Nightline's Daily Line

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!

5 of the 9 on the supreme court got it right, not really sure what the they were thinking.

Bottom line is gun control doesnt work. DC is a great example...some of the strictest gun laws and one of the highest crime areas of the US. Then there are those inspirational Gun Free Zones...as in in our public schools, how have those worked out for us?

Having a gun wont make you exempt for crime but at least you have the option of countering back and defending yourself instead of cowering under a desk waiting for your turn to be shot down in cold blood.

When seconds count...the police are minutes away at best.

Hurray for the United States Supreme Court. Remember, its not the guns that kill people its the people behind the guns. I am proud and honored to own a gun. I respect it and will use it to to protect myself and my family from all of bad crumbs that illegally have one. Why should the criminals have the guns and we, the innocent become their victims. Not this time. Thank you U.S. Supreme Court for protecting our RIGHT.

Hurray for the United States Supreme Court. Remember, its not the guns that kill people its the people behind the guns. I am proud and honored to own a gun. I respect it and will use it to to protect myself and my family from all of bad crumbs that illegally have one. Why should the criminals have the guns and we, the innocent become their victims. Not this time. Thank you U.S. Supreme Court for protecting our RIGHT.

At last the people forced to live in the middle & lower class neighborhoods have the option of defending their families in their own home. This will make it safer to go to sleep at night. Now the powers to be don't want the common man to protect his family and now he can, but you can be sure these idoits will try and take them again.

Yes, they got it right. Criminals don't like to take any risks when robbing or intimidating other people.

This has been proven many times when you watch "Cops" and the criminals are the biggest whiners and criers when they are caught.

Yes, they did get it right. Our constitution is what makes this a great country.

Although the media and most politicians would have us believe otherwise, the facts are indisputable - the only people restrictive gun laws ultimately protect are the criminals. In states that have authorized concealed carry laws, gun related crime has gone down. Being able to protect ourselves is a basic right that no one has the authority to abridge, no matter their stated "good" intentions.

Justice Scalia again displayed his penchant for mentally existing in the 18th century.

As a TEXAN I applaud the Supreme Court's affirmation of my right to bear arms. Guns in the hands of RESPONSIBLE people do not cause crime rates to go up nor do they make people unsafe. It's when only the CRIMINALS have the guns that we have the problems. I think the crime rate in Washington DC will now go DOWN because the ban on allowing citizens to have guns went away. Now the criminals will have to worry about the person they are going to shoot having the ability to shoot back!

Absolutely the court got it right. Now law abiding citizens of D.C. can do what criminals have been doing all along, have a firearm. A law that supersedes the constitution specifically the 2nd amendment is in its self illegal.

The issue isn't whether or not the decision makes Americans safer. It is what did the framers of the Constitution intend? They intended for individual citizens to have the right to bear arms, a right that was denied to the common man in many European nations. This was viewed as insurance that the U.S. population could never be controlled by a despotic ruler.

Less safe after this ruling? No. Chicago and Washington D.C. have gun bans, yet gun violence is the most violent at those cities. Why is that? Anti gun laws are not obeyed by law breakers who break laws anyway. This only leaves the citizen who is lawful at the mercy of the criminals because they are unable to defend themselves. And the criminals know this! When a populace is armed, you introduce occupational hazard to the criminals. They think twice before committing a crime in fear that they may be shot back, as crude as this sounds. An unarmed populace is fish in a barrel. You can't rely on the police when it takes them minutes to respond.

How many years does Chicago have its gun ban? How many laws in Chicago's books are there? Whats one more law going to do? How many years is it going to take and get it right? Chicago has been the most violent in recent years, and this city is a case study that gun bans have zero effect in reducing crime. Never mind the fact that Mayor Dailey and his government is corrupt.

Does the 2nd Ammendment still apply?
Absolutely, everyone should have the right to own a musket.

