« The Flood of ‘08, Shooting and the Price of Gas | Main | What's Wrong with this Picture? »

June 26, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.

A Hit From The Supremes

“It was a damned near-run thing.”—Arthur, Lord Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, on the Battle of Waterloo, at which the English came very close to getting their asses whipped by Napoleon.

Well, this was a damned near-run thing. We averted disaster by one vote. If the Supremes had found against Mr. Heller and held that the Second Amendment refers only to militias, the future would be grim beyond imagining. We will, in all likelihood, have an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress and a President named Obama. In the face of a defeat for our side, the new congress would draw up a really hellish anti-gun bill, and Obama would sign it immediately. Democrats can’t help it; it’s genetic.

Justice Scalia (who, as I recall, went duck hunting with Dick Cheney and survived) wrote the majority opinion, holding that the right to self-defense is an intrinsic part of Article II and, in the process declared unconstitutional Washington’s idiotic rule that all guns in the home must be disassembled or have trigger locks on them.

We got a very, very big break today, but Sarah Brady will not go away, and Hillary Clinton will forget that she is supposed to be Annie Oakley, and Chuck Schumer and Michael Bloomberg will still be doing business at the same stand. If you would like to do something to celebrate, send some money to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. Armed with the Heller decision, the ILA will be fighting to roll back some of our more idiotic gun laws. And they have a long, long list to choose from.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b54869e200e5538eae648834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Hit From The Supremes:

Comments

Chuck

Terry,
I am not sure what your issues are, but they are sgnificant. First, you demonstrate a deep, seething anger/rage that has probably long needed to be addressed. Second, you have no sense of what is appropriate to blurt out what you just did. That also indicates poor impulse control.( I hope you haven't been planning to put this stuff out for a long time. That would indicate extremely bothersome possibilities in your future.)
If you were to go to a large public venue and proceed to say to other people what you inflicted on us, you would, in most states, (California,probably not)be detained and given about 72 hours in confinement talking to different counsellors about your complete inappropriateness.
In a public venue, First Amendment rights are looked at as to the appropriateness of the speech. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, per O.W. Holmes of the SCOTUS.
What you have done is sexually assault every member of this blog. If you had posted this to a child, you would probably already been visited by the FEDS.
My initial reaction to your post was anger and outrage, and I thought of a bunch of cute cutting remarks that would have made other readers smile and say :go get him".
Then I started to realize the hurt and anger that prompted you to post this must be horrendous. I suspect you were molested as a child, I'm sorry, I don't have any way of knowing what other hurts and rejections you have experienced. I do know they are significant and indicate a need for some help quickly before you experience a meltdown and then completely self-destruct. I hope you get it.

Mike

I shall ignore the sickening episode of porn posted above and ATTEMPT to get the dialogue back on track.

Guys (meaning "gunnies" of both genders)
There is little use in argueing the FACTS with Paul and other anti-freedom zealots...because the simple FACT of the matter is, when it comes to leftist liberal nut jobs they NEVER let them pesky little FACTS get in the way of 1) Their "Feelings" 2) a good tale.

Present all the FACTS, stats, and reports (both independent and govt)you want/can it wont make a fat rats a$$ difference to any of 'em.

I find it funny Ole Pauly here likes to compare Toronto stats with Shitcago stats (home of "change artist" BHO)

Hey Pauly....Like NYC and DC Them EVIL guns are OUTLAWED in Shitcago....so if you cant have 'em in Shitcago, NYC, and DC why oh why, pray tell, are those cities SO damn dangerous to live in!?!?!Only cops are supposed to have guns in these cities.

AFTER you answer that query then i beg you to tell me WHY oh WHY in the 80's Florida was one of THE most dangerous states in the country. Over run with drugs and drug lords and scum that preyed upon tourist at EVERY corner. THEN the state passed CCW law (concealed Carry weapon) one of THE most liberal concealed carry handgun laws in the nation i might add. Within 2 years of this law being passed we DID NOT see "the streets running red with the blood og innocents" nor was "return to the old west and the O.K. coral" as every left wing nut job predicted...but the exact OPPOSITE...violent crime rates PLUMMETED in EVERY catagory. (as we have seen time and again where CCW laws are passed) I present that the scumbags left FLA and headed for places with safer "working" conditions such as NYC, DC, and Shitcago.

Facts and feelings are totally different...

Gman

SCOTUS was right in both Heller and Gitmo habeas decisions.

