Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban
foxnews.com — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
Hortnon- 72 diggs
- digg it
- hashaplenty, on 06/26/2008, -1/+18"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A well regulated militia is only ONE reason for the 2nd Amendment.
It's about time the Supreme Court ruled on this!!!- IPublius, on 06/26/2008, -0/+11Actually, I would say that a well regulated militia is the main reason, but I believe Scalia nailed it in his brief. The amendment was not that only the militia could have guns, but so that citizens would already own weapons and know how to use them in order to form an effective and well regulated militia in a very short period of time.
I believe it was Jefferson who said that the greatest difference between our government and those of the Europeans was that ours trusted its citizenry enough to let them bear arms freely. I am overjoyed to see the Supreme Court actually relying on the intent of the writers of the amendment to guide their decision.
- IPublius, on 06/26/2008, -0/+11Actually, I would say that a well regulated militia is the main reason, but I believe Scalia nailed it in his brief. The amendment was not that only the militia could have guns, but so that citizens would already own weapons and know how to use them in order to form an effective and well regulated militia in a very short period of time.
- legolas68, on 06/26/2008, -0/+18This is an absolutely great day for America amidst tumultuous times. Those of us who embrace the Bill of Rights have interpreted this amendment correctly all along. Now there is clarification from the highest court in the land.
- tboe01, on 06/26/2008, -0/+16It's quite refreshing to see our government finally stand up for a right so simply stated in the bill of rights! Now if only we could have elected officials adhere to the other nine ammendments, we be much better off. That may be asking too much though...
- IPublius, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5We don't actually need them to do all nine others immediately. Just the 10th would be a great start. They are involved in too many things that they have no Constitutional right to.
- WiseWeasel, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3A bit of the fourth would be nice as well...
- IPublius, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5We don't actually need them to do all nine others immediately. Just the 10th would be a great start. They are involved in too many things that they have no Constitutional right to.
- Kent4jmj, on 06/26/2008, -1/+13"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A citizens right to bear arms is not just for personal use and protection but is necessary for the "Security of the State." From whom or what? Think about the context within which it was written and it becomes obvious. From a government taken over by tyrants who are abusing the people.- woobyluv, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8Precisely! If you follow the precedent for the 2nd Amendment in the first place, you will find that the British soldiers under King George would confiscate colonists weapons that they used for hunting and general survival. The Framers knew that such draconian measures should not be possible in a free society.
Also keep in mind that under British law prior to the adoption of the 2nd Amendment, which is also the legal basis for it, mandated that citizens keep and maintain weapons and armor for use in Militia service (middle ages). For relevance today, I would even argue that in order to keep the State in check, as the 2nd Amendment clearly intends, those wishing or capable, should keep and maintain a weapon suitable to modern militia service. In other words a service Rifle with bayonet.
The idea that military grade weapons are not protected for possession by the people, which the American people have by and large been conditioned to accept, is hogwash. When the 2nd Amendment was adopted and for years of legal precedent prior to its adoption, people had lawful access to the top of the line firearms of the day. With that said, no person needs to keep artillery, grenade launchers, or other weapons systems using high explosives in their house, but in keeping with America's militia past, such things should be made available to "well regulated" local militias.
- woobyluv, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8Precisely! If you follow the precedent for the 2nd Amendment in the first place, you will find that the British soldiers under King George would confiscate colonists weapons that they used for hunting and general survival. The Framers knew that such draconian measures should not be possible in a free society.
- RuffRidr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+18No longer do we have to hear that retarded argument from gun grabbers about the 2nd being a right of the militia.
- Hortnon, on 06/26/2008, -0/+13It's about time that this issue was settled, and is the most important part of the decision.
Personally, I was undecided on the 2nd Amendment's meaning (meanwhile, shopping for a handgun purchase). This settles it in my mind: The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, and that's the end of the issue.- woobyluv, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6Not exactly. The decision didn't take back everything that "infringes" the right to bear arms. Still in place is the requirement to register weapons. Why do they need to know? Here in California, you have to provide an address where the weapon will be. Why? It's not for the good of lawful citizens... It's so the govt knows where to go when it comes time for them to seize your weapons! Take a look at New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina! The govt can concoct whatever excuse they want...
The classic response to this is so criminals can be tracked. Or make it easy to find the owner of stolen weapons. Well here is some news for you...criminals don't register guns anyway! Why would they? Plus I have never heard of a case where a weapon was returned to the proper owner if a weapon, stolen, was used in the commission of a crime...such weapons are almost universally kept for evidence or destroyed. The only explanation that makes sense is as a form of control.
