe you to act, portray youself and embody being a fucking dick, it is rude of me to say it to you. I know it doesn't bother you that I call you a fucking dick. But it bothers me that I called you a fucking dick. So in the future, if I call you a fucking dick, I think it's wholly appropriate for you to dismiss anytime I label you a fucking dick.

Not that it means anything to you that I called you a fucking dick ( I mean, you've stated exactly that " I never get offended " ) - still though. I hope it counts for something that I regret saying, out loud, in a public forum, that you are a fucking dick.

!

!

*PLONK*

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Littlesongs, that's a fantastic link!

Thanks for digging that up!

It's all about hatred for anything that isn't extreme liberal.

The reason I don't have a bunch of tension is that the conservative viewpoint is much better rooted in reality and common sense, while the liberal viewpoint is trying to hide from reality. It needs to keep people in a state of confusion, tension and general unhappiness in order to thrive. Bush helped the liberal cause more than they could ever have done themselves.

Notice how, with the upcoming election pretty much in the bag, you're still tense and uptight, while the conservatives are cool and collected, knowing it will all swing back there way when it's discovered how it doesn't work.

It'll especially be a shock for those who sit around waiting for the Dems to tax the rich and take them into utopia, and they discover there aren't enough rich people to rape and pseudo utopia will require taxing the have-not liberals along with the rich conservatives.

We're just watching and laughing.

The reason I don't have a bunch of tension is that the conservative viewpoint is much better rooted in reality and common sense.

Your so tight that if you shoved a piece of coal up your ass in a week you'd have a diamond DJ.
Reality? Common sense? Looks as though AMERICA doesn't agree with you and in November barring an attack (October surprise) orchestrated by Rove and Co. America will show you what REALITY is and it won't be YOUR DIStorted perception.

Conservatives don't laugh when things are not going their way -- they get even. So don't give much credence to Deane's happy warrior routine, because the s*it will hit the fan as soon as the Republicans feel they have ample ammunition to toss. Their brand is in the toilet, so they'll do anything imaginable to muddy the waters. From race bating to outright lying about Barack Obama, they'll do it all because they are experts in the field. The one thing a conservative can't do is accept defeat graciously.

"Bush helped the liberal cause more than they could ever have done themselves."

Deane has never been more truthful on this board than this statement.

"while the conservatives are cool and collected"

Then, Deane comes back to reality with a completely false statement.

Conservative Republicans are all about teaching somebody a lesson.

Won't matter if it's a year or 30. They will be there, just itching for the "I told you so", not because they were actually right, only that they have a chance to advance whatever self-serving agenda they happen to value more than being a human being.

Ignore this. That's all it is.

CJ is spot on too Deane.

The burden is clearly on you at this point.

Missing_kskd wrote:
"Actually, the decision is more complex than, no bans.

Regulation on who can own guns and where WILL PASS COURT MUSTER. Read the entire opinion.

This is the first case, and it's striking down broad regulation.

I strongly suspect more focused regulation, keyed to specific outcomes that are supportable, will survive a court challenge.

The 2nd amendment is not unlimited. We learned that today, along with learning the blanket D.C. ban being not ok."

I completely agree. The manifestation of this ruling will be that restrictions such as background checks, and disallowing felons from owning guns, etc, will still stand and continue to evolve. But assuming a person is not disqualified from his or her 2nd amendment rights, that person can now rest assured he'll be able to own a gun anywhere in these United States. Thursday, June 26th, 2008, was a great day for civil liberties.

As for the mind-numbingly dumb comment made by Vitology, "More guns = more gun deaths. Pretty simple equation."

Well, even simple equations can be wrong. I agree that if we formed a society from scratch, and decided to not include any guns from the onset, we'd obviously have no gun deaths. The problem is, with hundreds of millions of guns in this country, who will still have them if they were to be banned? The criminals would! You cannot remove all guns with any law. We would still have guns, but those who wish to use them legally would no longer be able to do so. So instead, we allow citizens to keep and bear arms. This mitigates the risk associated with guns in the hands of criminals. Lucky for me, I can relax a little when it comes to arguing my points now that the Supreme Court validated the common-sense view of gun rights that is prevalent throughout this land. The right to keep and bear arms is much older than the United States; it is a human right that allows good people to have the same tools as bad people so they may defend themselves. As far as the risk of keeping a gun in my own home, that is a risk I control with the way I store my guns and the unloaded state in which I keep them. I control that risk. I CAN'T control whether someone will invade my home and attempt to harm me in the middle of the night.

