Speaking of morons, you obviously don’t know that it has been statistically shown that violent crimes decrease when gun ownership rises and concealed carry laws are implemented. DC has had a handgun ban for 30 years and it is the murder capital of the world. So please, explain to us bitter morons (to synthesize your views with the Democratic presidential candidate’s) how spreading these bans will make us safer. Also, since you are so much smarter than those of us clinging to our guns, I expect you know it is a federal offense (that means it is illegal everywhere in the country) for felons to possess firearms. So the only people who are prevented from acquiring guns under the DC ban were law abiding citizens.

You have blogged about your possession of a gun since your CDV conviction. Check out 18 U.S.C., 922(G)(9) regarding possession of a firearm after conviction of a crime of domestic violence.

Better find a way to (legally) get rid of that “piece” b4 the Boyz from Charlotte catch you. Just friendly advice. Even though it’s just a 22.

BIN News Editorial Staff

P.S. Earl, don’t tempt sic(k) willie into posting more girly pictures. He has already posted so much porn that schools are blocking him.

This concept of individual self government where the people are ‘endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights’ equal and unquestionable did not spring forth when it did without reason. (You don’t have to be a Christian to agree with the notion of INDIVIDUAL free will. It was not the Koran that the founding fathers were reading in addition to Plato’s Republic.)

To assume that the people in all of the ages of this earth who lived prior to 1776 submitted to royalty or tyrants because of satisfaction or cowardice is intellectually naive. This new nation came into being because the means coincided with the concepts of the Enlightenment.

Even the most powerful king, chief, or dictator understands the usefulness of negotiation when confronted with an armed citizenry that makes two things clear:
#1) citizens are willing to kill to secure certain rights and
#2) that they, the citizens, are willing to die in the process.

If this nation is to remain free for future generations, the rights of the people to arm themselves is much more than merely a right to be exercised. It is a necessity to freedom that the means of securing all the rights of individual man and self government be obvious and openly apparent to all who govern.

I would suggest that On this Fourth of July, that we all should review our early American history and World Civilization. If we do, we’ll find that our position to speak our minds freely [read:Blog] owes much to the right to bear arms and the threat of death to tyrants provided only by a ‘culture of guns’ in the hands of ordinary people who are free.

CONCLUSION:The only thing that should be feared more than ordinary citizens who have the freedom to arm themselves is an armed government who is the only one who possesses arms.

Crooner comment is actually worthy of note, reasoning being that despite the fact that THIS decision clearly delineated that this ‘right’ could be abridged in certain places like school and government buildings, Crooner very clearly shows just how easy it is for anyone’s argument (i.e. those who supported the decision and the policy like me) to fall into the camp of thinking that the “Bill of Rights is some malleable assortment of ‘suggestions’ subject to revisionist political correct bullshit .” After all the Supreme Court’s decision today is not the Constitution only the words written in the 2nd Amendment are the Constitution, and while I am very well aware of the effect of the rulings of the Supreme Court on intepretation of the Constitution, isn’t it worth considering that everything added by the Court is nothing but “malleable assortment of ‘suggestions’ subject to revisionist political correct bullshit .”

Obviouly when you and me brother agree with the court….well then “finally they got one right, hoooo raaay for justice!” But when we disagree with the courts it is almost assuredly “legalistic, parcing of words, activist (read liberal) judges, living in an ivory tower, juding the issues of our lives on technicalities.”

If you had read the opinion, you would know Scalia addresses this very concern. Of course, you are more interested in belittling the holding than debating its merits.