- woobyluv, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6Not exactly. The decision didn't take back everything that "infringes" the right to bear arms. Still in place is the requirement to register weapons. Why do they need to know? Here in California, you have to provide an address where the weapon will be. Why? It's not for the good of lawful citizens... It's so the govt knows where to go when it comes time for them to seize your weapons! Take a look at New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina! The govt can concoct whatever excuse they want...
- Hortnon, on 06/26/2008, -0/+13It's about time that this issue was settled, and is the most important part of the decision.
- pyro256, on 06/26/2008, -0/+13This is by far some of the best news to come from the government in a long long time. It is a start in the right direction for America. And a great starting point for law abiding citizens to be able to repeal some of the other over restrictive state and local laws i.e. California and Chicago's.
- bigot, on 06/26/2008, -1/+8Thank God for conservative judges. As one can see it was close.I guess I'll have to vote for McCain if for no other reason than he has promised to appoint constitutionalists to the Supreme Court.
It will be fun to watch the anti gun wacks try to explain the reduction of murders rapes,home invasion and other assorted violent crimes in Washington. Now that the law abiding citizens will be armed.- BigManOnCampus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Washington won't go from murder capital to Tokyo overnight. Rest assured that the people that live in gun control areas are used to gun control, their culture is set.
- bigot, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Everyone is crying out for immediate change. I'm sure the regular folks in DC will be able to adjust rapidly to the fact they will no longer have to wait for the law which always shows up to late to stop a murder. They will now be able to protect themselves. I'm sure they will handle their new found liberty to fight back admirably.
- BigManOnCampus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Washington won't go from murder capital to Tokyo overnight. Rest assured that the people that live in gun control areas are used to gun control, their culture is set.
- TheCarbonator, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8"Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.""
Breyer is just ignorant. "...there simply is no untouchable constitutional right [fill in the blank here]"
These leftists are tyrants waiting for the presidency. Fight the Power! - TrojanMan78, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7Thank Bush for appointing the judges that turned the court from hippie liberal to conservative. Gun laws only restrict law abiding citizens. Democrats want your guns so you cant overthrow them when they try turn this country into a communist state. Vote for McCain for no other reason then supreme court judges. The hippies want to legislate from the bench...? Ok then lets stack the bench with conservatives and beat down their socialist tendencies.
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Ben Franklin
"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." John Adams - yldmorninglory, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4 I guess if you are too sophisticated for a gun then maybe you can call a redneck, gun loving neighbor who isn't, so they can come over and save your stupid rear cause the police haven't gotten there yet! Way to go Supreme Court!
- BigManOnCampus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6I can't believe it was so close. How the hell did we get 4 judges on the SC who don't read the history surrounding the Constitution? I can't believe we're down to interpretive issues on this subject at all. I mean literally this argument hinged on a ***** comma! This isn't much different than lutherans and methodists fighting it out over their own interpretation of the bible for ***** sake!! The bill of rights is supposed to restrict congress, NOT INDIVIDUALS, that piece of paper was written to tell the government what they cannot take away from individual citizens. That is the entire point of the document! The fact that we have four judges on the SC who felt that the second amendment did anything other than guarantee individuals the right of self-defense is frightening.
- WiseWeasel, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I was just thinking that these SCotUS decisions almost always come down to a 5-4 decision, so maybe they just change their positions to always appear like things barely pass, just so people who support either result can have some comfort knowing they're not completely unrepresented by the Supreme Court. If Bush hadn't appointed Roberts and Alito, would some of these "liberal" judges who actually voted against this have had to switch sides to allow this judgment to pass? I'm thinking these 5-4 numbers are fixed as political theater, and they actually mostly agree on the final judgment that was given. Maybe the SCotUS deliberates by consensus rather than by an actual majority vote, and then they come up with their "positions" for our benefit.
- exgop, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6Why was it only a 5-4 decision? This should of been 9-0. Liberal judges liberal opinions.
- bigot, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5One organization you can thank is the (NRA). if not for their persistence in backing the second amendment and spending a fortune on this case it could have gone the other way. I am going to re- up for two years just to show my gratitude. I wish I could afford a lifetime membership.
- Jake81499, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5It's a rare occasion to see something good come from the Government. But watch the back stabbers in Congress closely. They are counting on Osamabama to 'Change' things. We really need to be praying he doesn't get elected. "VOTE" my fellow Conservative Americans like you've never voted before. Vote those nasty lying Dems out of existence!
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by