Most liberals agree with conservative ideals. They just don't want to say it, since it's not PC and they're embarrassed to admit it. Hopefully Obama doesn't fall back into pandering mode and backpedal on this, but why would I expect so much from him? He'll be eaten alive by the other candidates for this.

Isn't the issue about the right to bear arms? If people in rural areas have the right so should people in the inner cities. And speaking about rights the constitution does not say individuals have the right to bear arms, except as part of a "well regulated militia." Of course, gun manufacturers, the NRA, and folks who just have to have a German Lugar with a silencer say "screw a well regulated militia, I wontmagun.

For the sake of argument, ask a gun rights advocate if a 9 year old child has the right to bear arms, own a pistol or AK 47. To carry it around for protection. By logical extension the kid has the right under the constitution, because he or she is a citizen. Fortunately, the states and local jurisdictions regulate such things, like who can drink alcohol and who can drive. In the same way cities and states should be able to require people to get a license and register their guns every year. Registration fees will help to cover society's costs for gun related incidents. Gun nuts love these kinds of ideas. Right?

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. We have a Constitutional right to bear arms, and the government isn't allowed to infringe on it. Because we have allowed them to pick that right apart, somehow it has turned into a negotiable privelege. We need to take back our rights.

If Obama wants to change gun control, then ne needs to amend the Constitution. Pretending it is about hunting should be an insult to our intelligence.

"This is a classic example of us just applying some common sense, just being reasonable, right? And reasonable would say that lawful gun owners – I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families."[Obama}

What nerve to apply "common sense" to the 2nd amendment for the purpose of restricting it to inner city citizens. "Common sense" is becoming (for antigun polticos) another phrase for 'gun restrictions' we're suppose to just accept, as if we are all a bunch of sheep.

Senator Obama, there is no such thing as a "lawful gun owner" in Chicago because there are no gun owners in Chicago. Chicago and Cook County gov't have outlawed most guns (except for Law Enforcement).

He's a Harvard law school graduate and a politician who has no excuse for his contempt, and ignorance for the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment speaks to the government, not the people. It is a restriction, a law, on government behavior (it speaks to people like SENATOR Obama.) The amendment acknowledges a natural right of individuals (not for government). Where did he learn to restrict US Constitution AMENDMENTS written to restrict Senators and Congressman ?

"Common sense" tells me Obama should ask Harvard for a refund of his tuition. Every law school student must learn the Constitution, including the meaning, intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Truth is the Democrats have backed off the gun issue because sentiment ran so heavily against them. While the few in the liberal left don't like guns, people in cities and rural areas who feel threatened need them for self-protection, regardless of political affiliation. And they recognize the absurdity of gun control laws which do nothing to reduce criminals' guns but restrict law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. And who can forget Democrat John Kerry "gittin his 'huntin' license so his aides could shoot a pheasant for him to proudly carry back to the clubhouse.

"For the sake of argument, ask a gun rights advocate if a 9 year old child has the right to bear arms, own a pistol or AK 47. To carry it around for protection. By logical extension the kid has the right under the constitution, because he or she is a citizen."

*Did this opinion require you to resort to your "common sense" abilities ?

"Fortunately, the states and local jurisdictions regulate such things, like who can drink alcohol and who can drive. In the same way cities and states should be able to require people to get a license and register their guns every year."

*Guns are mentioned in the Constitution, alcohol and cars are not.

This statement sets a new, low, record for fence-straddling; "I'm against it, but my wife is for it!"

Obama shows good judgement, as usual.

People own guns for self-protection because they believe they need them. When people feel safe and protected, they generally don't bother with the hassles of owning a handgun. It's about balancing the risks of having a gun in the house, against the risks of not having one. The answer pretty much depends on where you live.

Michelle's right about rural areas - burglar alarms are of limited use if it takes 45 minutes or more for the county sheriff to arrive. Some urban areas are safe, some aren't. Sometimes perception is reality, sometimes it's just reality.

GW, the Supreme Court has taken on the case about what the 2nd Amendment means.

At least Obama is thinking about the issue...

I haven't heard any other Dem candidate address gun issues even once.

All she said did was regurgitate the arguments used by normal people who support the 2 Amendment as a right. "No one will stop me from hunting and protecting my family (from criminals)."

I'm all for lawful arms and thoughtful responsible gun ownership. That entails having gun laws to that extent. I'm not for the illegal black market. THAT's what they need to brain storm. And she's contradicting herself when she attaches seeing the need for guns to certain areas. The overwhelming majority of illegal guns comes from the Southern states in some places (mine). So by telling some they have the right (rural) and not others (city) will only punish those in one area disproportionately but will not stop them from going to other areas where these guns can be trafficked in from. They need to look at drug trafficking and the illegal gun market it benefits. Find the solution in the confines of the problem (the profile particular to the problem) instead of restoring to absolutism. Get rid of all guns and our kids won't die in tough neighborhoods. Or in this case get rid of guns in cities and kids will not die in tough neighborhoods.

Oh no, to the contrary, my dear Tony. Common sense is the enemy of logic. For example

-Citizens have the right to bear arms
-9 year old Jimmy is a citizen
-Therefore, 9 year old Jimmy has the right to bear arms

That's logic

Common sense tells you to train Jimmy how to handle guns, how to clean them, how to shoot them, where to shoot them, and who to shoot and who not to shoot. That way the community will be comfortable knowing that 9 year old Jimmy is a responsible gun owner. Right?

Also the word gun is nowhere in the constitution. The word arms is. That includes swords, baseball bats, numbchucks, and axes like the barbarians used to hack people to death with.

I like that Obama is still convinced that despite the evidence to the contrary that 911 is sufficient to protect people from crime. Is it just me or do the police generally not respond until a crime has been committed meaning that the disarmed citizen has already been victimized?

