District of Columbia's handgun ban

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, has struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban.

The ruling says Americans have the individual right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the Associated Press reported. It is the high court's first definitive Second Amendment ruling in U.S. history.

The Supreme Court held that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

hahahahaha...... thats why u always hear gun shots in america.

the un laws in australia are very very strict. i was told u have to account for every bullet u own! and prove that ur guns are locked away in a special storage unit.

Say what you will but I appreciate that The US Supreme Cort has finally supported my right to own weapons for my defense.

I honestly never hear gunshots unless I'm the one shooting but I know that DC despite the 20-30 year gun ban has been full of shootings, go figure.

Ha, a real man don't need no gun for defense. Nothing like a good sharp sword for defense. Someone breaks into my house I bet you anything that he would never had known his head would be rolling around on the floor after he rounded the hall.

My uncle just gave me a 22 rifle just last week and is siting in the corner of my room. But if someone broke into my house and I was going to grab something for defense I think I would grab up the 5' long trident and the battle ax more then the gun.

depends on the distance, and how good a shot you are.

LOL you're funny. and leave it to texas to get a gun for a gift. Do you go hunting?

No, just target shotting at the range with my cousin David. He is a CSI with Dallas and he does the photos and stuff for the conseald handgun license. He goes ever other sat so I just go when he has nothing else to do that day and just shot for free when I'm with him. Which is why it is only a 22, the ammo is really cheap.

As for the distance Smitty, it's a house. I think both the trident and battle ax can both be thrown with deadly outcome on both of them. And I'm sure they both do more damage then just a gun would.

Re: our Down Under / Over There friends. Yes, we know, your country is so much better than America because you don't have any guns. Oh well!

In terms of home defense, while I have mixed feelings about the ramifications of this ruling, your best option is hollow point handgun rounds. Handguns are far easier to maintain on a target while moving or if you need to aim quickly. Also, hollow points will generally not go through someone and then into your neighbor's house.

I always thought the best home defense was the sound of a shotgun being cocked. There are plenty of caveats, but it is nice to see the Supreme Court actually uphold the Constitution for a change. A lot of people in this country opposed to private gun ownership seem to confuse the following points:

-The second amendment protects the individual right to bear arms.
-Civilians in today's society shouldn't have firearms.

Claiming the second amendment allows only for a collective right to bear arms always struck me as insulting. So too the process of reinterpreting the Constitution in ways never intended by the framers instead of actually passing an amendment through the legislature.

Failplane wrote:I always thought the best home defense was the sound of a shotgun being cocked. There are plenty of caveats, but it is nice to see the Supreme Court actually uphold the Constitution for a change. A lot of people in this country opposed to private gun ownership seem to confuse the following points:

-The second amendment protects the individual right to bear arms.
-Civilians in today's society shouldn't have firearms.

Claiming the second amendment allows only for a collective right to bear arms always struck me as insulting. So too the process of reinterpreting the Constitution in ways never intended by the framers instead of actually passing an amendment through the legislature.

A man after my own heart.

Pleisa wrote:In terms of home defense, while I have mixed feelings about the ramifications of this ruling, your best option is hollow point handgun rounds. Handguns are far easier to maintain on a target while moving or if you need to aim quickly. Also, hollow points will generally not go through someone and then into your neighbor's house.

I wish I could have an MP5.

LOL the problem with a submachine gun is that, unless properly trained, it is exceedingly difficult to keep even small rounds on target using an automatic weapon. Handguns are by far the best remedy. Unless you count short-barrel shotguns.

In terms of the second amendment as a collective/individual right thing, I am indeed torn. Part of me wants to say, "Sure, owning a firearm is an individual right." The other part of me says, "But the founding fathers didn't envision 30-round magazines, they hunted game and the British using one-shot long rifles. Therefore, when they said "for the purpose of a well-regulated militia," they may have meant just that."

On top of that, it's sort of the Supreme Court's job to interpret the constitutionality of laws under scrutiny by way of lawsuits brought against individuals, corporations or municipalities. To cry "activist judiciary!" when one opposes that interpretation while remaining silent when one supports it (see: eminent domain) is, to me, highly hypocritical.

Just my two cents.

But I'm against eminent domain as well. The Supreme court should judge whether laws are in conflict with the Constitution. They shouldn't blatantly alter the Constitution's meaning (that's for the legislature).