SilverArrow

Not so sure Mike R. though Dubya is certainly noted as being loyal -- to a fault -- to his friends and cronies.

One thing we should keep in mind with the restrictions that the courtt did not address or block; in the late 1800's people pretty well knew one-another including being aware of who they should not trust with weapons. Fast forward to the 21st century and our society is much more fluid and mobile, we don't all know who the village idiot is, who is likely to get drunk or drugged up and do violence to others. Hence it is prudent to have some means of making sure the 'village idiots' and violent felons don't have ready access to deadly weapons. What the Court did not decide at all is how far that prudence can be carried before it is considered infringement. As a for instance the Court did not rule directly on 'Lautenberg' but I daresay that will have to be addressed; a Constitutionally guaranteed Right can not be abrogated by a simple allegation yet Lautenberg does exactly that.

Interesting times coming to be sure!
SA

Black Rifle Addict

3 cheers for the SC decision on our right to protect ourselves. Ashame it has taken this long for them to make it!

Chuck

Gman,
Care to explain how enemy combatants that in all wars previous to this one were tried by a military tribunal, but now through politics they have the same rights we do? Several of the people(?) who were released from Gitmo were subsequently killed in firefights with US troops. Since when do any enemy soldiers have any constitutional rights? Since the Dems decided it was a good way to attack Bush.
John Murtha, (Dem- Penn) A Vietnam vet with a few medals accused brave USMC personnel of committing atrocities in Haditha to score political points. All but one have either had their case thrown out for lack of evidence or have been acquitted. one man is still waiting for his trial.
The illustrious Murtha( Dem-Penn) has yet to apologize form his treasonous, politically self-serving comments.
With the SCOTUS giving that ruling that coincides with the like of Murtha(Dem-Penn) I don't see this country surviving for another 20 years. I believe Murtha(Dem-Penn) is a traitor to his country and to the USMC, I don't care if he is a decorated war veteran. So was Timothy McVeigh, and about 20 miles from my house is the memorial to his victims. We felt the bump of that blast at our house.
Being a veteran, with a bunch of medals doesn't mean you can't be a traitor. Benedict Arnold, a war hero, also comes to mind.
And, yeah I did my time in the Army,4 years in early 70's, but I spent it with men who really were heroes. I have a DD214 somewhere that lists all my accomplishments. That and 4-5 bucks will buy me coffee at Starbucks. What I was doing 35 years ago doesn't mean I am necessarily an upstanding citizen today. What I do today shows how much of an upstanding citizen I am.
Any justice of SCOTUS who gives decision based on politics that undermines the meaning of the Constitution is betrayng the oath to support and defend that Constitution, and will lead to the destruction of this country. History shows that no republic has lasted much more than a couple of centuries. that's because we get the country we deserve and vote for.
Washington, Madison and Jefferson must be spinning in their graves, wondering what happened to the nation they saw. I do know they wouldn't recognize it now.

YooperJack

I'll try to address Paul Harrick's comments.

Did any of you listen, see, or hear, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments about this country? This was someone who should be respected as an elder who paid his dues! Honorably discharged USMC and Navy. Graduate of highly respected theological seminaries. He portrayed America, in his sermons, as a horrible nation that wantonly kills their enemies, and oppresses minority groups routinely. After listening, I found out that, sermons such as his, are commonplace within the black community. My take was that a child, growing up in that community, listening to that "guff" every Sunday, would literally be programmed with contempt for "whitey". If they see a person, of another race, driving a nice car, or living in a nice home, they can only feel that the car and home were stolen from them. When they try something and fail, its because the system was rigged, and they were bound to fail. Not that they made mistakes in their endeavor.
Our generation has witnessed a virtual explosion of the black middle class. Yet, the prison populations are weighted heavily towards blacks. When this is noted in the news, racism is always referenced. Yet, when a prominent black person (Bill Cosby) refers to the destruction of the black family in the inner city, he's called an Uncle Tom.
Nearly fifty years ago, in Sociology, I learned that the primary social group, for human beings,is the family. Now, the liberals are trying to destroy that social order, and replace it with a community. Where they have succeeded, crime rates skyrocket, and guns are blamed.
If you are predisposed to blame someone or something else, for your failure, your endeavor is doomed before you begin. If you can accept responsibility for your mistakes, you have a chance to succeed!
YooperJack

Gman

Gee, Chuck,

Just because some chuckleheaded Bozo in a grossly incompetent administration tells a gullible public a furriner is an "enemy combatant" doesn't mean it's true.