I also notice that in the gun free paradise of Chicago gun crime is rampant and in the gun infested rural communities gun crime is minimal.

His statements make no sense what-so-ever. It is not the response time that makes the difference. It is the ability of the individual to protect themselves that deters crime. Responsible gun owners deter crime. His whole argument stems from an assumption that no one in an urban environment can be a responsible gun owner and only rural people can be responsible gun owners. When do you suppose that someone will notice that minorities live in higher numbers in urban environments and finally see the unspoken racism in gun control.

In response to "Tory":
Senator Obama is a constitutional law scholar and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He has a profound understanding of and respect for our Constitution. He has repeatedly expressd outrage at the way the Constitution has been trashed by the Bush Administration. It's pure nonsense to state that he's ignorant / contemptful of the Constitution!

Regarding Michelle's observations: Like Michelle I grew up in an urban area. When I moved to a more rural area to attend college it was hard for me at first to understand the important role that guns held in the local culture. I had the tendency to view guns as a "Bad" thing. Eventually I understood that the urban realities and rural realities concerning guns were very different. The annual deer/elk/antelope hunt is a way of life where I now live . . . it's a father and son bonding. . .it's families outdoors together bringing in the meat they'll eat for months. For many folks it's not only recreation, it really is a necessity!

When I read Michelle's observations they reminded me of my own journey toward understanding the rural reality. I applaud her for her honesty and open-mindedness.

Can anyone spell P-A-N-D-E-R?

I don't remember him having that nuianced of a stance when he was a State Senator in Illinois.

What a racist comment.

Is she afraid of rural common white folk and see's the need for guns,.?...but not in Chicago, once the murder capital of the US?

Her statment is silly on many levels.

...so does the gun issue boil down to 911 response times for the Obamas?

The NRA does not villify Wyatt Earp for instituting gun control in a municipality in the 19th century. Perhaps that is the answer: gun control in cities where accepted and none in rural areas. What could be simpler?

NO! and (&*(^% No!
Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. It makes no difference where you live, what your skin color is, where you worship. Unless you are not old enough to enjoy the rights of being a citizen (nine year olds can't do that, so sorry).

Crime rates drop in places that have widespread and easy access to firearms, and that makes those folks who are charged with safeguarding the public nervous for their budgets. Check out what happened in New Orleans, please.

Obama might be a great guy, but this is just deceptive politics on his part.

don't give up your liberty for safety, you may find that you have neither at the end of the day.

propogate the meme, come and lol ur pols

Before we try to lecture Obama on Constitutional rights on gun ownership, let's bear in mind that he is a Harvard Law graduate, and a Constitutional Law professor; while you may disagree with some of the ideas he holds, he has some pretty substantial historical support for them.

"J Surber" claims: "The NRA does not villify [sic] Wyatt Earp for instituting gun control in a municipality in the 19th century."

Perhaps that is because Wyatt Earp didn't "institute" any gun control laws. In his position as town marshal (actually, deputy town marshal) Earp didn't have authority to institute any laws.

"We should be able to combine respect for those traditions with our concern for kids who are being shot down."

- BO

TRADITIONS? There are plenty of "traditions" that we ought not to respect. Let's leave "traditions" out of this and just be "practical" about the issues.

What worked for "some" Americans in the past may not apply to America TODAY.

Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson is the ONE candidate in the democratic party who has LONG supported the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear arms. He's never parsed terms, indicating that it should be a rural right, nor indicated that it ought to be curtailed in cities. He has previously received the endorsement of the NRA when running for governor (he is the governor of New Mexico).

"Before we try to lecture Obama on Constitutional rights on gun ownership, let's bear in mind that he is a Harvard Law graduate, and a Constitutional Law professor"

He's a politician. He'll modify any and all views to get elected. Just look at Slick Willy. He was a Rhodes Scholar changed everything, depending on the latest wind direction.

Ahhh you Americans love to find ridiculous divisive issues to distract you from the real issues of the 21st Century. Does anyone else see the foolishness of making societal choices based on a 230 year old document written by a bunch of wealthy white guys? This is a very different world now and perhaps some of the "rules" deserve to change with the times. Literally taken, the right to bear arm could mean howizters, Saron gas or laser beams, tools that didn't exist when you constitution was written. Assuming the lessons that applied then apply to a world with overpopulation, pollution, climate change, corporate welfare states, the military/industrial complex, etc is sheer stupidity at worst and willful ignorance at best.
The reality is that gun crime in America is huge compared to Canada and other countries where that have gun control. We still have lots of guns here but we don't really believe that giving angry and irresponsible people the right to possess tools of rage is a very convivial thing to do for the sake of a community.
Also the idea that a militia can take on the US Armed Forces is laughable... that said it will probably be Blackwater Security that you'll need to protect yourself from.
Good luck Barack. The rest of the world is anxiously hoping your nation will show some political maturity and elect someone who can lead us all through what promise to be turbulent times. This is the moment to recognize there is a time and place for tradition and comfort, and there is a time and a place for innovation and courage. What side will you choose?

Just another example of Obama's ability to use common sense and to compromise

At least Obama is thinking about the issue...

I haven't heard any other Dem candidate address gun issues even once.

Posted by: Larry from Purdue | November 25, 2007 11:25 AM

Larry from Purdue,

Don't you think we need a president that has gotten past the "I am thinking about it" stage? Come on man, we need a PResident that has already made up his mind on the Constitution don't you think??

So you are from Purdue, you mean the chicken company I presume.

This statement sets a new, low, record for fence-straddling; "I'm against it, but my wife is for it!"

Posted by: Bruce | November 25, 2007 11:16 AM

Nobody would understand all new lows better than you Bruce. Your tired GOP propaganda just keeps wheezing away through your increasingly monotonous posts.