No, the new gun law will not make us safer! We will now be as safe as in those days in the wild west. How many times have you heard of someone protecting themself in a drive-by shooting? How many times do you hear of someone protecting themselves in their home with a gun? Hardly ever!
I guess we'll be reading about more killings becaise of this stupid new ruling.
I think it would be poetic justice if one of the Justices was threatened with a gun. Maybe he would see the irony in their ruling.

The psychos and nuts and criminal types will have their weapons of choice no matter the law or the court ruling says. The ruling allows the honest, law-abiding citizen to protect himself! The court possibly has it right this time! Kudos!

The issue isn't whether or not the decision makes Americans safer. It is what did the framers of the Constitution intend? They intended for individual citizens to have the right to bear arms, a right that was denied to the common man in many European nations. This was viewed as insurance that the U.S. population could never be controlled by a despotic ruler.

Whether the ruling "make Americans safer or less safe" is completely irrelevant to the question of constitutionality of the law. The question cannot be taken into consideration.

Did the Court get it right? Of course. They ruled in favor of a strict interpretation of the wording.

The Court's charge was to determine if the Washington gun ban violated the Constitution.I believe it was intended that all of the Bill of Rights are individual rights.

I agree with the Court's Decision defending indivual rights to own firearms; however, I still think that gun ownership should be strongly regulated. This evening I have had four glasses of wine and I will soon be walking my dog in my peaceful neighborhood with my 357 Magnum in my pocket. Do you really want to pass me on the street?

The decision is actually a scathing rebuttal of Scalia’s favorite deceit, the so call 'originalist' interpretation of the Constitution.

Let us assume, and it might be right, that the authors of the Constitution meant for the 2nd amendment to guarantee a right of every citizen to "bare arms". Clearly, if there is such a right, the authors of the Constitution meant it should apply to every type of arms, since they did not include even one to define a "lawful" class of weapons or to exclude some other "unlawful" class, whether it is a pistol or rifle or walking around with a live grenade or a machine gun .

In fact there is not one word to exclude private citizens from buying and selling plutonium, or fully assembling it into a nuclear device. This is the madness that an originalist interpretation of the Constitution unavoidably takes us, if we only assume that the 2nd amendment means what this decision says it does!

Luckily, and I never thought I would say such a thing, Scalia decided to borrow the "living constitutionalism" of Justice Bryer and declare that restrictions on what type of weapons may be permissible.

It may not be what the authors of the Constitution meant, but I for one am glad that that paragon of hypocrisy and his own political agenda, Antonin Scalia, at least allowed for these *common sense* exceptions to the 2nd amendment. It turns out there is a bit of the pragmatist in Scalia. Who knew?

It is my belief that the Supreme Court got it right. Guns do not kill people.
People kill people. Just as an automobile accident kills. Just as a baseball hits a young kid in the head with the force of 100 mile an hour. Should we stop selling cars? Should we stop make baseballs? Teach children respect, and to follow all instructions.
My husband explained to the boys at a very early age 3 yrs 5 yrs. A gun with a bullet in when shot, would brake the target you are shooting all to peices. He then took them and show an example. He then told them it could not be put back together. It would never be the same. So do not point guns at anything you do not want to break. Manners, chores, responsiblity, make good citizens. This, all children need to guide them.

right on

Yes the decision was correct. I am glad at least five justices understand the plain language of our constitution, and don't feel the desire to change it. Apparently they know the history of bullies,and tyrants - confiscate all personal weapons. Personal arms are the last defense for freedom,and against dictators, and corrupt government.

yes they got it right.i am a 67 year old female i just bought a gun .why should all the crimnals.be the ones to own guns?

I think they made the right reading, but I think the verdict will be how people handle guns in the first place. Bad guys will always find ways to have weapons, but we don't live in the wild, wild west either. I am not apposed to our citizens arming themselves, but I hope they do so with wisdom when it comes to guns.

The second amendment is an individual right. The right to bear arms is the only reason the united states has any freedoms left. As long as the people are armed we will never have to worry about invasion from another country. Maybe that is what the left wants and is trying so hard to disarm true americans.

