If people actually paid attention to the issues he would be right, but most people don't so it will have no effect (people who actually follow hte issues already know McCain is a hypocritical scumbag with no principles so don't need the supreme court to confirm that)

... what? Has he even seen the hilarity (YouTube) of his stance on the Heller case? Or better yet, makes the issue dormant? Didn't the NRA just file two suits in Chicago and San Francisco based on the outcome of the case?

The 2nd ammendment says "arms", not "guns". Not even "firearms". Given recent advances in non-lethal arms technology, I predict some interesting challenges in the future.

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: Didn't the NRA just file two suits in Chicago and San Francisco based on the outcome of the case?

I'd encourage the NRA to continue filing suits against big cities. The Republican's strategy of demonizing urban areas and promoting rural superiority is going to be a great election strategy.

Ron Paul Revere: It effectively puts the onus upon any petitioner to prove their demand is reasonable and that their rights are being hampered.

Really? Given that the right to bear arms is such an instrumental and "sacred" right, I'd think that the onus would be on the state to prove that a restriction is reasonable.

It's funny how when dealing with arms besides guns, gun advocates suddenly become a lot more pro-government.

LocalCynic: It's funny how when dealing with arms besides guns, gun advocates suddenly become a lot more pro-government.

And if they weren't, you'd call them something like "anarchists."

Ron Paul Revere: No gun advocate I know would challenge the "reasonable restriction" of preventing felons and mentally ill people from owning guns. We all recognize that certain people have no business being armed, like criminals and nutcases.

So a non-violent felon shouldn't be able to defend his family, even after doing his time and paying restitution? And as far as "nutcases" thing. The DSM, which was considered the go-to medical guide about mental conditions, listed homosexuality as a mental illness until recently. I'm sure the Pink Pistols would really support that.

It's ironic, really. I would think that this right to self-defense might be able to protect you against criminals and the mentally ill. More guns, less crime -- isn't that the saying?

It does help Obama.

When McCain tries to make this an issue later all Obama has to say is " I agree with the SCOTUS decision".

I had a blast friday listening to rush try the best he could to make obama sound bad about it. All he had was obama saying something like " i agree with the decision but the reasoning for it did seem correct to me" and of course he laid in on the "reasoning" part of the comment instead of the fact that he said he agreed with it.

But like I said. All obama has to do when guns are brought up is say "I agree with the ruling".

That will take away the one issue the right could bring up(and the only REAL issue they would bring up).

LocalCynic: Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: Didn't the NRA just file two suits in Chicago and San Francisco based on the outcome of the case?

I'd encourage the NRA to continue filing suits against big cities. The Republican's strategy of demonizing urban areas and promoting rural superiority is going to be a great election strategy.

"Gun Control: Because cityfolk can't be trusted with firearms."

Hmm, I don't remember the NRA making this argument.

Five Minute Standup: The 2nd ammendment says "arms", not "guns". Not even "firearms". Given recent advances in non-lethal arms technology, I predict some interesting challenges in the future.

ROCKETLAUNCHERS!

Ron Paul Revere: There's a caveat to that. It's more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens that drives down the crime rate. However, as our system exists now, it won't erase all gun-related crimes in and of itself. What's also needed is more stringent penalties and enforcement for brandishing and illegal possession crimes.

Huh. So if a state passed a law saying that it is illegal for a convicted felon to get a job, or own property, you'd support that? What about something saying that mentally ill people can't publish articles criticizing politicians?

Again, for all the talk about how "liberals" treat the second amendment different than the rest, the crowd cheering Heller seems to do the same thing.

I'm no fan of the brady bill either. I'm not a fan of obama when it comes to gun control, but hopefully this wil settle the issue for awhile.

You lost localcynic. Get over it.

George Will has been making a lot of sense lately, particularly in regards to SCOTUS rulings, and the poo-flingers at NRO are none too happy. They probably don't even know who he is.

FTFA: Scalia's opinion, joined by John Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, radiates an understanding that the right to arms is the right of each individual to protect his rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

And yet one can't pursue happiness with a joint or some MDMA, which don't have the ability to blast someone else's brains across the wall.

The Beacon Man:
That was the most twisted piece of garbled verbage that I've read in some time ...

None of it made any sense whatsoever.

Hello, and welcome to how the internet feels about your posts.

Lehk: ROCKETLAUNCHERS!

Rocket launchers have a legitimate non-violent use: rocketjumps.

While I think Heller is the right decision from a legal/constitutional standpoint, I'll be surprised if this makes violent crime rates decline in DC. I guess that'll be the $64 question.

Ron Paul Revere: Your arguments are specious and fallacious. I can only conclude you're being intentionally dense and unreasonable, or that you're just stupid.

I'm sorry that you think the rights of the few are "specious." I find it hard to believe that our founders decided that "a more perfect union" was one in which people we don't like can't defend themselves.