I generally vote democrat and own my fair share of guns. I think Obama would make a fine president & none of this gun jive is gonna stop me from voting for a Democrat in 2008.

a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged.

"Good luck Barack. The rest of the world is anxiously hoping your nation will show some political maturity and elect someone who can lead us all through what promise to be turbulent times."

Your joking right?
Must have had some bad back bacon.

CALM DOWN PEOPLE!

Yes, there is more than one side to this issue. Yes, people on both sides of the debate have valid arguments.

The fact that Mr. Obama discussed multiple viewpoints does not mean he is pandering. It means he is a CENTRIST. Thoughtful compromise is the mark of great leadership.

This is the first time I've agreed with Obama. This is precisley what the second amendment is meant for, to allow us to own guns for protections and a REGULATED militia. Certainly all gun ownership should be regulated and all law abiding citizens who are of age should have the right to own.

Banning guns failed in all other countries it was tried, not only did stabbings go up, but so did gun crimes because gun-criminals where already committing one crime to begin with.

As a future gun owner I feel The state has the right to know I am capable of owning and that I register it with them, and cannot ban me from ownership without just cause. And if they have just cause they certainly should bar unfit, violent, or dangerous people from having it.

"a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged."

Posted by: jim | November 25, 2007 7:36 PM

Jim, I don't know if you made that up or used another source, but I think that one kinda funny!

In a weird conservative kinda way.

'Liberal' is a politically correct name for a socialist. Any antigun socialist is either a (politically incorrect) nazi or a fascist.

Does the 2nd amendment allow for howitzers, rpg's, mortars, etc. ? Ans: YES ! The RIGHT allows for any weapon and makes no distinction between urban or rural (BLACK or white), male or female. The primary purpose of the 2nd is to allow us our tools to resist oppression.

Is the 2nd archaic ? NO. We can use guerilla warfare to stop gov't if we lack the weaponry. We can use whatever we have, we can improvise. The North Vietnamese used squads of rifles as antiaircraft batteries. Terrorists improvise all the time.

Don't allow insanity (hoplophobes) to hijack "common sense." Thousands of peaceful, law-abiding citizens own high powered firearms; none of them are picking off innocent people; our streets and countryside are not filled with bullets rocketing thru the air. The only exception are the gangs protecting their turf.

Most violence is caused by the government's immoral war on drugs that causes black markets. Like the first Prohibition, this one is an exact copy; the only difference are the drugs.

Trampling the 2nd amendment is counterproductive, discriminatory, inhumane (it leaves thousands of society's weaker members more vulnerable to the stronger tougher elements). Contempt for the 2nd is unconstitutional. It extends power to a nazi culture. It plants the seed of tyranny and atrocity. It's unAmerican.

A gun phobe, and a hoplophobe will never be rational. Their "common sense gun law" approach proves their irrational state of being; they seek to destroy natural (or god-given) rights.

The 2nd amendment speaks to government - it restricts their conduct. Only mentally deficient people would convince gov't to take away the power, the right to resist tyranny. When government does so, it is a criminal act. The amendment must be repealed before any law can be passed to restrict what the amendment restricts the government from doing.

Democracy is elective dictatorship. In a democracy (as opposed to a constitutional republic) 50.1% rule over the remaining 49.9% - this is unfair. Repealing the 2nd amendment is immoral. We are a constitutional republic because we have a written constitution designed to protect every individual from any majority, monority or group (including gov't.)

Phil,

I wasn't aware there is space for compromise when it comes to constitutional rights.

How would it sound, in terms of a “compromise,” if Congress passed a law granting rural folk the right to speak whenever, wherever and whatever they choose - but limiting city folk to speaking in public in quiet conversations, or at home, or to otherwise express themselves only in writing – unless they had a license?

Of course, you know the A.C.L.U. wouldn’t compromise in such a case. They would claim the law violated the First Amendment rights of every urban dweller in America – and rightly so. The same lack of compromise would ensue if police started routinely stopping all young, black males to frisk them for weapons and drugs, or if they started searching every home without a warrant or even a reason to do so, or if they took to routinely beating confessions out of suspects. So, why is the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the Second Amendment any different?

If the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to keep and bear arms – and I believe it does (and rightly so) – then there should be no compromise on it either. Rights are protected by the Constitution precisely to keep them from being compromised. The Founding Fathers did not intend to leave open to debate the rights protected by the text of the Constitution – unless the debate was whether to amend the Constitution. If you accept the Constitution, you don’t accept compromise.

Furthermore, I have to disagree with you that Obama is a centrist. There is no such thing as centrism in mainstream politics any more. On the individualism – versus – statism continuum (left to right), the main current of both the Republican and Democratic Parties is toward more statism in the form of a stronger, centralized federal government. As long as bigger and more government is the remedy of choice of both parties for all the ills of society, no one can claim the center. In classical politics, this trend put both parties substantially to the right of center. This is why I think a lot of people have trouble with both groups.

It takes someone like Ron Paul to swim against the current. Madison and Jefferson would have been proud of him.

"In response to "Tory":
Senator Obama is a constitutional law scholar and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He has a profound understanding of and respect for our Constitution. He has repeatedly expressd outrage at the way the Constitution has been trashed by the Bush Administration. It's pure nonsense to state that he's ignorant / contemptful of the Constitution!"

Bush is a thug the same as Obama. Bush tramples the Constitution the same as Obama.Both sides are destroying America. We know the meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment and so do our politicians. It doesn't require graduating law school for that.

Violence in Chicago has gone down since we've enacted conceal and carry permits.

Which one of the above statements is false? Don't be slow too answer right wing racist fear mongers.

Mrs. Obama has obviously never read her American history book.