The Court has FINALLY got something right! Look at the DC crime rate and the crime rate of any country in the world that have national gun bans, gun control doesn't work. It only makes victims of law abiding citizens.

But does it make Americans safer or less safe? Did the Court get it right?

You have two questions here. YES, the court interpreted the constitution correctly. It doesn't matter how we feel about it. It matters that it was interpreted according to the intent of the framers of the constitution.

Will it make the U.S. citizen safer? If you will notice, the majority of mass killings occur in "no gun" zones. Also, the states with the lowest violent crime are those with the most unrestructive gun laws.

What Supreme Court did was found what was lost; our way of life;
We no longer are the home of braves land of free;
We drive 2 hours each way; what it takes 30min;
We wait 2 hrs; what it takes 30min to get on the plane;

We’ve lost it; our way of life; safety be damned for eternity if we have to give up our way of life; in part or whole;

They got it completely wrong.

I have argued that in today's society, "the people" are not equivalent to a "well regulated militia" as they were when the second amendment was written and first introduced.

There are more violent deaths in the U.S. that are associated with the use guns (illegally or legally obtained guns) than with any other type of weapon or method.

If the Supreme Court had banned the manufacturing and distribution of consumer guns and amunition, no civilian consumer would have the means to be able to use guns. Therefore, there would be no need to carry a gun for protection. However, banning the manufacture and sale of consumer guns would hurt this big business and disrupt the political backing of the National Rifle Association. The move was completely political, and I am appauled by the irresponsible actions of the Supreme Court.

I am of the generation formerly known as generation "X". If critics thought that there was little to no hope for my generation, then as long as those critics are making decisions like this, I guess they were right.

My question is, when did my right to live take a back seat to someone else's right to hunt?

People are significantly less likely to attempt to murder by any other means.

Safer? YES
Court get it right? YES

Yes they got it right. We all live in this world you can chose to be good or bad. I live in Chicago the mayor would like to have his will imposed on everyone. He travles with ARMED police. His life and family are protected. He will not give up the protection his family is given at our expense to take the same chance we must take. Night line should report on the crime statistics of other parts of the country were they do not restrict guns.

YES, the Supreme Court absolutely got it right. Now the good honest hard working people can use the same thing to defend theirselves that the thiefs, murders, and thugs use. GOOD JOB to all the members of the Supreme Court!

Yes, the Court got it right, unlike their decision for gay marriage in CA. The 2nd Ammendment will help keep Americans more safe by letting criminals know that they might incur deadly force as a response to an attempt to commit a crime with a gun. "Guns dpn't kill people, people kill people!"

Yes....they got it RIGHT. That's exactly why we ARE who we are. We are FREE. We are PROSPEROUS,& we try to HELP others. We will not tolerate a DICTATOR. We will not tolerate so-called "lawmakers" that try to take away our our basic human right of self-defense. Take a close look at the rest of the world. Do you like what you see? Would you like to live somewhere else? Africa? Asia? Europe? South America? If so, please go.....with our blessings. How about FREE SPEECH? ABC News is free to criticize our government....& so are you & I. Can you do that anywhere else? And get away with it? We are FREE because of our Constitutional Rights. And, our 2nd Amendment PROTECTS the Constitution itself. Think about it. The very first Amendment is the RIGHT to say what you please. The second : to DEFEND your right to say it. It's a no-brainer.

It is my belief that the Supreme Court got it right. Guns do not kill people.
People kill people. Just as an automobile accident kills. Just as a baseball hits a young kid in the head with the force of 100 mile an hour. Should we stop selling cars? Should we stop make baseballs? Teach children respect, and to follow all instructions.
My husband explained to the boys at a very early age 3 yrs 5 yrs. A gun with a bullet in when shot, would brake the target you are shooting all to peices. He then showed an example. He then told them it could not ever be put back together. It would never be the same. So do not point guns at anything you do not want to break. Manners, chores, responsiblity, make good citizens. This, all children need to guide them.

