Here’s an instance where I agree with the right-wingers on the High Court. I know it’s a cliche argument, but if you outlaw guns then pretty soon only the outlaws will have guns. And, how else are we going to defend ourselves when some rogue elements of the government/military decide that it’s time that they step in and tell us how to live our lives?? I know it’s an extreme scenario, but it’s still totally plausible in today’s world…

Jed Clampett

In those days, the citizens made up the militia. They kept their weapons with them at home and when called upon to defend their community would grab their weapon and step up. Therefore, by extension the citizen, had a right to keep weapons capable of defending himself and his community from enemies foreign or domestic. The interesting part here is the ‘domestic’. Which implies the need for the people to have a means to protect themselves from an out of contol totalitarian government. That is the main intent of the ammendment. To give the people the means to protect themselves and the government or foreign enemies the ralization that any attempt at violent takeover will be met with violent response.

Goes somewhat against christian credo, but it is the equivalent of the Mutually Assured Destruction deterrent of the time.

Jed,

Weren’t you hunting with a gun when you found your Exxon sized oil field? Sounds hypocritical to me!

The supremes have told us over and over during the past 5-8 years to take our rights and put them where the sun don’t shine.

This is not one of those times…but what have we gained from this decision? Just that the gun lobbies have more power than the people.

In this instance, times have changed. We need a militia (as defined in the constitution) but our cities don’t need guns on every streetcorner and in every house.

I think that 200+ years of precedence has established that personal ownership of guns is ‘legal.’ I don’t believe, however, that the Constitution ensures it.

That’s not the issue. The dichotomy is that we (me) espouse a gov’t that protects ‘us’ more and more, a gov’t, consequently, of intrusion into our lives. We’re told to wear seat belts, for our own good and we’re told we can’t smoke in certain places, for our own good.

So, once you allow this encroachment, how do you say, “Stop!!” WHEN do you say stop?

I own guns and believe ownerships is a ‘right.’ But not a LAW, M79 or Uzi. So, if I draw the line there, is it so bad someone else draws the line at handguns? I have a couple of those I wouldn’t give up.

Finally, there’s an old adage, don’t make laws you can’t enforce. Prohibition? A corollary would be don’t make laws it takes an Army to enforce when there’s no real threat. Thee and me are more likely to be stuck by lightening or a car before we’re shot, with a handgun OR an Uzi.

And they sure as ahit don’t need the hand cannons that seem so prolific. Give everyone a .22 cal rifle instead of a 9mm Glouc, or any of those automatic assault rifles that keep popping up (AK-47s and such)

Jed Clampett

Hard to defend you nation from an insane government gone totalitarian with a pea shooter like a .22

Jed Clampett

Hard to defend you nation from an insane government gone totalitarian with a pea shooter like a .22

perhaps if you, tim, had read ANYTHING the founders and framers wrote regarding gun rights and ownership, you would feel differently about the “torturous wording” in the 2nd amendment.

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

Here we see, AGAIN, the definition of the word ‘arms’ being said to mean ‘gun’. Arms means anything that can be used as a means of self-defense. So, it better be okay for me to carry around my nunchucks and machette and baseball bat and bow and arrow around.
And, AGAIN, I’d like to see a poll on how many times having a gun has actually helped deter a crime…….

It’s an urban legend. Unless your gun is nearby and loaded, how is it going to help you? This isn’t the old west where you can walk around with a six-shooter on your hip.

Andy,

The Framers also said that the Constitution was two things: a framework and a work in progress. I’m sure both Madison and Jefferson would agree that some restraint need be applied when it comes to defining ‘arms,’ as Coach points out.

State of the art ‘Arms’ in the 18th Century was a flintlock, effective range about 100+ yards, rate of fire about two per minute. As we have learned, we’ve come a ways since then. We can only assume, given the penchance for America to participate in the ‘arms race,’ that more powerful and sophisticated ‘arms’ will be forthcoming.