If we want to talk about "mind-numbingly dumb comments", look no further than yours Shane. I've stated several times that I don't believe in banning guns and support the right for those that qualify to own them, even though I don't personally feel the need to own one. And one of the great things about this decision is that it takes away the "slippery slope" you gun nuts like to talk about. The slippery slope is gone. So regulation can occur without the threat of those so-called "law abiding" gun owners losing their guns. I favor more regulation, gun registration and licensing, and limits on the higher fire power stuff that is not a necessity in self protection.

Now in regards to my statement, "More guns = more gun deaths", I challenge you to prove me wrong. But I'll save you the time. You can't. I'm 100% right.

Secondly, how effective is a gun that is locked up and unloaded when it comes to that dreaded middle of the night meth addict kicking in your door? As with most gun ownership, there is the PERCEPTION you are safer, but in reality, you're not. Whatever floats your boat. I just don't want you shooting a hole in mine. And me owning a gun won't protect me from you being an idiot with yours.

"The burden is clearly on you at this point."

I feel no burden whatsoever.

"Now in regards to my statement, "More guns = more gun deaths", I challenge you to prove me wrong. But I'll save you the time. You can't. I'm 100% right.

Secondly, how effective is a gun that is locked up and unloaded when it comes to that dreaded middle of the night meth addict kicking in your door? As with most gun ownership, there is the PERCEPTION you are safer, but in reality, you're not. Whatever floats your boat. I just don't want you shooting a hole in mine. And me owning a gun won't protect me from you being an idiot with yours."

1) More guns don't equal more gun deaths because guns don't cause death; users of guns cause death. It's not about the number of guns in society, it's about who is allowed to own them.

2) My gun isn't locked up, and I never said that it was. I live alone, and my shotgun is stored in my small apartment, with the cartridges next to it. I'd store it differently if there were kids who were in my residence at any time. If I heard someone trying to break in, I'd get it and load it very quickly.

My friend Charlotte, who lives in Hillsboro, stepped out to run an errand one evening, and came home to find a knife-wielding man in her apartment. He had simply kicked open the door and entered. She found the man in her bedroom going through her things. He threatened her with the knife, and my friend begged him not to hurt her. Luckily for her, he ran off into the night. He was never caught, and the police said he was a serial intruder who was wanted. The cops noticed that it took several attempts for the intruder to kick the door in (based on several scuffed footprints on the door). This is the window of time where I would have retrieved my gun if I'd been home. In my home, the moment I got home to find my door kicked open, I'd be able to grab and load my gun before going to my bedroom. It would have been a different end to this story if it happened to me. I would have made him drop the knife. If he complied, I'd call the police and have him arrested. If he advanced on me, I would have shot him. But I, as a gun owner, could have stopped this guy in a way my friend could not.

Yep Deane. That's the magic of it. What you feel is totally you and nobody else.

Do consider that all of us make the same choice and all we have to go on is the dynamic presented here.

It's perfectly ok to marginalize yourself and feel good about it. 23 percent of us do it every living day.

1) More guns in circulation means more users with guns, which means more gun deaths. If someone breaks into your small little apartment and steals your gun, that's one more gun in circulation. If you have 10 guns, well, now there's 10 guns in circulation, in the hands of a bad guy.

2) You would not have time to load your shot gun and use it in the heat of the moment. I've loaded guns from pistols to AR-15's to black powder rifles. Secondly, if your gun is so accessable to you, it's also accessable to someone else.

As for your friend Charlotte, unless she was carrying a gun ON HER PERSON, she would not have been able to use a gun for her defense. Chances are, she would have arrived home to have that knife wielding intruder instead loading an unloaded shotgun and ready to use it against her or someone else.

You are an example of the type of gun owner who puts other's at risk.

Proof in the pudding...we'll see if the murder rate in DC goes up or down in the coming years...if we all survive the gas prices...but wait...with all the guns and expensive gas...very volatile!
It's gonna be interesting...

Actually, the real proof will come in the form of how many deaths at the barrel of a gun occur. Not all gun deaths are crimes. Many are accidents or suicides.

I feel no burden whatsoever.

Living in the FANTASY land that you do it's no wonder.

"You are an example of the type of gun owner who puts other's at risk."

I rarely resort to personal attacks on this board, but you are a fucking asshole. Your assumptions about the situation I mentioned are incorrect; my friend had plenty of time before she made it to her bedroom, and my guns are kept between my front door and my bedroon. It WOULD have been different had it been my apartment (and you actually make a decent case for obtaining a concealed handgun permit, so thanks for helping me with that idea).