Dear concerned citizen;
If constitution isn’t for individual; who is it for?;
Constitution mentions only three entities; Individual, State, religion;

In matter of religion; nothing of official documents can be used; that gets rid of religion; from equation;
That leaves State and individual; so once again .. who is it for?;

We are finally seeing some common sense coming out of Washington. The Supreme Court absolutely got it right. There is no one out there to protect you. The police can't, the government can't. Use your guaranteed right to protect yourself.

I also want to point out that Chicago and D.C. either banned or excessively restricted consumer gun sale and distribution. However, the entire country was not in line. If you could drive to the next state over and obtain a gun and amunition legally, how effective could one city's gun ban truly be?

YES THE SUPREME COURT GOT THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN IN AMERICA RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!! MY DISAPPOINTMENT WAS THE CLOSE 5-4 VOTE ON THE ISSUE. THE NUMBERS I HAVE SEEN INDICATE A 95% FOR GUN OWNERSHIP AND 5% AGANIST!!!!! THERE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE PEOPLE AND JUSTICES THAT JUST DONT GET IT!!!!!! I SUGGEST MUCH OF THE 5% AGAINIST GUN OWNERSHIP ARE THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT WANTING NO RESISTANCE TO CRIME!!!! BAD GUYS DONOT THINK OR ACT LIKE GOOD GUYS!!!!!!!!

As a man from Montana where 2nd amendment rights still exist, I'm shocked that four of the nine got it wrong. During the Virginia Tech shootings aftermath, I kept thinking "How many of the victims, if given an opportunity all over, whould have armed themselves and at least had a chance to stop the slaughter". My guess is 100%, including their families.

The Supreme Court simply followed what the second amendment stated years ago. Guns are going to be around whether they are legal or not. How could people be so ignorant to think gun control would save lives. Crooks can always find a way to get a gun or any type of weapon. If you want to take away the right to bear arms then assign me a body guard. I'm just as important as all of those who hire body guards to protect them yet want gun control. Remember, there are more people killed by DUI's than guns. Maybe we should ban alcohol instead of guns. Seriously, open your eyes people and think about it.

Teresa O'Brien: Your comments are a bit asinine.

- First off the justices did not pass a "gun law", they made a ruling on the reading of the second amendment.
- Have you ever been in a part of this country where guns were legal? If so, was it really like the wild wild west? People shooting into the air at a wedding receptions?
- Although it does get reported, albeit very rarely, people HAVE protected themselves both in the home and in the streets as a result of defending themselves with their firearms. The media rarely report something good happening because its not good news like bad news. Also criminals who know that a certain area or home has the ability to defend themselves don't even try. Their knowledge that a populace is armed is deterrent and prevents an encounter from taking place to begin with.
- You will see for yourself the crime rates going down once people have the ability to defend themselves. Just look at the statistics. The numbers tell an interesting story. You just choose to be ignorant.
- Way to insinuate a threat on a person holding a seat in government. You're a real class act and that statement speaks wonders about you.

Yes, Yes and Yes. It is about time that right are given back to those that help make this country what it is and can become. We need to be able to have the right to protect our family and perosnnal property that to many just want to break the law and take.

Yes the majority of the supreme court got it right. The constitution does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. You have that right naturally. The constitution informs the government that the people have the right to defend themselves and their country sometimes from their very own leaders and can not take that right away.
Yes any city that repeals their gun laws will become safer. Read the bias against guns by John Lott.

Dear kim

You obviously did not read court’s ruling;
Issue Heller raised wasn’t whether or not gun kills people; or your rights are less than “some else’s right to hunt”;

Raised issue was similar to: State said all people in DC may not have motor vehicle in person’s home; only in their business;
In order to have car at home; you must have lock at door; and must be registered and only chief of police may issue a license;
Because cars kill people;

Does this law violate my right to drive?; does this law violate my right to liberty?; does this law violate my right to freedom?;

That .. was the issue Heller raised; not whether or not your rights are less;

This ruling will bring about total chaos! With so many parents addicted to illegal substances leaving behind their frustrated children to fend for themselves, and so many guns available, I guess that makes it safer to walk the streets!