Where do you draw the line? I believe all agree that a line need be drawn somewhere, but agreement on just whose ox gets gored by the establishment of the line is the rub.

Maybe if I owned an Uzi, I would take offense at them being ‘outlawed.’ But in reality, I’d just tell the ‘authorities’ I lost it. Which goes to the consideration, just how do you enforce such a law?

Jed Clampett

friend of mine was 15 when he shot a guy that had broken into his parents house one night. He just happened to know where his dad kept it hidden in the closet.
Helped him pretty well. May not help everyone, I know. but I’d rather be on the side it helped rather than the guy who never had a chance. Should be able to keep at least a ar15 or ak these days. Not fully auto of course. But if the military needed you to come to the country’s aid, you should have one. Hey, if Iraqis can have at least an AK, then why not americans? are the gangs perpetrating ethnic cleansing in the streets of LA any different than those in baghdad?

Although I don’t own guns, I think one could make a point that if more people had guns, crime might actually go down. Maybe the dirtballs in D.C. will think twice before violating the sanctity of a man’s home to steal money for crack.

Chief Justice Roberts absolutely was originalist in his opinion. American’s DO have a right to own a gun. It is right friggin there in the Bill of Rights. If you want to talk activist lets talk about a court that rejects two hundred and thirty years of precedent and now we have to Mirandize enemy combatants on the battle field.

Guns don’t kill people, inner city thugs with unlicensed firearms do. It seems wrong to single out one demographic but statistics are statistics. To ignore this simple fact is to belittle the issue. How will gun laws effect those that ignore the existing laws? Aren’t drugs illegal?

Guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people. Guns just get the bullets there faster. You’ll get damned tired throwing the things trying to kill someone. Takes a LONG time.

“I think one could make a point that if more people had guns, crime might actually go down.”

Does that theory ever seem to work? More drugs solves the drug problem? More alcohol cures an alcoholic? More money cures greed? BS.

Jed, you’re kidding about the AK’s right? The country you cite as allowing every person to have one isn’t really one of the safest places in the world to be……

Face it people: We’ve been had. It’s obvious by the amount of people thinking guns are okay?

Dennis: Without the gun the bullet doesn’t kill.

You’re on your way to the Super Bowl. Only, in this scenario, you get to choose between two stadiums full of people. One stadium has been cleared of any and all weapons. Completely weapon free. The other stadium, every person has a loaded weapon.

Which stadium are you going in to?

C’mon Bill, I’m being facetious.

Just read some of the rendering. Quit when I saw in a footnote that Scalia said Stevens was “dead wrong.” Dead wrong. That’s a peculiar choice of phrasing, given the context of the case. Why did he have to say DEAD wrong?

Scalia’s a bozo.

Will there be alcohol at this Super Bowl?

I don’t like guns, and never have. But I still tend to think it’s the person who does the killing, not the gun. In the US, automobiles kill more people each year than guns. Do we make cars illegal too? Or only available depending upon where you live? I’m not advocating guns, but I know countless law-abiding, peaceful gun owners. If that’s their thing, than who am I to say otherwise? (even though they might not have any tolerance for my “thing”) })

Conservatives will only acknowledge the parts of the constitution they like like the second amendment. That’s how conservatives are. Habeus Corpus? Not so much.

It’s funny how the author of this uninformed rant, Tim Dick-less-son, refers to the Supreme Courts “right wing majority” in this decision reinforcing the rights that were guaranteed by the framers. He has a short memory: that same “right wing majority” gave terrorists access to our judicial system, gave child molesters freedom from just punishment, gave eminent domain rights to private entities; what’s next, voting rights for illegal immigrants? Oh yeah, they vote anyway.

“what’s next, voting rights for illegal immigrants? Oh yeah, they vote anyway.”