No recognized nation-state has declared war on the US. Therefore, these people to whom you refer are officially civilians and criminals, and as the Greatest Nation on Earth, we owe it to the Constitution to try them as such. The "war" on terrorism is a very complex geo-political endeavor the well-meaning but intellectually inadequate crowd in power hasn't been able to get their heads around.

I did not serve in the armed forces, as I reached the age of young majority in the immediate post-Vietnam years, and there was no conscription in effect, so your DD214 referral escapes relevance with me. Doesn't make me a bad citizen, but does remind me this blog is heavy with lifers and those who think as such. In fact, sometimes I think Dave should rename this blog GRINCH (Grumpy Retired Insular Non-Coms with Hemorrhoids) because there are so many of them spouting off like they gave advice to the Joint Chiefs instead of taking guff from 24-year old college boys with a silver bar on their collars back in the day.

I was hoping the Representatives of the Rigid Right would give me credit for getting the GN Zeitgeist half-right this time. But alas, I have once again been chided.

Viva la revolucion.

Chuck

Gman,
there was no "nation-state" who orchestrated 9/11, or are you one of those that think that Bush set it up. It's not that complicated.

President Imadamnutjob of Iran has been providing munitions weaponry and equipment to kill our soldiers and would kill you just as freely as he would any other American (or even a Muslim if they were the wrong brand, i.e. not a Shi'ite) There are thousands like him from all over the Middle East who hate us just because we're not Muslim, we're infidels.

Your condescending pseudo-intellectualism can't fit that into the scheme of reality. The "Can't we all get along" mentality is naive, unrealistic, and suicidal. If we would just be nice to them, they will still try to kill us. It's not that complicated.
BTW, a DD214 is the US military discharge paper telling the world you served and how honorably for them. It also lists all of the badges and awards you were entitled to wear, places of duty and length of time served.
And the reason there are so many lifers "and those who think as such" is that some of us have been places and seen other places in the world and realize how much wore it could be. And we don't like it when years of our lives appear to have been all for naught because of people who for political positioning or power are willing to spit on the sacrificed blood of so many valiant men that was spilled so those ingrates could spit on them.
When I got back to the US, I got spit on, called babykiller and worse solely because I was a veteran.
Anyone waging war against us is an enemy combatant and does not warrant any constitutional rights,
just as the guy who breaks into you house and tries to rape your wife and daughter does not have the right to do that while you decide if you can take the time to consult a lawyer as to whether or not lethal force might be relevant.
Both are statements of war, just a matter of scale, one happens to be much more personal.
And the expression "chuckleheaded bozo" describes far more Democrats than it does Republicans.
Gullible public(?) probably mean anyone who believes the MainStream Media (like Dan Rather)and not the guys who are coming back from Iraq & Afghanistan.

There is a reason the military guys don't like them.
Nancy Pelosi (Dem-CA) doesn't want the military to give any nore press conference beacause they will "propagandize" the situation over there. Have they told you 10 out of 18 provinces are under their own rule, something the Democrats were claiming could not happen. "The war is LOST" Harry Reid(DEM-NEV)
Again they are willing to spit on the sacrificed blood of American soldiers for their own political expediency. Treason!!!

Jim in Mo.

Yoop,
I've stated before how wrong Hillary was when she stated 'it takes a village' crap. No it takes a family. Its the U.S. gov. fault. For example, and this is just my take on things. Woman has baby. Woman has another baby by another daddy. Woman does this again and again and has live in boyfriend she can't marry or government assistance stops. And he don't give a damn about the kids. She probably doesn't either.
It goes on and on in all our communities. The slackers know how to work the system.
Where is there family values in that? Its bad enough our politicians enable these people because they are US citzens, but now they want to grant these same privleges to aliens!
Off my rant just my opinion, wish I could state it better.

Jim in Mo.

Chuck,
I also was in the Army in the early 70's. I never served in 'Nam'. They were so busy bringing or planning the return of our guys they never told me to go, so I never raised my hand and objected. But more to subject.
While I was in, and perhaps you experienced this, but the men I respected and then learned to admire (I was a young boy), were the guys who didn't wear that garden salad on their uniform unless required dress. It was just their job. They loved the military for itself.
Believe this or not, but I became good friends with a Chaplain who had 'been there done that'. He was a real mans man. He would be stoop shoulder'ed if he wore what he earned. He was much to humble for that. But he was one sob I wouldn't mess with.