But I guess those violent crimes only frequently exist in my neighborhood, so why should anyone else care what this means for my family?

the 2nd amendment states...
"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."

So how the heck can 4 guys in black robes even think of voting against gun ownership in any form or fashion. The second amendment is here to protect the first amendment from an over zealous government from trying to take away our First amendment rights as many people on the left are trying to do.
The definitions are clear as the foounding fathers had written it..knowing full well what greed and power create..and it is here ..right now in our governemnt and if Mr. Obama wins we are lost. God help us.

Don't forget from the second amendment:

"the right of the people"

The definitions for those who do not kow them.

Militia:
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Keep:
to hold or retain in one's possession; hold as one's own: If you like it, keep it. Keep the change.

Bear:to hold or carry

nuff said !!

Chicago is a very dangerous city for the citizens and law enforcement. There are numerous murders everydayin this city. No only adults get killed everyday but innocent children,teens & officers get killed everyday. Do you think these are random killings? Well they are not. They are meant for someone and the innocent get killed instead. Vicious criminals break into innocent people's homes and murder them. The innocent are playing,sitting,walking etc & yet they are killed. It's not the gun that kills, its the person behind the gun. Yes, Mayor Daley, you said it right, it is a shoot out, like the 'Ol West' It's us against them. What you need to do is get rid of all of the punk gangs in Chicago and there wouldn't be a need to have a gun to protect yourself. I applaud the US Supreme Court for a victory to uphold our right to bear arms.

Yes, the court got it right! GUN CONTROL DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE SAFER. Look at the facts.

Thomas Jefferson wrote about the militia in 1781: "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia." ( from Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX ) Many other Federalist letters directly referred to the militia as being all the people. I think the Supreme Court got that part right.

I think that the Court was correct to say that reasonable regulation of firearms was acceptable. Just like speech can be regulated, and public assembly can be regulated as well. I don't hear anyone having problems with reasonable regulation of those rights.

However I think the Supreme Court (oddly) screwed up regarding what this individual right is supposed to protect. This has severe implications on what you might consider to be reasonable regulation.

The right was not meant to protect the people's ability to protect themselves or their personal property, or to go hunting with firearms, or to go target shooting. Personally I think those are also fine goals, but they aren't mentioned in the constitution anywhere that I can see.

My gratuitous rephrasing...
{the populace}... keeping and bearing arms, being a necessity to the security of a free state, will therefore be a protected right.

What does "security of a free state" mean? And what role is necessary that the people must be armed to fulfill? What regulation would therefore be reasonable and also not interfere with the necessary role that people with guns need to fill?

I think that the framers of the constitution were worried about tyranny by a government and that gov't using it's army and police to enforce that tyranny.

It is my opinion that the framers of the constitution intended that a gov't of the people, by the people and for the people would be expected to protect their own freedoms with their own guns.

Therefore, handguns are not what should be considered protected by the constitution, and shooting burglars or deer is not protected either.

Assault weapons, machine guns, armor piercing bullets, (up to date modern army infantry gear) is what I think is protected. Because those are the things that the people would need to fulfill the role of "protectors of their own freedoms".

So, the question I think is whether we decide to revise the constitution with a new amendment that is more reasonable considering the current general will of the people... or we should live with what we have. And, unfortunately, what we have is a legal system that isn't facing the *real* arguments.

It's great to be an American, isn't it? Let keep our American rights in line!!!

Was there really any doubt as to what the 2nd Amendment meant? Five got it right...the other four didn't. Fortunately five was enough! It's troubling to know that four of the judges had trouble reading and interpreting such a simply stated Right!

Perhaps it's time to put each of the other Rights to the same scrutiny. Would all the anti-gun people like those explained to them as well? I think not! Wake up America!