Oh, good, then you won’t mind providing proof of this claim. Oh, that’s right, even your own party has decided not to use the phony “voter fraud” issue this year. Guess they decided it wasn’t that much of a real problem.

Jed Clampett

Dude, its dangerous everywhere. In some neighboorhoods in LA the cops only go in with swat team cover. Was watching some pretty interesting documentaries on US gangs on History Chan the other day. I was thinking… how’s that any different than baghdad?
Streets of Brazil’s big cities are getting pretty dangerous as well. Someone driving into the wrong neighborhood lost could have alot of trouble.

Nightowl said: “Oh, good, then you won’t mind providing proof of this claim. Oh, that’s right, even your own party has decided not to use the phony “voter fraud” issue this year. Guess they decided it wasn’t that much of a real problem.”

Well allow me to retort. Two words: Motor Voter. Many states automatically register you to vote when acquiring a drivers license. Fact: many illegal immigrants have drivers licenses, either through legitimate or fraudulent means. Hence the possibility of voter fraud. Oh yeah, there are groups like ACORN registering deceased and fictional people to vote as well. However I will cede a portion of the fraud argument to you; the real frauds are the two candidates running for president.

By the way I don’t belong to any party, except the ones at my house…

We Must defend ourselves! There are times when you can not afford to wait 15 minutes for the police to finally arrive, it may be to late!
We all must become responsible gun owners and dealers on the other hand.
They make way to much money on the illegal gun trade to give it up without a fight.
No matter how many thousands of illegal guns there are in the streets, at some point someone paid retail for it.

As the Good Doctor H. S. Thompson, who founded the National Affairs desk once wrote,
“I think George Washington owned guns. I’ve never seen any contradiction with that. I’m not a liberal, by the way. I think that’s what’s wrong with liberals. I believe I have every right to have guns. I just bought another huge weapon. A lot of people shouldn’t own guns. I should. I have a safety record. Guns are a lot of fun out here.”

Better to have one, and not need it, than need one, and not have it.

And yes, I realize Hunter took his own life with a pistol-
but even Samurai commit seppuku, when their destiny and honor demand it.

Wasn’t one of Justice Scalia’s principal points in his recent Gitmo dissent that that decision “would almost certainly result in more Americans to be killed.”?

What does he think the effect of this one is going to be? Peace and love?

Mr. Dickenson is either in denial, or is simply incapable of comprehending what he reads. This decision IS a “strict constitutionalist” decision, because, follow along here, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT the SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS! The only activism going on here, Mr. Dickenson, is yours.

Tom, it’s NOT exactly what the Constitution says. It doesn’t say the right to own a gun. Or, have you actually believed that you can change the words of the constitution at will??

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS

It is not primarily for their collecting; nor primarily for their hunting; nor even primarily for their self-defense against violent criminals; it is primarily for well regulated militias in every state; ready, when faced with intolerable governmental tyranny, for explosive bloody revolt to preserve their Liberty.

Just as every sensible American child should grow up knowing exactly how to safely use the automobile for transportation; so too every sensible American child should grow up knowing exactly how to safely use the gun for revolution.

Every well informed American knows that the Right to Bear Arms is a sacred integral part of the American system of Constitutional government, by the People and for the People, in which their executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are subordinate to the supreme democratic majority will of the People.

Every sensible American governmental official has a very healthy fear of this inherent revolutionary power of the American People.

Every American governmental official knows that any action subversive to the Constitutional Rights of the American People is an act of tyranny.

I’d like to see some evidence, Tim, that this is a woefully inept interpretation, instead of just liberal platitudes about it.

I’m a liberal, myself, but considering the circumstances of the Constitution’s creation, there is no question in my mind that the Founders created an individual right with the Second Amendment.

I don’t like guns, but facts are facts…We owe the founding, and expansion, of our country to the individual right to bear arms…there were small militias in the colonies, but razing an army to fight the Tories required razing an army–and those dudes brought their own guns to the fight.