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams

"The great object is that EVERY man be armed. EVERONE who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."
-- James Madison

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
-- Richard Henry Lee Founding Father

I quote Roy:

""""Most liberals agree with conservative ideals. They just don't want to say it, since it's not PC and they're embarrassed to admit it.""""

Way to trash our values. I'm really impressed. You managed to slight our beliefs and accuse us of being hypocrites all in the same breath. Good for you. You must be seriously determined to lose your right to own a gun. Just when a liberal starts speaking favorably of showing tolerance toward your culture and your way of life, you positively spit in her face. Hah!

Quoting further:

""""Hopefully Obama doesn't fall back into pandering mode and backpedal on this, but why would I expect so much from him? He'll be eaten alive by the other candidates for this.""""

For what? Bringing the gun rights activists to the peace table? Surrrrrre.

John said:
"Violence in Chicago has gone down since we've enacted conceal and carry permits."

Both statements are false. Chicago's crime has increased the last few years and Illinois does not have CCW. Perhaps you should ask yourself why Chicago, with 1/4 of the population of the state, accounts for half the violent crime.

Thw whole point of the constution was to protect INDIVIDUALS from Government and cleary the 2nd Ammendment is talking baout 2 seperate things. 1 the right to a state Militia and 2 the right of INdividuals to bear arms. The Supreme Court will 100% rule in the favor of Gun Rights Advocates. Making fire arms illegal does nothing to reduce gun crimes. Look at CHicago where hand guns are illegal but everyday you read about a kid getting gunned down just for walking in the wrong neighborhood. I have news for Obama's wife. Your rights under the US COnstitution are not dependant on what part of the Country you live in.

thirdpower,
Violent crime has increased in recent years? Really I'd like to see you try to prove it. The fact is that murder has gone down and we didn't need to allow concealed weapons to do it. As to your question about why Chicago has more violent crime than the rest of the state, unless you can show otherwise I don't think Hartsburg, Sparta, or Casey have Latin Kings and Cobras prowling the streets.

I hope you guys aren't waiting for a sweeping ruling from the Supreme Court on this issue. You will be disappointed, as they will decide this issue on the narrowest possible grounds. They will, however, not be able to get around the obsolete "militia" language. My hope is that the law becomes settled, and that the right to gun ownership is preserved, with the state having the power to impose reasonable restrictions (no minors, violent felons, bazookas, etc.).

John W., I think your analysis of Constitutional protections is somewhat rigid. Even freedom of speech has certain restrictions, such as defamation, so-called "hate" or inciting speech, pornography, etc. The freedom of assembly also has restrictions such as needing a permit, certain public areas where protests can't be held, etc. The Second Amendment is no different, and I think most reasonable people understand that some regulation is needed, such as my examples in the first paragraph. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will at least give us some guidelines.

Look at CHicago where hand guns are illegal but everyday you read about a kid getting gunned down just for walking in the wrong neighborhood.

Posted by: Vinny | November 26, 2007 12:25 PM

Please Vinny tell us how allowing concealed weapons would stop this from happening. Are you going to suggest we rely on rational thinking from a criminal to take place, i.e. "maybe I shouldn't shoot this busta in my hood because he could have a gun". Not going to happen. Criminals and killers don't think about consequences, they are irrational people.

Defamation is not a restriction of free speech anymore than armed murder is a restriction on the 2nd amendment. Defamation (like murder) is to prevent harming another person-the weapon being written or spoken words. The 1st amendment prohibits gov't from persecuting individuals for criticizing (including defaming) government.

Could you legally say something harmful and untrue in self defense (to protect from actual physical harm)? Yes.

Needing a permit to assemble is unconstitutional. Hate speech and Hate crime is also unconstitutional (and not neccessary.) Regulating the published material of pornography is also unconstitutional.

Implying 'reasonable' gun owners would accept restrictions on our natural preexisting right to bear arms is unreasonable, immoral and presumptuous. Possessing Bazookas is constitutional (and neccessary).

African/American females living in high crime urban areas (Englewood) benefit the most from possessing weapons. Any US Senator (Black or White) should know that statistical fact.

"So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets."

O.K., Give me the name of one legal FFL holding gun dealer. No, I didn't think you could!! More feel good B.S. political correctness for the sheeple to follow! 2A all the way.

Steve people who go out of their way for a permit to carry concealed weapons (attain guns legally) are least likely to use them.

Violent crime generally occurs over Drugs. Not turf. It's drug turf and drug disputes.

"Criminals and killers don't think about consequences, they are irrational people."

Depends what criminology theory you use to explain crime. If you did rational choice theory crime is the intersection of a motivated offender, lack of capable guardians, and a suitable target. Therefore it focuses on situational crime prevention methods.

The bottom line. The right to bear arms does not have to be modified in such a way that that right is compromised drastically in one area or another; that creates displacement of activity. It seems to me that the people who have the most to say about crime don't know much about it.

Herbie H:

I agree that the Supreme Court isn’t going to hand down any ruling with sweeping effect. The Court has a very limited issue before it, namely, whether federal legislation can, consistent with the Second Amendment, prohibit the possession in the home of all operable firearms. To answer more than this question would be to generate dicta, which the Court does not favor. To be sure, the Court will have no occasion to address the bigger question of whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit States from outlawing firearm possession. That issue isn’t presented by the limited facts of the case.

But I also suspect the ruling might be even more limited than you anticipate, assuming the Court rules in favor of the individual right to possess firearms. You suggest, for instance, that the Court might allow for reasonable regulations. But the case isn’t about a “regulation.” It’s about a law prohibiting ownership of all firearms in operable condition. Thus, any opinion regarding the reasonableness of regulations would be advisory and constitute dictum. It would seem more likely for the Court to wait for a case that actually involves a “regulation” to determine whether it violates the Constitution.