YooperJack

Jim in Mo.
You nailed it! Inner city kids are raised that way. If they ever go to church, they're told, by a person they should look up to, that the system is rigged and their destiny is poverty. Their only hope is that the libs will get them more welfare by taxing the rich. Canada never had an economic system based on slavery so many of the liberal arguments don't fly too well in that country. Howver, Western Europe, with its exploding immigrant Islamic problem, is no facing crime rates similar to ours. Our situation will greatly be excacerbated, however, if our President and First Lady, are also regularly chanting this guff.

Gman:
You still base your arguments on the belief that 9/11/01 was a crime, rather than an act of war. Not surprising! Barack Hussein Obama also believes this. He recently said that 9/11 should've been handled the same way as the 1993 WTC bombing; i.e., through the court system. He neglects to mention that, while the blind shiek, and some of his cohorts were arrested, tried and convicted, one of the primary perpetrators, escaped, and played a major role in the planning of 9/11. He's one of those whom will be treated as an American when he goes to trial. Also, Barack Hussein Obama fails to mention, how these perps would ever be captured, in the future. I will continue to pray for those of you that live near large metropolitan areas. In the event that Barack Hussein Obama is our next POTUS, I'll start using a rosary!
YooperJack

Chuck

I don't mean to monopolize this space but for the record, I will proudly (even if bitterly) cling to my God and my guns. If we can still believe in Him legally, it is probably because we have guns. We need the 2nd Amendment to protect the 1st.
God Bless America and please everyone pray for those guys who are literally taking bullets so we can engage in, shall we say, spirited interaction. Most of us have no clue of the hell that they are living and dying in, and all for us.

Ed J

Gman
Ah Ignorance is bliss.
never been there , so your an expert. Ex= the former, Pert= small or insignificant.
would you do some reseach snd find a SCOUS ruling for FDR dating to about 1942. Seems to me it's a 180 to the ruling on "Gitmo".

mitch shrader

well, first off.. the reason a canadian doesn't understand what it means to be an american citizen is they're not one.

i suspect that most folks don't understand tight rope walkers, because they lack the perspective of one. it's a similar effort to be a citizen. balancing rights against freedom and getting it right EVERY time..

FREEDOM requires paying dues, as one pays rent on a house. Paying full price in advance is called buying the farm' by old soldiers, and they give your wife a nice flag for that investment..

Death Penalty is ineffective because it's not used ENOUGH. It works every single time it's applied. The instances of it being IMPROPERLY applied are reprehensible, and in almost every case directly related to malfeasance within the legal system itself.. not the WRONG law, just improper judicial procedure..

Gun crime is no different than bow crime, auto crime, or molotov cocktail crime.. any tool used is irrelevant, the maimed and murdered are deprived of exactly the same elements of freedom and security no matter what the tool.

the RIGHT in question (you didn't think i'd get to it, did you?).. that you do NOT have, and we DO have.. is the right to defend one's self with adequate tools and force to create a reasonable expectation of PREVENTING the crime.

As canadian subjects, you don't have the right to fight back with whatever tools are most appropriate.. (yes, there are exceptions, but that's the RULE).. and it's moreso in England, and the trend of increased crime and increased social fear is predictable, and visible.

the reason handguns are banned in england is because of ONE pedophile.

ONE. and so the whole country gave up the right of self defense.. like that HELPED something. what insanity.

Canada has no guns because it's a nation whose laws have been drafted by trembling cowards. To the degree the brave and honorable ignore the tyrannical gun laws in Canada, or LEAVE.. to that exact degree is cowardice not demonstrated beyond dispute.

If you don't like my definition of Canadian legislators as cowards, what would you call someone who didn't even WANT the means to protect his family from violence?

such sub-standard humans should be neutered and spayed, not just scorned.

that you'ld attempt to defend them is peurile, inane, and childish.

if you don't GET it, go knit or play your guitar or something, nobody said you had to.

that you've the gall to take a position opposing freedom merely defines your lack of understanding.

that you'ld mention it HERE defines your lack of wisdom.

if you ever should be enticed by an impulse to perform criminal acts, you may be certain that your safety is at risk HERE, as this locale wouldn't be supportive of such an avocation.

