Political Punch

Iplawnet - Facts ARE, indeed, Facts:

"Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

"Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

"The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Let's get it right. Laurance Tribe, constitutional law expert and Obama's advisor, said the following this morning:
Professor Laurence Tribe, of Harvard Law School, said the ruling offered something for both sides of the debate. "It's only the two extremes who have any reason to be disappointed," Professor Tribe said.

"One extreme is those who say there is no individual right, which may be good policy but is not consistent with the constitution. The other extreme is that the right to bear arms is absolute and not subject to regulation, which is also not consistent with the constitution."

This is essentially Obama's position. It's not "flip-flopping", it's just being reasonable.

FACTS ARE FACTS!

Homocide rate in Great Britian 1.6 per 100,000

Homocide rate in United States 5.7 per 100,000

But lucky for us, the 2nd amendment grants a right to people who you don't know and don't trust to have a gun!

And thank goodness that there are so many legal guns (although sadly, guns stored at home are a major source of guns possesed by criminals!

Now that a partisan majority of the Supreme Court have ruled, I feel much better about the murder rate being 3.5 times higher in this country than in Great Britain!

Obama says, and has always said, that the 2nd amendment grants a right to own a weapon, but it is not an ABSOLUTE right and *common sense* restrictions are legal.

JAKE, CAN YOU POINT TO EVEN ONE CASE THAT CONTRADICTS THIS?

Yes, he voted against a blanket, ABSOLUTE, right in Illinois. But neither he nor I have ever said he believed in some absolute right to own a weapon.

ASK JOHN McCAIN: Does he think people should have a right to walk around with a live grenade? Does he think people have a right to bear "arms" like weaponizes anthrax?

Then perhaps McCain would admit that, since it is not an absolute right, that reasonable restrictions on WHO and WHAT KIND of weapon are legal. And if the 2nd amendment is not an absolute right, then perhaps it is possible for a community to impose other reasonable, common sense, restrictions.

Other than Ginsberg, I figured all the justices would have agreed on this.
Maybe when Obama preaches about change, he means that he reserves the right to change his position on issues depending on which way the political wind blows.

I think Obama's statement, if taken at face value, is very good. Others who have posted before me here seem cynical that this is a flip flop on the issue, and I am sure his judicial appointments have a huge potential to overturn this ruling in the future.

Therefor I suggest that someone start a movement to promote centrist Justices like Anthony Kennedy, who has been the swing vote in a string of 5-4 decisions of late. From Habeaus Corpus, to the 2nd Amendment, to the death penalty, Kennedy has shown that he is willing to decide based on good jurisprudence rather than left/right ideology. If we had 9 Justices like him, all of these decisions would have not only been correct, but they would have had solid majorities and stronger precedent.

It's hard for anyone not close to law enforcement to understand the entanglements. Look at the home invasion rate in Los Angeles in the affluent districts. Look at the inability to enforce immigration. Look at the rise in specialty thefts (stealing only specific parts from cars, for example) and the relationship to drug smuggling (crime is a money chain).

Is there a pattern there? Yes. It's easy to see in the data. Can anyone talk about that without losing an election? Nope.

Regardless of the Supreme Court decision and it's legal correctness, we do have a gun problem in this country and it may be coming to a door in Brentwood or Bel Air soon. The question of where and when it will be met with another gun is what is being decided. How well one fares in that contest is matter of luck and training.

If you honestly support open borders, amnesty and everyone should own one, do use the practice range often and... good luck because there is no way your law enforcement officials can protect you 100% of the time. This is not fear-mongering. It is a simple fact that as long as the chasm between the haves and have nots is that wide, someone will always be looking for a place to cross it.

Cloudy, if you would actually read the decision, you would discover that the majority opinion clearly states that one does not need to belong to a state militia in order to keep and bear arms; just as one does not need to be a member of the press to enjoy first amendment rights. Sorry, you LOSE!!!

It is a myth that gun control laws decrease crime. All studies and the recent history of Great Britain demonstrate that exactly the opposite is true. It is not possible to overturn the law of unintended consequences.

"what works in Chicago"

I believe it was just recently that Barry's home city had a nice long spell of constant gunshot murders.

So what you "did" there didn't work there, Mr. Judgement Hope and Change.

This guy is such a greenhorn it is amazing.

Obama has been very clear about his position. He is for the total ban of individual gun ownership, but for the purposes of this election he is for the DC ban in liberal states and is against the ban in Moderate or conservative states. pay attention. Once elected he would appoint judges to overturn this decision. He only needs one.

Right Sandra, as geevill's mention of the Joyce Foundation:
-Obama sat on its board for nearly a decade
-it gave nearly 15 million in grants to anti-gun organization in the last 5 years

I am surprised Democrats are not complaining to Obama about his endorsement of this Supreme Court decision.
Obama has always been anti-gun and now he is sounding like a moderate Republican.

His statement indicates he is flip-flopping. Next week, he will change his mind again.

5-4 is scary. very scary. Vote McCain in November.

Forget it Obama--you're not going to win the bitter voters that cling to their guns.

I have been somewhat worried about this. While pleased with the decision, I'm disappointed that it wasn't more nearly unanimous. I find that fact rather unnerving.

Why didn't Obama join in the bi-partisan amicus brief? Mccain did.

way to go obama i like your views