First and foremost, the Founders were concerned with the citizenry’s need to defend itself from government (as they had done during the Revolution). Its only logical, then, that they would be very concerned with the government’s ability to regulate the possession and use of firearms.

Just to clarify–anti-gun laws aren’t meant to keep guns out of the hands of criminals…claiming gun laws stop citizens from owning guns but allow criminals to have them is a specious argument.

The DC gun law meant that a ‘criminal’ pulled over for speeding and subsequently found to have a weapon could be thrown in jail for just having the gun–hopefully before it was used. It was a deterrent law, a way to send bad folks to jail before they acted on their impulses.

In a way, it was a good law, just not a Constitutional one.

Hundreds of years of precedent? For the entire history of the United States of America, our government has acknowledged the 2nd ammendment rights of each citizen to bare arms. From the day the constitution was enacted until today, our government has acknowledged this right. It is those who seek to ban guns altogether who are trying to twist the constitution with a modernized view… and I can agree that to some extent, the times do require some consideration. I am all for mandatory registration of all guns, but do not take away my right to defend my home and family. Anyone brash enough to break into someone else’s house looking for drug money will be a threat whether they are armed with a gun, a knife, or a rock. I can tell you that I would much rather fight a man seeking to harm my family with a gun than a knife or a rock.

Hundreds of years of precedent? For the entire history of the United States of America, our government has acknowledged the 2nd ammendment rights of each citizen to bare arms. From the day the constitution was enacted until today, our government has acknowledged this right. It is those who seek to ban guns altogether who are trying to twist the constitution with a modernized view… and I can agree that to some extent, the times do require some consideration. I am all for mandatory registration of all guns, but do not take away my right to defend my home and family. Anyone brash enough to break into someone else’s house looking for drug money will be a threat whether they are armed with a gun, a knife, or a rock. I can tell you that I would much rather fight a man seeking to harm my family with a gun than a knife or a rock.

The decision by the Court was the CORRECT one.

Our country’s Founders mistrusted government and RIGHTFULLY concluded that the BEST check against DESPOTISM is to give the people the power to ARM themselves! OsiSpeaks.com

M’God, I’m in agreement with Jeug? Or is it Jung?

The original blogger obviously did not read the opinion. If he had, he would be hard pressed to make a textual argument that the DC statute could be in anyway construed as constitutional. To quote Justice Scalia, “Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Of course, the Constitution can be amended to remove the Second Amendment. However, that would require people to actually vote on the issue, which is unacceptable to some.

These posts are amazing. A few people are citing the confusion: that is, what constitutes ‘arms’?

Everybody seems to be defending the right to own a gun. But, there’s more to ‘arms’ than guns, and as someone cited, there’s no lobby to carry around a machette.

‘Arms’, back in the day, meant a whole range of ‘weapons’. Now, amazingly enough, it seems to have whittled down to ‘gun’.

Wake up people, you’re being carpetbagged by the gun lobby.

Amazing. Before I make a statement, I’ll say I am a liberal to moderate Democrat supporting Barack Obama for President.

That said, here: If you have complained about the government (left or right wing) and it’s imperial intrusion on our liberty, personal choices, and lives for the last 50 years and do not support the right of individuals to protect life, family, and property from an intrusive government and potential despotic regime, you ARE MORALLY, INTELLECTUALLY, AND POLITICALLY BANKRUPT OF IDEALS.

Fair enough? Now, back to your scheduled complaints about political parties and your inability to support them with a consistent ideology.

Mr. Beard,

Fringe elements notwithstanding, this ‘discussion’ isn’t about the right to bear arms, it’s about the definition of arms. There are going to be elements that want to ban all guns and elements that want to legalize anything with a barrel. The question is where do you draw the line.

Another, more fundamental issue is of interpretation of the Constitution as a whole. Is it a literal document or is it a template for addressing society’s problems. It would appear that it is both, depending on which argument happens to hold center stage.