You also stated that you “think [my] analysis of Constitutional protections is somewhat rigid” inasmuch as other constitutional rights have “certain restrictions.” I have two responses to this comment.

First, I believe you misunderstood me. I was responding to Phil’s suggestion that Obama was proposing a reasonable “compromise” by suggesting firearm ownership could be arbitrarily prohibited in urban areas while permitted in rural areas. That, to me, was cutting the proverbial baby in half. I objected that the Second Amendment, providing a textual limitation on government, does not grant a watered down right that can be limited at will based upon policy preference. As former Chief Justice Roger Taney once said of a constitutional protection, “[I]t would be unjust to the memory of the distinguished men who framed it [i.e. the Constitution], to suppose that it was designed to protect a mere barren and abstract right, without any practical operation upon the business of life.” (See Bronson v. Kinzie, 42 U.S. 311, 318 (1843).) Reasonable Restrictions weren’t in issue. So, I had no occasion to comment upon them.

Second, I agree with Tory that constitutional rights don’t have built in restrictions. They have, instead, natural limitations in a society of free and equal people. These limitations are based the maxim, “sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (“Use your own so as not to injure another.”). In modern times, it is expressed: “The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” Thus, slander is not protected speech because it harms another’s reputation. Yelling fire in a crowded theater isn’t protected because it endangers lives – and so on. Murder and Robbery are naturally outlawed (to all but the government, it seems) because they injure another’s rights to life and property. This is all quite natural. For, if one’s rights didn’t have the rights of others as a natural boundary, none of us would have rights for very long.

These are the only considerations which permit reasonable governmental restrictions. If we are to be true to the Constitution, reasons for any restrictions must be compelling, and the law must further those reasons by the least restrictive means available. The failure to address restrictions in this manner would be unreasonable and, thus, unconstitutional. In this context, the arbitrary conclusion that firearm ownership in urban areas needs to be restricted simply does not pass constitutional muster.

BTW and FYI – the rights to freedom of speech and assembly do not invariably require permits. Nor does the fact that State and local governments sometimes elect to require permits mean they have much of a say about granting or denying them. When speech is to occur in a traditional “public forum” like a street or park, the government has the burden of showing that any content-based restriction “is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” Even content-neutral restrictions based on time, place, or manner must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” (See Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983), and the cases collected there.) In short, free speech is the rule and abridgement is the rare exception – even with a permit regimen. I’m sure most people who favor personal gun ownership would be happy if the same rules were applied to firearms.

"Possessing Bazookas is constitutional (and neccessary)." Tory

Fortunately, the courts have disagreed with that interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the past. Maybe the new court will decide otherwise, but even most Republicans have more sense. Unlike Tory, I've never found bazooka ownership to be a real necessity.

“Violence in Chicago has gone down since we've enacted conceal and carry permits.

Which one of the above statements is false? Don't be slow too answer right wing racist fear mongers.”

Posted by: john | November 26, 2007 9:43 AM

Oh, aren’t you just brilliant?

So tell me, john, is your vision blurry or are you just grammatically challenged? The sentence, “Violence in Chicago has gone down since we've enacted conceal and carry permits” – is only ONE statement. There aren’t two or more statements among which to make a choice.

Furthermore, even if one parses two factual propositions out of the sentence, to wit:

1) “violence in Chicago has gone down,” and

2) “we’ve enacted conceal and carry permits”

– the answer is that neither of them are true because of the way you worded it.

That is, the truth of the proposition “violence in Chicago has gone down” is dependent on the proposition “we’ve enacted conceal and carry permits” - because you connect the first to the second with an adverb of time “since.” Inasmuch as no conceal carry permits are actually issued in Chicago, there is no real time-condition to make the first part of the sentence true. Hence, the first proposition is rendered false by the falsity of the second proposition.

Now, if you are trying to suggest that violent crime in Chicago has gone down, and that gun control laws, including the absence of a CCW provision played any part of it, I say: Good luck trying to prove this. Violent crime has both significantly risen and fallen while Chicago has had gun control measures in place – indicating they have no appreciable impact on curbing gun violence. The truth is that most criminals who use firearms get their weapons on the black market, and they do so without any concern for the laws of Chicago or Illinois on the subject. Prohibiting law abiding citizens from purchasing and possessing new weapons – by means of denying their registration – hasn’t stopped guns from coming into the City, and it certainly hasn’t stopped the resolve of criminals to use those guns. If anything, it proves that violent crime has gone down, if at all, for reasons other than the absence of firearms within the city limits.

So, your whole point regarding violent crime and CCW laws is a non-starter. Isn’t it?

I also consider your barking-dog comment about “racists” and “fascists” interesting. My black friends would find in humorous that someone would called me a racist – humorously stupid, that is. And, as I recall, tyrants – like fascists – are the guys who like to disarm people. Nazi’s took firearms away from foreigners, Jews, gypsies and any other people they viewed as “undesirable” and/or “untrustworthy.” I don’t suppose you know that, back in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the N.R.A. helped to provide firearms to black people in the south to quiet the K.K.K. So much for your theories about, racists, fascists and guns, huh?

""Possessing Bazookas is constitutional (and neccessary)." Tory

Fortunately, the courts have disagreed with that interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the past. Maybe the new court will decide otherwise, but even most Republicans have more sense. Unlike Tory, I've never found bazooka ownership to be a real necessity. "

Posted by: Tom O | November 27, 2007 2:18 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has been a training ground for political appointees. There were always a few who deserved to be there, but.

Many of their rulings on weapons or on the 2nd amendment are unconstitutional. And always remember the Dred Scott decision.

"I've never found bazooka ownership to be a real necessity."

Myself, I can't afford one; anyone who thinks the way you do, doesn't deserve to be free, anymore than a captive, who thinks like you deserves to be set free.