They did that in this case. However, had it been the other way (i.e. that firearms are a collective and not an individual right), the justices would still be judging whether the law is in conflict with the Constitution. That's why the judiciary has the power to check the executive and legislative branches, because the Constitution was made vague on purpose in some areas.

The obligation of the courts are to determine whether or not a law prohibits a right that has been written down in the constitution/bill of rights.

Not the judges nor the founding fathers made our rights or determine what they are or how they are limited. The founding fathers just observed the natural rights and wrote the most important ones down for everyone to see.

It is odd that the courts would take so long to make this ruling as this is the 2nd amendment observed by the founding fathers them selves with no words limiting the right in any degree.

That being said I can understand why the mentally ill would be refused the right as well as those that have committed any violent crimes in the past as that would be infringing on others rights to life. I can understand why the right to own weapons of mass destruction would be limited as well.

Now for some specifics:
The founders wrote down "arms" not "small arms" or "only the militia".
The founders had a kind of unique perspective going into this as they were being oppressed and over taxed by a government that was not fulfilling its obligations. These arms should not be limited to handguns or grenades or rocket launchers or even tanks in our time because that is what it would take to over through an oppressive government that has the same. The US government has been for the most part a good landlord and has fulfilled its obligations to its people (though with many mistakes). We don't see a need for tanks and whatnot because we don't live in the environment that requires them. There are others out there that do need them and if you need an example of a people oppressed by their government you only need watch/read the news for a short while. We do however see violent crime and so a need for handguns as personal protection.

The right to bare arms is not limited to handguns or a sward whether or not a judge says so. The founders knew it, I know it, and the victims of genocide know it.

Did you know that most deaths from handguns come from suicides? Just read that. It's interesting. Also, IIRC, the statistics bear out that most people hurt in home invasions are hurt by their own weapon or the weapon of a family member (i.e. a dad loses his gun to the intruder or he cooks off a round into his kid's bedroom). Just food for thought.

huh. that is an interesting factoid. It's why you can never trust statistics.

Thats why you should just skip the gun and go with a battle ax That isn't going to cause collateral damage. And when the intruder sees the ax he isn't going to get close enough for you to use it, let alone steal it from you.

he doesn't have to get close to you if he has a gun zarky. that's why man invented archery.

Have you ever tried to fire a bow inside a house. Just isn't enough room to be very effective. I should know, I have a bow also. There just about no hand held weapon made that I don't have someplace or another. I even have a crossbow, but don't know where the bolts for it are. That would be a little more practical then a bow. Infact, after the move I don't even really remember where the cross bow is, I do remember seeing it but just don't know where it was.

And like I said b4, the ax can be thrown. And because it makes no noise he wouldn't even know it was headed for his back till it was stuck in it.

well i meant archery which then led to other projectile weapons which led to guns.
the ax may make no noise, but i'm sure you do. And an ax in the back isn't neccessarily an immediate kill, he may still have time to shoot you, and you've given up your weapon.

Your forgetting the trident in the other hand. MUHAHAHAHA

This is getting us nowhere.

LOLOL trident.
good times had by all.

Back on topic about handguns.

The problem with guns is there are too many people out there that don't know how to handle them properly. Too many people get hurt misusing handguns. Too many kids get killed because there parents never showed them that guns are not toys. As a kid my dad showed use how to handle a gun and to never just pick up a gun and think it's not loaded without checking for yourself.

Criminals will have and use guns no matter what the law says about owning one. But that shouldn't keep guns out of the hands of those that are responsible enough to use them properly. There is a concealed hand gun license law here in Dallas and I seen what people have to go trough just to get it. They have to take a two day class on all the things they need to know about where and when a gun can be carried and where it isn't allowed even if you have a license. Then they also have to pass a shoting test where they have to shot at a silouet of a man target and can't score less then 75%. And I seen some people that couldn't even hit the target to even pass to get there license.

Zarknorg wrote:Back on topic about handguns.

The problem with guns is there are too many people out there that don't know how to handle them properly. Too many people get hurt misusing handguns.

This is also true about swimming pools and motorcycles, pocket knives, chain saws, cars, cellphones, fire, gas, and about 1000 other things. Point is people get hurt and the handgun isn't to blame nor will banning handguns solve the problem of people dieing/getting hurt.