But I submit that if the Constitution doesn’t enjoin ‘interpretation’ and/or ‘judicial review,’ and it doesn’t, then everything that’s been done in the last 200 years is EXTRA-Constitutional. We’ve had 200 years of judicial review and interpretation. To state a handgun is Constitutional or no is just an attempt on the part of the Supremes to maintain some semblance of viability. Feckless old men trying to get an erection.

At some point a handgun will emit a laser that will probably bring down buildings and kill any living form in its path for several miles. What then? The question is not IF personal weapons should be outlawed but which and when. To cite some 18th Century precedence to keep everything ‘neat and tidy’ shows just how corrupt our society/gov’t has become.

Making, I agree, but in a circumlocuted fashion, your point about hanging on to our weapons for defense against our own gov’t. Still, do you want some kids picking up some laser gun, asking, “What’s this,” and pulling the trigger? Hell, I don’t even want our military to have one.

THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS SACRED( THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!
OUR FORFATHERS KNEW THAT TO HAVE A FREE NATION YOU MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOUR SELF!

HITLERS FIRST MOVE WAS TO DISARM THE PEOPLE! DONT THINK LIKE HITLER!

THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS SACRED( THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!
OUR FORFATHERS KNEW THAT TO HAVE A FREE NATION YOU MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOUR SELF!

HITLERS FIRST MOVE WAS TO DISARM THE PEOPLE! DONT THINK LIKE HITLER!

If the second amendment’s purpose is for individuals bear arms necessary to protect against a threatening government, then all individuals must possess tactical nuclear weapons to counter those the government has.

That is how ridiculous this argument has become. Since the constitution now apparently allows for the public’s use of “handguns” which didn’t exist at the time the constitution was written, why then does it not allow for the public’s use of nuclear weapons, which also didn’t exist at the time the constitution was written?

Good call Hellooooo. Why not legalize anything else? Grenades, tank mines, machettes, chinese stars, etc….?? Funny how this legislation only legalizes ‘guns’ (NRA anyone?)

Those that support guns should also support everything else that can be used as self-defense, and its legalization.

Even though many may disagree, but the reason people need to be armed is so if our government ever became corrupt, the people would have a way to protect themselves and fight the government. How will people fight if all they have are hand guns??? I believe it is not realistic for any one to own a fully automatic rifle for anything BUT, if you are a law abiding citizen, why not??? To conclude, people have a right to own most arms because criminals will find their weapons through illegal means, all these laws are doing is restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. There’s a reason Texas has the loosest gun laws and the lowest crime rate of any state…

This is the U.S.A. We are a country of laws. For anyone to think that owning a gun will help against the government, well, that’s a bit overreaching. The government owns tanks, nuclear weapons, smart bombs, cruise missles, etc. Do you think a handgun is going to ‘defend’ you against an ‘out of control’ government? This isn’t Somalia.

This, again, is pure penis envy. If handguns, etc, are so necessary for self-defense, then why do so many cops die? They’re the ones armed and ready, yet, they still get shot and killed……

It’s a gun problem. Not a law problem. All that more guns is going to do is add more bullets. More bullets equals more deaths.

“You don’t need no gun control. You know what you need? We need some bullet control. Man, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost $5000. $5000 for a bullet. You know why? ‘Cause if a bullet costs $5000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders. … Every time someone gets shot, people will be like, “Damn, he must have did something.”

Somewhere In The Middle

Dennis, I think you hit the nail on the head about the government intruding in our lives “for our own good.” According to Reason Magazine, out of the 35 most populous cities in the US, mine, Chicago, ranks as the most intrusive and paternal. This of course is courtesy of our corrupt mayor King Richard and his cronies. We pay the second highest tobacco tax, 6th highest taxes on alcohol, and (soon-to-be-formerly) have a ban on handguns. Where does the line get drawn as to how deep into our lives the government can legislate “for our own good.” I consider myself a pretty competent person and I don’t need the government to tell me what is good for me and what isn’t. With so much government intrusion, it’s no wonder that no one today is willing to take responsibility or do things for the themselves. They’ve gotten used to the government doing all that for them. The Supreme Court made the right decision and with any luck, this will mark a turning point in the invasiveness of the government into our personal lives.