That thought is more criminal than anyone would think. Politicians creating a law restricting a right already prohibiting politicians by law from restricting it are less the criminal than those who demand the politicians do it. for example, Mr Obama, take away my sight or my hearing or my ability to speak; forget the law against mutilation or assault, just do it and you won't be prosecuted; the majority is on our side.

The 2nd amendment speaks to the gov't. It restricts their conduct. The only way to unrestrict their conduct would be to eliminate the 2nd amendment. The only way for you to deny me my bazooka is to repeal the 2nd; any other way makes you and gov't the criminal--the very thing you imply me to be.

I mean this literally: Daley and Stroger and any politican creating more restrictions on weapon possession, such as Blago, are already criminals, guilty of a crime against humanity for denying a natural right.

Americans have forgotten what freedom means; they believe freedom means being free to deny it from others. Americans don't respect their Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the concept of limited gov't, anymore than a liberty-hating dictator such as Richard Daley, Adolf Hitler or Fidel Castro does.

The excuse to restrict liberty has always been safety. We are less safe today than in the past; we are because whatever restrictions the gov't implements always has a result opposite of what the restriction was intended to do.

If gov't respected and protected the 2nd amendment right 9/11 would never have occurred; thousands of weaker members of society would never have been murdered because of gov't disarmement, etc.

John W., I believe the line "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" is the heart of the issue, and I think there is ample room for reasonable restrictions without impacting the fundamental right to bear arms. If I misinterpreted the context of your "no compromise" language from your earlier post, my humble apologies. I agree that banning firearms from a city but not the surrounding rural area is an arbitrary & capricious decision, and since the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, it would not or should not survive a strict scrutiny analysis. While I believe protecting the lives and safety of its citizens is a compelling state interest, banning all firearms in an urban area is overinclusive and not narrowly tailored enough to survive strict scrutiny.

For those who believe the 2nd is outdated it is easy to see that so are many others.

Lets take a look at the 1st (free speech). No one at the time of writing knew there was going to be megaphones, radio, television, or the internet like they also didn't know that firearms were going to progress to be as different from those of yester-year as they are now. Try to take just one one thing away from the media and you got a bigger fight on your hands than you ever had before but it is the media writings and the talking heads that assist in heavily eroding our second amendment rights.

Gun control has been proven not to work and crime has gone down in most states that have adapted the legal right to carry.

Politicians like Obama and mouths like Rosie will alway have and armed guard at their side so it is easy for them to uphold gun control or worst total elimination of guns for the masses.

More children are killed by motor vehicles and swimming pools each year than are killed or hurt by guns. No one is calling for the elimination of cars or pools and they never will.

The media does not print the numerous times that a firearm was used as the deterrent that stopped a major crime, it is just not a good "political" thing to do.

The Obamas of our country who see guns as needed for hunting and rare occasions in rural areas will destroy the intent of our second amendment which was to let us all be the defender of our selves.

Now for the best clichés I know, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away". I submit that if the general population in cities like Chicago and New York were given the legal ability (they already have the right) to carry a hand gun, there would be a revival of peace and lawfulness.

Now to say something that most will not. The peace and harmony revival would take some doing. Some problems would most likely occur at first but in a short time stability would be the order of the day.

Simply stated, the bad guys, who are cowards to begin with, would realize they were out numbered but they wouldn't know exactly by who until they found out the hard way.

Radical as this may sound it is no more radical than when out rights are legally removed by authorities which put an entire population in jeopardy because as even the staunchest opposer to gun rights knows, only the bad guys have guns. Just think about that a bit. Only the bad guys --- not the man with his wife and kids in the park, not the man or woman coming home late after working the graveyard shift, not the girl taking a run down the street but just the bad guys.

Something is very wrong with that.

Well Obama, you may not realize this, but it takes more than a matter of seconds for police to respond in cities as well. If someone needs to defend their life, dialing 911 and waiting for the police to arrive pretty much guarantees a slow ride to the city morgue.

As to 9 year olds/guns/responsibilities, both of our kids knew the basics of gun safety when they were 5. If you see a gun: STOP. Don't touch it. Tell an adult.

Our son fired his first time when he was 9 years old, a .22 rifle that belonged to his great grandfather and was passed down to me. Our son got that rifle as a birthday gift when he turned ten. On each trip to the range he was told to 'recite the rules'. He knew them well.

1. Every gun is ALWAYS loaded.

2. Never point the gun at anything that you are not willing to destroy.

3. Keep your finger OFF the trigger until ready to shoot.

4. Be sure of your target and what is BEHIND it.

He's 22 now, hasn't killed anyone, and is a responsible firearm owner.
Why? Because he was properly trained from a young age.
If schools taught the basics of firearm safety, there would be no more "accidental" shootings that are brought about by curiosity on the kids part, and stupidity on the parents part.

RE: the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has NOT decided to rule on the 2nd Amendment, they have decided to hear the case that involves the D.C. gun ban. It should be pretty simple to sort out. DC usually has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. Sure looks like the gun ban has been working REALLY well, eh?

When seconds count, the Police are only Minutes away, even (especially?) in the cities.
Dial 911 and die is the way it really happens UNLESS you are armed and defend yourself from the thug trying to kill you.

Gun control does nothing to stop criminals. It's really simple that way. If you want to stop the majority of gun crime do more to stop the criminals with guns.

Barack O'Backwards, as usual

Oh, I seeeee ... so, people can have guns out in the lower crime rural areas, but not where the need for self-defense is much more frequent.

Why do I suspect that, in the scenario where Michelle's wishes were fulfilled, and gun-ownership was abolished for all except the criminals in the urban areas, she and Barack would then happily turn around and say, "And look! Out there in the relatively peaceful countryside! Certainly THEY don't need guns!"

