Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 15 Dec 1791.

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.

Can anybody tell me what's so complicated about this?  Does it get any plainer than this?  Or am I just a "simpleton" to take it at face value?

Thank God the Supreme Court hasn't gotten too stupid by all their education, unlike wannabes (flunkie journalism majors) in the MSM.

That would be the same "far right" court that ruled the death penalty for child rapists to be unconstitutional the day before.

And just before that, wasn't the 6-3 decision to give enemy combatants constitutional rights described as "splintered"?

Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson

"It will also diminish our standing in the world. . . ."  Oh no!!!!!

Now it's not about the Constitution, the law, security or safety.  It's about being popular.  If only Americans wore slacks instead of jeans and khakis, we'd be more popular. 

Scotus decision the MSM likes: groundbreaking, pioneering

Scotus decision the MSM doesn't like: controversial, divisive.

Trust me there were plenty of murders and guns of all sorts in DC before this decision. Now the law abiding citizens will get their chance at ownership, and from this point on whenever a criminal is shot invading a home or accosting someone the MSM will leave out those pesky little details.

 "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

                               " The Cake is a lie."   

For argument sake, if the numbers are true (30,000 gun deaths): in a country will 300 million that comes to a whopping .01% of the population dying by the bullet.

Non issue.

You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

"The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia's gun-control law."

Yea, right. That'll only happen of more Americans move to DC, buy a gun, and shoot themselves in mass suicides! Do these idiots really think that this ruling will affect areas that already have far more relaxed handgun laws? No, it won’t. Most Americans will never even notice a change. DC had the most restrictive hand gun laws in America and yet they had the highest handgun related death rate in the country. Coincidence? I think not! So, NY Times, go spread your BS over a different cornfield, this one doesn't need it.

"Cities and states have tried to stanch the killing with gun-control laws."

Yea, and how did that work out? Not very well as those cities and states all witnessed an INCREASE in the number of crimes, like murder, rape, and theft, in a far higher rate than those cities and states that didn't impose those same gun-control laws. Once again: Coincidence? I think not.

You can't stop people from killing each other by taking away their tools, like guns. They'll just find another tool to use, like their hands. You can only stop the killing by taking away the desire to kill. How do we do that? I don’t know the answer to that question, and, even after thousands of year of pondering that same question, nether does anyone else. But, like good little liberals, you idiots would rather insist on treating what you believe to be the symptoms (and fail miserably in doing so as it didn't stop the killings) while ignoring the disease.

More of the "Guns Kill" lie...using stupidity to express a point.

How many people did cars "kill" last year?

Only poor judgement kills.

Drill ANWAR

we are so screwed.

Liberals62%

IranianUranium

The NYT is worried about innocent lives caused by gun deaths. 

But are they really innocent?  According to another NYT trope, we are all guilty of poisoning Mother Nature.  The NYT should celebrate 30K deaths since that will reduce carbon emissions!

I mean, didn't they see The Happy-ning?

 <insert witty signature here>

Guns do not kill people, people kill people, someone has to pick up the gun and pull the trigger...guns do not magically get up from their resting places and start shooting.

So self-evident except for gun control groupies.

I remember just keeling over laughing when I first watched Happy Gilmore and the huge guy that played Jaws in the James Bond flick (I think it was Moonraker) was wearing a shirt that read: "Guns Don't Kill People - I Kill People" Oh man that was a keeper.

"This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering...."

Seems to me they applauded the abortion decision and it has exponentially cost more lives, pain and suffering.

And the libs believe the right to an abortion is more clear in the constitution than the right to bear arms. Unbelievable.

God help this country if another liberal judge is put on the SCOTUS.

 NYT on Scotus and the 2nd amendment:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling"

How about Roe vs. Wade:

"The Supreme Court all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling."

How about enemy combatants having trials in U.S courts:

"The Supreme Court all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling "

NYT-Jazeera, just preaching to the choir.

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

                               " The Cake is a lie."   

The New York Times once again engages in hysterical hyperbole in a fulminating editorial.  The decision the Times editorial board references without naming, Miller v United States is a meandering, poorly written 1939 decision concerning two criminals who had been convicted of violating the Federal Firearms Law.  Neither participated in the Court hearing and the Supreme Court, rather unwisely, said since there was no judicial notice that a shotgun is a weapon used in service to a militia, the convictions would stand.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 The Miller ruling is ambiguous at best in so far as the 2nd Amendment goes.  It DOES NOT say what the Times wants it to say, that only members of a militia are protected by the 2nd Amendment.  What is clear is that the founders were concerned about an ever encroaching Federal Government and wanted to protect the right of citizens to be armed.  The carrying of firearms was not controversial back in the 1790s. 

In fact Miller contains the folllowing language:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

 

This displeases the liberals of the Times and the liberals on the court. So they want to interpret the prefatory clause of the amendment to be a restriction which renders the Amendment meaningless and inoperative.  Their concerns are misplaced. The Court held yesterday that reasonable restrictions are allowed. But in District of Columbia v Heller, the District with a total firearms ban denied a gun permit to a police officer so he could keep a weapon in his home when not on duty.

The next battleground will be an attempt to render the 2nd Amendment meaningless by asserting the restriction applies only to the Federal Government and not to the States.