Closing Arguments: Did the Court Get It Right?

Has or did the Washington gun ban make the city any safer ? Has The ban on hand guns in Australia made it any safer? Not they want to outlaw knives in England.
Sorry anti gun people, your idea did not work!

Yes they got it right. D.C.'s gun ban made it the most dangerous city in the nation.

Its not the Court's job to decide if it makes us safer or not, its the Court's job to determine the constitutionality of the law. Which they did.

Police are a reactionary group. You call them to say someone is breaking into your house and the will rush (3+minutes if you are lucky) to save you. What can happen in 3 minutes? Think about it.

very wrong too have guns someone could flip out and then what someone could die from this haveing guns

Yes they got it right!

Guns Are NOT Safe---
they are DANGEROUS and a Primitive means to settle
disputes

Guns put Good Sense at grave peril

I'm surprised the vote was so close, considering the second amendment is a right guaranteed us by the constitution of the United States. It's been proven that areas with a handgun ban have a significantly higher rate of crime than areas without. Check into it if you don't believe.

It is not up to the court to decide whether the law makes us safer or less safe. Their only job is to determine whether the law is constitutional or unconstitutional, and in that sense, they got it right.

Yes they got it right. It should have been 9 to 0 instead of 5 to 4. Four was trying to write law instead of interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

The places that have the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime rates.
States that have carry laws, (concealed
or open) have the lowest crime rates.
Knowing that the person coming toward you may have a gun will make most criminals think twice about trying to rob them.
The Old West was NOT a violent society,
it was a polite society, because EVERYONE was armed.
Dialing 911 in Chicago is just calling the Coroner. He will do more for you than the Police will.

All you have to do is look at the statistics, the true statistics. The same old argument--Why should I have to give up my gun if the criminal is allowed the keep his or hers.

The court has it right. Just look at D.C.crime rate. Gun control was not working

I think you are asking the wrong question. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to make the United States safer, it is the court's job to interpret the Constitution.

Did they get the interpretation wrong? Yes, I think they did. I don't think the second ammendment was ever intended to allow individuals to bear arms outside of wartime militia requirements.

Yes, the court got it right! I can guarantee that if a rapist or burglar was sure that the person that they intended to victimize was wielding a gun that the victim was knowlegeable in the correct utilization of, they would pass that victim by for a more vulnerable victim! After all, most convicted criminals will tell you that they were always looking for the most vulnerable person who they thought had no recourse to fend them off!

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but I think the Constitution guarantees us the right to own guns. And I think that's good. I think it's never a good idea for the Government to be the only ones who are armed-- it ought to be equal between the government and the people.
That would have been nice in 1937 Germany, or 1956 Hungary, or 1968 Czechoslovakia. And right now, the only Zimbabweans in the Opposition who are safe are the ones with guns.

Now not only the bad guys will have personal protection. I don't believe that allowing honest people to carry personal weapons (those that believe abeying the law is the right thing to do)will increase crime. I believe the dis-honest will think twice if they believe others are armed.

Terry Moran poses the wrong question: The supreme court's role in this desision wasn't to make us safer but rather to preserve our liberty.

Even so, the answer is that it has done both; our liberty remains intact, and we are better able as citizens to protect ourselves.

Yes the court finally got it right. There is and always has been an indivdual right to keep and bear arms.
Whether this is good or not, all you have to do is check the decrease in crime in all the states that have right to carry laws for their citizens. More guns in the hands of lawful peoples equals less overall crime.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, the types of guns that we have today on our streets did not exist. When our Forefathers the 2nd Amendment, they were talking about a musket or a pistol that shot like one bullet at a time, not these semi-automatic hand guns we have today. So, if people want to use the 2nd Amendment to prove they have a right to bear arms, then they should be using a musket and not a sawed-off shot gun or a Barreta or a Colt .45. That's my problem with people's reasoning when trying to defend their right to bear arms!