The chance that i'll be more than three steps from a gun is smaller than the chance i'll be assaulted, and it's my hope and belief that my offspring are both committed gun owners and entirely uncaring about the whining of canadian cowards. i'll most happily give up my guns, three days after jesus comes back.

i ain't holding my breath. nor, equally, am i holding my breath waiting for canada to get a cojone transplant and stop importing muslims.

ya'll are a joke world wide. ever wonder why?


Paul H

Ed J:

A little late in responding to a previous question, but the murder rate in Toronto for 2006 (the highest in recent years) is 2.0 per 100,000. That seems to be less than Chicago, though you only gave the state-wide rate of 7.9.

DAVE2

MIKE DIEHL SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS. HE CAN ADD LOTS OF STUFF THAT WOULD NEED TO BE BANNED. LIKE BALL BATS,KITCHEN KNIVES, CHAIN SAWS, ETC. THE STORE SHELVES WOULD BE EMPTY. I ONCE SAW A MAN KILLED WITH A GARDEN HOE. IF YOU GONNA KILL ME, PLEASE DON'T USE A HOE. WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT SWORDS CUT OFF HEADS. THAT SURELY WOULD KILL SOMEONE. WOW! WHAT ABOUT THESE GUYS THAT CAN KILL WITH THEIR HANDS AND FEET? WOMEN WOULD HAVE TO GIVE UP THEIR STOCKINGS. DON'T FORGET ABOUT ALL THE ROPE THAT HAS KILLED PEOPLE. ONE TOUGH ONE IS HOW ARE THEY GONNA OUTLAW WATER?

Dr. Ralph

As long as Teddy Kennedy is around they won't outlaw water...

Ed J

Or golf clubs. A man was just convicted of assault and murder in ND. The weapon ?? A two x four!
So now a 2x4 is an Assault Weapon.

Jackson Landers

Obama stated in clear terms long before this ruling that in his view, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right rather than a collective one. He was ignorant about a lot of the technical matters regarding firearms, such as the details of a semi-automatic action versus, say a revolver. But as a former professor of Constitutional law, he is with us on the main issue.

Point being that this hyperventilating about Obama and guns is precisely that. Hyperventilating. If anything, he's better for us on guns that Bush ever was, seeing as Bush supported the DC ban while Obama supported Heller. Between Obama and McCain, I can't see how either one of them is any better or worse for us than the other.

FH

Jackson Landers,
Give me a break, BHO did NOT support The Heller Decision. BHO had not gotten his marching orders on it, so he gave the typical Poitician's response. "He was against it befo' he was fo' it"

FH

Paul H,
The stats are kept a little differently in Canada. It is not considered a murder until it is solved, until then it is just a Death. Check out their "solved" ratio. Very Poor.

Dr. Ralph
As long as Teddy Kennedy is around they won't outlaw water...


Prince what’s his face Williams or whatever, his mommy gave him a car that runs on wine! You know that Ol’Teddy Kennedy is having sleepless nights over this!!

Paul H

A couple of you have made the very legitimate point that murder and homicide are different things, with the latter including manslaughter and other "culpable" events resulting in death. However, according to Statistics Canada, the "homicide" rate in Toronto in 2006 was, in fact, 1.83 per 100,000 (0.63 per 100,000 by firearms). I mistakenly referred to it as the murder rate previously. Here is the link for those who wish to check: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071017/d071017b.htm

Gavin

How is it that the discussion, original article included, frames this as an "us vs. them"? I suppose one could categorize me as a leftist, but I wholly support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms under almost any circumstances. I'm also for socialized health care. I often vote Democrate yet don't seem to have a genetic disposition against the second amendment. So am I a leftist? Right on guns? I don't apply these terms to myself and I think that others may need to examine the bitter pill they've swallowed when accepting labels and buying into all that acompanies the label without critical thinking. Why there can't be more people in this forum that support either the death penalty or gun rights but not nesessarily both, I don't know. Why some "hook and bullet" conservation groups view ALL nonextractive environmental groups as "antis" and vice versa is even worse. While grouse hunters and bird watchers go after eachother's throats, the true enimies on conservation are getting away with murder. Why? Because we seem to feel this need to cast all issues in terms of one side versus the other and then lump often unrelated topics together. The longer we polarize ourselves, rather let others polarize us by not crically examining each issue seperately, the worse we'll be when we realize the hole we've dug.




Our Blogs

Categories



Syndicate