Can we really believe someone like this who cheerfully accepts contributions from sources that confirm his support for socialism and cement his identity as an enemy of the second amendment? Sorry Mr Obama, you should fire your advisors, we aren't buying it.

Quote Obama: "I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families."

Thank you for the utterly meaningless statement. "Lawful gun owners" means NOTHING if Democrat policies of outlawing guns is taken to its logical conclusion.

That's like saying "Legal users of medical marijuana should be able to smoke up," but outlawing medical marijuana so there is no such thing as a "legal user".

Obama is not special, people. He's your typical dirty-dealing, double-talking, race-baiting, pandering uber-liberal Democrat. The only difference is that most Democrats actually have roots in the states they claim to serve (Hillary being the other notable suggestion). And also, most Democrats tend to serve out at least one Senate term before thinking themselves Presidential material.

No doubt Sean Taylor wised he had the capacity to defend himself with deadly force. The loss of his constuitutional right cost him dearly.

Oh, don't be silly.

Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge understands the Second Amendment confers an individual right to ownership of arms.

(1.) No part of the Bill of Rights was written to confer exclusive powers to government; these 10 Amendments were specifically written to constrain government authority and allow individuals to retain those rights. To interpret only one of them (Amendment 2) as taking authority away from the people and conferring it to the government, is ludicrous. It was included in the Bill of Rights, along with so many other individual freedoms, precisely because it protected an individual freedom.

(2.) In the early days of the United States there was no standing army; defense was by ad-hoc militiae made up of private citizens carrying privately-owned firearms. These same firearms were used for hunting, self-defense, and occasionally for assistance in volunteer law enforcement (e.g. a "posse" or responding to a "hue and cry"). These were assumed duties of any able-bodied citizens, *outside* the militia. No such militia exists today, but these other needs remain and privately owned firearms are used for such purposes hundreds of thousands of times annually in the U.S.

(3.) Finally, the ultimate silliness: Someone above commented that a child would have a right to carry an AK-47 if the 2nd Amendment were construed to be an individual right. I assume this scholar also believes that the constitution confers a right for 9-year olds to vote? Age limits are not prohibited if we (reasonably) interpret the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

It is, then, only the illogical, dishonest, or uninformed who can argue that private (law-abiding) citizens (within reasonable restrictions and regulations) do not have a right to own (and sometimes carry) firearms. At my office in urban Atlanta, about a quarter of people do; it's a cultural norm, considered part of the well-prepared adult's upbringing (like learning CPR or having a fire-extinguisher).

Other cultures may prefer to emulate sheep. But they should not force their culture, unconstitutionally, on the U.S.

One thing I noted after reading all the comments above (some laughable, some well thought out} was the historical context of the phrase "well regulated militia". When the framers wrote the first 10 amendments to the document limiting government power, "well regulated" must be construed in the context of the way battles were fought and armies were trained."Well regulaed" meant the ability of a body of soldiers to perform drills and, the manual of arms. e.g. "Form a column of twos from a column of fours, right face etc." It never had anything to do with what we today consider regulation and anyone who seeks to suggest that the state reserved some right to limit ownership of arms is on the wrong track.

... ""well regulated" must be construed in the context of the way battles were fought and armies were trained."Well regulaed" meant the ability of a body of soldiers to perform drills and, the manual of arms."

Quite so. "Well regulated" means "everybody knows what to do; people have been practicing ..."

"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." Events that propelled many colonists into revolt against the British Crown include the Battles of Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1775. The British had resolved to confiscate the "arms" of these colonists who were British Subjects, remitted taxes to the Crown and paid for goods with Pounds and Shillings. But these men were free and knew that the purpose of government was to SECURE their rights, liberty and freedom. After winnning a bitter war for independence it came time to codify this necessity as the US Constitution. The memory of unalienable rights trammeled was still fresh in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Indeed, most who had fought the war to secure these rights still had not been paid the costs they incurred and had been promised. Their farms had not been tended for those several years, yet the legislatures of various states, beholden to the banker and merchant class, continued to assess absuredly unfair taxes upon these true patriots. The common right for a man to carry a gun, hunt, defend himself, was as understood as the right to breath air and the right to drink water. The point of the second ammendment was to guarantee free men had the right to defend themselves against a government destructive of their liberty. In this day and age it is rather absured to quibble over the right to carry a gun. These are mere pea-shooters when compared to the "arms" a self propagating government has bestowed upon itself - any local sherrif commands helicopters, machine guns and cutting edge weapons that can quickly put down any conceivable insurrection, all at the order of some politician. Ask Ralph Nader how the Massachusetts State Police threatened to arrest him for his political activity! It is time the people of this country demand their elected officials uphold the constitution, as they so swear, upon entering office. Barack Obama should know this very well as a former professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Illinois. He should acknowledge that various forms of state and local government disarmed black men after the civil war and then proceeded to slaughter them if they did not comply with the dictates of those who swore to uphold the law. Barack, if you want to take away the guns of Americans I say first take the guns away from our elected officials and their designates. Then give me a big red button that when pushed, exposes those who would deprive me of my liberty and swindle me as well as those who would protect them through their office. Untill this time, We the People, will keep and bear arms as the founding fathers prescribed.

I want to vote for Obama, but the 2nd amendment is about protection against tyranny not hunting, not defending your family. Obama might not infringe on any other right, but eventually a government elected will have that urge. The 2nd amendment checks that urge. The idea of registering firearms is unacceptable. Firearms confiscation always begins with registration. Not in America.

Its amazing how people complicate issues with language.

For all intents and purposes, beside providing for Specific Powers to the Federal Government and the States; the Constitution reaffirms all Natural Rights under God and Nature to the Individual. For the creation of a Society, certain rights are returned to a Judiciary System for purposes of Balance.