Five Minute Standup: The 2nd ammendment says "arms", not "guns". Not even "firearms". Given recent advances in non-lethal arms technology, I predict some interesting challenges in the future.

Lehk: ROCKETLAUNCHERS!

Perhaps not rocket launchers, but certainly knives, swords, clubs, pikes, and arrows were considered arms in the days the 2nd amendment was written. Any restriction on bearing them should require a new constitutional amendment, just as for muskets and rifles.

Come to think of it, they had cannon and mortars and rockets then too, though perhaps not shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenades. You may have half a point.

zimbach: Come to think of it, they had cannon and mortars and rockets then too, though perhaps not shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenades. You may have half a point.

Not only that, but the American navy was so poorly armed that it relied upon private individuals who owned cannons. Gun advocates commonly will try to take extreme examples and argue that they are not "arms," in order to seem more "reasonable." Yet, this flies in the face of the second amendment. Its purpose wasn't to limit individuals to owning certain weapons in order to make gun owners look better. It was to allow people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: what? Has he even seen the hilarity (YouTube) of his stance on the Heller case?

If you read the article, its more of a, the opposite decisions would have been a disaster for the Obama campaign. Because Obama would have been forced to either publicly support or oppose the decision. Which would have been very politically damaging to him given his attempts to stay in the middle of the road gun wise.

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: ... what? Has he even seen the hilarity (YouTube) of his stance on the Heller case? Or better yet, makes the issue dormant? Didn't the NRA just file two suits in Chicago and San Francisco based on the outcome of the case?

Eh, i just watched the video and he says practically the exact same thing in both videos, what is this supposed to prove? That video reminded me of the fox news speech plagiarism video from a few weeks ago.

Andric: The Beacon Man:
That was the most twisted piece of garbled verbage that I've read in some time ...

None of it made any sense whatsoever.

Hello, and welcome to how the internet feels about your posts.

Andric, you performed a good deed today. Go in peace, friend.

Ron Paul Revere: No gun advocate I know would challenge the "reasonable restriction" of preventing felons and mentally ill people from owning guns. We all recognize that certain people have no business being armed, like criminals and nutcases.

I'd challenge it. It's violating the second-amendment right of a citizen. Are we to prohibit free-speech to felons who have served their sentence? Do they have to pay taxes? Prohibiting felons from having guns is just a way to deprive people of a right. Like free-speech bearing arms is a right, not a privilege. And, like free-speech, there are certain reasonable restrictions, but, unlike free-speech, anti-second amendment advocates use restrictions as a punishment. It's also too much of a blanket. You can write bad checks or get charged with mail tampering, or any non-violent offense, and be tossed in the murderers and robbers who get their guns on the black-market anyway. Like full gun-control, it takes a law-abiding citizen and punishes them even though the actions, in spirit, are truly aimed at another segment of the population.

Prohibiting people who have served their sentence, their debt to society, from owning guns is like advocating the suppression of speech one doesn't like. Not only that, like job and housing discrimination, it's a way to rig the system enough that it makes them outcasts and prone to recidivism.

Hopefully the court will come around on the issue. It's disgraceful that people trying to live right have societal road blocks thrown up.

Suicidal Writer:Ron Paul Revere: No gun advocate I know would challenge the "reasonable restriction" of preventing felons and mentally ill people from owning guns. We all recognize that certain people have no business being armed, like criminals and nutcases.

I'd challenge it. It's violating the second-amendment right of a citizen. Are we to prohibit free-speech to felons who have served their sentence? Do they have to pay taxes? Prohibiting felons from having guns is just a way to deprive people of a right. Like free-speech bearing arms is a right, not a privilege. And, like free-speech, there are certain reasonable restrictions, but, unlike free-speech, anti-second amendment advocates use restrictions as a punishment. It's also too much of a blanket. You can write bad checks or get charged with mail tampering, or any non-violent offense, and be tossed in the murderers and robbers who get their guns on the black-market anyway. Like full gun-control, it takes a law-abiding citizen and punishes them even though the actions, in spirit, are truly aimed at another segment of the population.

Prohibiting people who have served their sentence, their debt to society, from owning guns is like advocating the suppression of speech one doesn't like. Not only that, like job and housing discrimination, it's a way to rig the system enough that it makes them outcasts and prone to recidivism.

Hopefully the court will come around on the issue. It's disgraceful that people trying to live right have societal road blocks thrown up.

Good point, thought I'd like to point out that the court has allowed the blocking of felons to vote, so the courts see removal of rights for felons to be a legitimate thing. BTW I don't think its exactly the way you describe it, my wife had to plead guilty to felony for a bad check a few years back, she served probation and all, but the right to own a gun or vote was never taken from her (this was in Florida).