Nightowl | 6/26/2008, 10:10 pm EST

Conservatives will only acknowledge the parts of the constitution they like like the second amendment. That’s how conservatives are. Habeus Corpus? Not so much.

And liberals don’t do this?

IF GUNS WERE BANNED ONLY THE RAPESTS AND THIEVES BREAKING IN YOUR KIDS ROOM WOULD HAVE GUNS! THE BLACK MARKET IS RAMPENT WITH THEM!

IN SWIZZERLAND ALL PEOPLE HAVE GUNS AS A RESULT A VERY LOW CRIME RATE!

ANTI GUN PEOPLE GET REAL, GET A CLUE FIND A ISSUE WORTH MUD SLINGING AT, OR SLAM SHUT YOUR PIE HOLES!

IF GUNS WERE BANNED ONLY THE RAPESTS AND THIEVES BREAKING IN YOUR KIDS ROOM WOULD HAVE GUNS! THE BLACK MARKET IS RAMPENT WITH THEM!

IN SWIZZERLAND ALL PEOPLE HAVE GUNS AS A RESULT A VERY LOW CRIME RATE!

ANTI GUN PEOPLE GET REAL, GET A CLUE FIND A ISSUE WORTH MUD SLINGING AT, OR SLAM SHUT YOUR PIE HOLES!

LOL… If you raised the price of bullets, it would just create a black market where criminals would find their bullets cheap. Again, all your doing is taking bullets away from law abiding citizens and allowing criminals to out think us…

CONSTITUTIONAL HERETICS ARE THE REASON FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Presently, the judicial, legislative and executive branches of America’s Constitutional government, “by the People and for the People”, are comprised of two distinct classes of people: patriots and patriophobes. The patriots love and cherish their Christian culture and Constitutional law, and the patriophobes fear and hate it.
The ideology of the patriophobes is Neo-Marxism. Historically, it was introduced to America at the end of World War II, when millions of pathetic Marxist refugees from Nazi Germany and Russia were trustingly accepted as immigrants.
The greatest threats to the “Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” of the American People are not from murders and other common outlaws, but from criminal elements within the highest levels of government. The Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms was added to the Constitution to make government leaders fear the People; and, in cases where they governed against the democratic majority will of the People, a means to rise in bloody revolt against them. The minority of Constitutional heretics now serving like self-appointed legislators on the Supreme Court, notoriously attempting to somehow abrogate the dreaded Right to Bear Arms, is a good example of why there is such vital need for this Second Amendment to the Constitution.
If the American People cannot peacefully restore their Christian culture and Constitutional Law by Cultural War, then they shall resort to the extraordinary bloody revolutionary powers granted to them by the Second Amendment to their Constitution.

Somewhere In The Middle

Hallelujah! Justice was served in Texas as Joe Horn was cleared of all charges in the shooting deaths of the two illegal immigrants robbing his neighbors home. He did the right thing and it’s nice to see that the judicial system still works, at least in Texas. Way to go Joe!!

Midman,

You can call it lots of things, but I doubt you can call it ‘justice.’

You can’t get a much clearer case of premeditated murder. The law officer on the phone told him NOT to do it and he did so anyway.

In the transcript of the conversation, we DON’T hear Mr. Horn yelling to halt and/or get on the ground, nor does he fire a warning shot. From 15 feet, he shot the two men in the back.

The fact that a grand jury refused to indict him speaks more to the times and the ignorance bias of the people. If it had been two blonde, teen-age girls, do you think the jury would have reacted the same?