Or to put it succinctly. Rule 1:"Everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. With these Rights comes the responsibility to Respect the Rights of Others. Rule 2: Violation of the First Rule creates a situation where Balance is owing. We The People give over the majority of Balance to a System of Justice, while retaining the Right to Immediate Balance, where neccessary.

Truth to tell, I would rather Everyone be required to carry a firearm and be taught its proper use. The chance of a crime against me going unanswered decreases dramatically, due to the potential of immediate intercession on my behalf by another Citizen.

law abiding citizens should have the right to defend themselves in any way possible.criminals do not care or worry about the police.they will kill no matter what. I know this for a fact.faced with death or survival,a person should relize his or her situation and act imeaditly upon disarming the criminal or destroying him or her.and do not hesitate,do it now!at least you will live another day. a vietnam vetern who was in combat situations.please read it could save your live.

As an NRA life member and Army veteran, I feel the need to set the record straight: My dictionary(Webster's New World)defines "militia" as "an army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers,called up in time of emergency." The Guard and Reserve are organized government entities and entirely professional in everything they do. Keep in mind, also, that they didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was written. The 2nd amendment clearly applies to ordinary U.S. citizens and their God-given right to protect themselves, their families and homes, period. Soldiers take an oath to support and defend these rights.

Thank you, Mr. Needles. It is about time that the American public understand the distinction between a militia and a professional army (or police force), and why the term "militia" was selected for use in the consitution. The founding fathers understood the risk to personal liberties posed by standing armies. Consider the situation facing the colonies vis a vis England at the time. It was precisely to avoid tyranny by governments retaining such professional forces that the individuals, by way of militia, were afforded the right to bear arms in their own defense.

i am a democrat in illinois and i won't vote for obama or clinton.

the main reason is they support gun control and people who support gun control are supporting the criminals. they need to tell the truth gun control only affects the people who obey the law.

clinton and obama forgot about their oath of office to protect and uphold the constitution, that includes the second admendment.

the second admendment is not about hunting it is about keep our country free. thanks steve

What an idiot! Obviously, Barack has never been in a gun store. You don't just walk in a buy a carload of handguns and I have NEVER seen a sawed off shotgun in a gun shop and I am an avid gun person.

Time for a second post. Here's and easy fix to settle the discussion once and for all: Read the Federalist Papers. They are written in the language common to the 1770s and readers must remember that certain words and phrases have shifted meaning over time - See my earlier note about what "well regulated" meant back then.

The framers had just lived through a time when the best trained, largest standing army in the world arbitrarily quartered their soldiers in the homes of private citizens where they behaved badly.

The framers were afraid of standing armies, assuming that standing armies were not only expensive, injurious to the well being of free citizens but also presented potential despots with not only an excuse to usurp more power but also the reason: Standing armies have to be paid.

The papers are a tough read - but well worth the exercise. After you finish with them, you'll probably have to decide for yourself whether the Constitution, a 230 year old document, is outmoded or not. As you make your decision, please remember that it has served us pretty well without too much fiddling over time.

If Obama is elected president I hope everyone who voted for him enjoys having UN troops from foreign countries patrolling their neighborhoods and towns. He's already involved in the UN's Millennium Project. Look it up. While you're at it, do some research on the UN's little rape problem. Seems their troops have trouble keeping their manhood in their pants while in foreign countries. Matter of fact, the more digging one does on this guy and his friends, the more one realizes how Orwellian he and his policies are. If all you Obamaniacs want to live in a society run by liberal fascists who want to control your every move, then blindly cast your votes. As for myself, I'll not be living in your twisted world.

"Fortunately, the states and local jurisdictions regulate such things, like who can drink alcohol and who can drive. In the same way cities and states should be able to require people to get a license and register their guns every year."

Thats so retarded, "drinking" isnt a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Liberals want to remove the *right* to own guns and give more social services to the people. Doesnt this seem like an extremely hard move toward socialism?

I think now more than ever is time fight for your right to bare arms. Liberals are looking to make you dependent on the government, take away your freedom and we will be a socialist state before you know it. Think about it: The US government going against the private sector in a battle for health care.... Wow; I didnt know the government was allowed to complete directly with the private sector.... Seems it would be unfair. Removing our ability to defend ourselves sure makes us a lot more subduable.

I find it funny the Libs are so afraid of corporate America, yet want to grow the largest corporation on earth, the government.

a gun is a gun.

Well, I guess Michelle Obama is scared of the country folk as she would see a need to possibly have a gun in rural areas. Hmmmm, wonder about Chicago - which has a huge gun murder rate despite it's virtual city-wide gun ban - much like that Utopia of D.C., aka Murder Capitol of the U.S. ALL the amendments in the Bill of Rights were written for individual rights, not government rights, and the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, partly written to keep government from getting out of control. A militia in those times was not a standing army, but a group of ordinary citizens called together during a crises. If the framers had meant to have arms only in the hands of government, then all ordinary citizens at that time would have been disarmed. In those days, virtually everyone had a gun and were even required to have an operable firearm in defense of home and country. Trying to rewrite history and the 2nd amendment are desperate attempts to undermine our rights and U.S. Constitution. Obama needs to take another Constitutional Law class.

MikeRobinson wrote: Does anyone else see the foolishness of making societal choices based on a 230 year old document written by a bunch of wealthy white guys?
Truth is, Mike, the Constitution was crafted to address human nature, not contemporary issues or technology. Several quotations were posted here, so here's another one, this from Admiral Yamamoto of the Japanese Navy, during the planning of the attack on Pearl Harbor: "It is impossible to invade America; there'd be a gun behind every blade of grass." Of course, if the Bolsheviks in this country get their way, that would change, wouldn't it?