Danielle P wrote>>

>

according to your logic; there should not be any Christian churches; because jesus of Nazareth never had church;
no Christian church should accept money since jesus of Nazareth did not accept any money;

how time changes .. tempus fugit;

What about law abiding citizens owning and carrying a handgun makes the community less safe? By definition, "law abiding" citizens aren't using handguns to commit crimes, they are LAW ABIDING, not criminals! It is the criminals use of handguns against the law abiding citizens, that is what is wrong here. If someone decides for themselves that they aren't comfortable enough with handguns to own one and have it to protect themselves, fine, don't own one, but stop trying to keep me from owning one to be used for self protection.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SETTLING DIFFERENCES WITHOUT A FIREARM? TODDLERS FIGHT OVER TOYS BUT TEENS SETTLE DIFFERENCES WITH GUNS,NOW AVAILABLE MORE READILY THAN EVER, AND LEGAL,THANKS TO AN 18TH CENTURY COURT MAJORITY MINDSET. THE CONSTITUTION'S FRAMERS WOULD BE SHOCKED AT THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR MUSKETS DURING A MOST PRIMITIVE TIME OF OUR COUNTRY'S DEVELOPMENT, NOW BEING. APPLIED TO THE ERA OF AK47S

Yes the court got it right and it is long over due

the courts got it completely wrong. "Are we living in a jungle where guns are needed to protect us from wild animals? "Are we supposed to be brothers and sisters in accordance with spiritual law? This decision is bad for america, and bad for our world, since this great nation holds the cup of light to the rest of the world.

The Supreme Court's job in this case was to rule on constitutionality of DC's law. They were NOT tasked with making the U.S. safer or less safe. In my opinion they only got it partially correct. They were correct in confirming that the 2nd Amendment guarantees every U.S. citizen the right to bear arms; however, they stopped short of actually completing the job at hand. Many laws (& executive orders) are still in place throughout this country that severely restrict gun owner rights. These need to be abolished too!

Yes the courts got it right for once. I know it's said alot but it's true that if you ban guns the only ones that have guns are the criminals. If this gun law was passed 30 years ago or so it could have made a difference but there are so many weapons on the streets now it's a moot point. I think that a would-be criminal would think twice before robbing a person or business if there could be a citizan armed nearby. You will still have your career criminals that have no fear but thats anywhere you go.
Usually the citizans who arm themselves are responsible people who want to protect themselves and others by not becoming a helpless victim.
-Greg

Yes, they got it right. They didn't make policy or describe the world as they would like it to be, they just did their job and answered the simple question "what does the constitution say?". Everywhere the term "the people" is used it means individual citizens and that is just what it means in the 2nd amendment. They did however say local governments could place reasonable restrictions on firearm use by people such as mental defectives, felons and unsupervised minors.

By definition laws don't apply to criminals but just the knowledge that their intended victim may be armed should cause a lot of criminals to think before they act. If someone abuses their right to own and use a firearm then they should be treated as a criminal but until then they are entitled to the rights granted by our founding fathers..

Does no one (including the Supreme Court) remember the wording of the 2nd Amendment? The Court ruled in the only other ruling on this amendment it made, that the 1st clause, the DEPENDENT clause, was the intent of the right to own arms: "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary for the security of a free state,..." This does not include criminals, vigilanties, fanatics, self righteous egotists, or untrained amateurs. All of whom are more dangerous WITH A GUN. Safety is a right.

The Court got it right.

Shocking, I know.

YES the 5 out of 9 got it right,the other 4 needs to stay off the drugs

Yes, the SCOTUS got it right and, as others have said, it's amazing that four - FOUR!!!! - of them got it wrong.

Want to read something scary? Read Justice Breyer's dissent letter. He suggests that the right of the individual to own handguns should be balanced against the greater needs/requirements of the government to prevent crime in high-crime areas. What????? Our individual rights are subordinate to the rights of the government????? Does he even understand what the heck the Bill of Rights are for?????? Funny, but a couple of weeks ago, he had absolutely NO PROBLEM in choosing to protect the individual rights of the Gitmo detainees (who aren't even US citizens) over the needs/requirements of the government.

Unbelievable...