Finally, what if, hypothetically, the two were members of some crime ring the local police had infiltrated with an undercover cop and what if that cop was one of the two?

This may have been deemed ‘legal’ by Texas law, but it was scarcely justice. There’s a higher authority yet to pass judgement.

It would appear that an open-season has been declared on Mexicans in Texas. All you have to do is say they were robbing a house.

‘Hallelulah’ Dennis. On the button.

Let’s face it Dirty, some people still like to hide their racist or bigoted or sexist views behind some ‘legalese’. Just because the dude in Texas got away with it Midman, that doesn’t make it right. Remember, OJ got away with it too……..

Somewhere In The Middle

Dennis and Mr. Bill. I understand where both of you are coming from, and Dennis if it were two pretty blonde girls that were shot instead of two illegal immigrants, the court quite possibly would have decided differently. For me, the two got exactly what they deserved, regardless of their skin color or their legal status. If you break into someone else’s home you deserve to get shot. As a burglary victim myself, I wish one of my neighbors had done the same to whoever robbed my home. Those two thieves won’t clog up the legal system, taxpayers won’t have to pay for their imprisonment, and most importantly they will never rob another home again. I can’t help but think that if there were more Joe Horn’s in the world, thieves might think twice about breaking into a home, because chances are they wouldn’t get away it.
I don’t think this means it is open season on Mexicans either. These two had just clearly robbed someone’s home, its not like they were just strolling down the street. But I do hope that this means it’s open season on criminals and those that prey on society. As for the higher authority, I gave up on that a long time ago.

And I understand yours, Midman. If someone were to rob me, I’d take it VERY personal and the inclination to use deadly force would be powerful. But I’d like to think I’d try yelling a couple of times and firing a few warning shots before I opened up on them.

I have no trouble in using deadly force to defend yourself, but this was surely not the case. What this person said was, society and the justice system be damned, I find these men guilty of robbery and the penalty is execution. Midman, how many states have the death penalty for robbery? There’s a reason for it.

And what I hinted at but didn’t state is Mr. Horn would NOT have shot if it had been two young blonde girls fleeing. THAT is the ignorance and bias I’m alluding to, not so much the Grand Jury, although they have their demons to deal with.

Killing anything is wrong. Anything. None of us have the ‘right’ to take a life, any life.

A farmer hereabouts shoots turtles ’cause they eat his crops. At least that’s his story, as if a herd of turtles were decimating his crops. He shoots turtles ’cause he LIKES to shoot turtles, just like some people LIKE to shoot deer. And if there was some ‘legal’ way to shoot Mexicans in Texas, you can bet it would happen. Not by many, but Jesus, once is too many.

You think those ‘volunteer’ border guards are doing so ’cause they’re ‘protecting America?’ I don’t think so. They see a chance to get some shots in on Mexicans, plain and simple.

Just like it’s okay to bomb and kill Iraqi civilians. Just call them terroists/insurgents. Here we call them illegal immigrants, or, as this story claimed, drug dealers.

Somewhere In The Middle

Dennis, I understand that it is not our “right” to be the judge, jury and executioner. If someone were to break into my home, however, I would do everything in my power to make sure they didn’t leave it alive. I find the act of breaking into someone else’s home so vile and offensive, that anyone willing to do it, as far as I’m concerned, doesn’t deserve to be walking around. To me that is justice.
As for the Minutemen at the border, I don’t think you can paint all of them with as broad a brush as you are. I do think that many of those down there are there because they feel a sense of duty to protect this country. I’m sure there are some rednecks down there that are just looking to beat up some Mexicans, but I don’t think you can say that that is how the majority of them are.

“undeniably modern reading of the constitution is just intellectually bankrupt”
I deny such a reading is modern. So does every conservative. Hence its not undeniable, but a contentious point. I (a New Zealand classical liberal) happen to believe such a reading is very ancient, being accepted as such since September 17, 1787.