I am a responsible gun owner who would only use his weapon in self-defense. How dare you accuse me of putting others at risk. Typical leftist thinking though; it's my fault for "putting another gun on the street" if some thug breaks in and steals MY firearm. Go drink some more of your Kool Aid. Let me guess, you're a washed up old hippie who's bitter about the fact that the "peace and love" thing never caught on with the criminal element of our society. Well, go write some letters... or stage a fucking sit-in. The issue is settled- private gun owners rejoice.

If you don't lock up your gun, I consider you an irresponsible and unsafe gun owner. You're part of the problem. You think you're responsible just like all the other dip shits out there. My original observation was not a personal attack, it was an opinion based off what you're telling me to be fact.

And for the record, I'm a mid thirties educated professional. I'm faaaaaar from a hippie leftist. I own a house that I feel perfectly safe in. And my dick is big enough for my wife.

Gun owners rejoice while more innocent lives are lost. Maybe we could get Wayne LaPierre to attend some funerals of children killed by gun violence and explain to their families why the ban in DC wasn't in their best interest?

It may be settled in the minds of some, but for those whose lives are touched by gun violence on a routine basis, the situation will probably get worse.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_re_us/gun_deaths_suicide

Good link CJ.

Hey, since we've established that gun ownership is an individual right, what comes next?

That's right. Say it with me. Responsibility!

Everybody knows this from primary school (assuming you went to a decent primary school)
know your rights and responsibilities.

This is core adult stuff right? Right!

So, if we are permitted to own guns, we now need to seriously focus on managing that ownership.

There are options:

mandatory gun education maybe?

I am an extremely strong proponent of this. Now that it's been established that we all have the right to ownership, education is pretty much a moral obligation now, correct?

I think so.

Registration?

This is a mixed bag for me, but with education comes the need to actually verify that people are indeed educated. Think of it like learning to drive. If you want to exercise your gun ownership right, then you better damn well demonstrate that you are responsible.

Guns are dangerous things.

Focused Regulation

Broad brush regulation is out. Now that we have established gun ownership as a right, it falls under many of the same legal parameters as other rights do. One of the biggies is that regulation must address a known harm.

Like speech. We don't regulate this very much at all, though we do hold people responsible for it. Maybe not in a criminal fashion, but free speech is not a shield.

Nor should gun ownership be.

If we link the regulation to a known harm, and that link is defensible, tested, rational, etc... that regulation is very highly likely to pass court review.

Even with this court. And that's good actually as it will now focus the discussion on those things we can do to maximize gun ownership rights, while at the same time managing overall risk and harm to society.

We've not yet established what kinds of guns can be owned and where and by who. Again, like speech, we start with the default right to express ones self freely, then narrow it down, keeping an eye on known harms.

Should little kids own oozies? Probably not. Should adults own these freely? Personally, I also say probably not.

Some additional education and known ability to be responsible should be a part of that kind of gun ownership.

And that's where we are headed in this discussion, now that it's been firmly established as an individual right.

Oh, here's another one. Since it's an individual right, what do you all think of illegals having guns? The way our system works is it limits the power of government over the people.

An illegal can speak freely. Can they too have a gun then? If not, why?

Interesting times ahead.

Missing_kskd: "Should little kids own oozies?"

Little kids leave oozies in their diapers.

The firearm is an Uzi.

OWN then? They seem to delight in MAKING them.

I think it's just that the hippies had their free love era and all that. People who want guns should be allowed to real their repercussions too. It's fair.

With the 60's and into the 70's, hippes could legally dodge soap, drop acid, protest, transmit sexual diseases.

Gun owners today should be allowed to feel sexual towards SOMETHING. That puritanical upbringing fosters a mind that finds something warm about cold steel.

Mommy.

Vitalogy,
I'm glad that you and your wife are apparently happy with the size of your penis. I wouldn't wish any complex upon you. But back to the issue of gun ownership. I'm a responsible gun owner. I'll try to sleep well tonight despite the fact that I fail to meet your personal standards for responsibility.

BTW, "locked" guns can be stolen too. Gun safes can also be stolen and broken into. Sleep on it. Call me in the morning.

http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

"And my dick is big enough for my wife."

So, those penis enlargement pills worked for you after all?

DJ...
Did they work for your husband?

Deane, you know you've got some real comedic talent there. You'd give the Jr High kids a run for their money with jokes like that.