"In Guns We Trust": New Supreme Court Motto for U.S.

Very glad to see such a good card.Have a question to here.find <a href="http://www.saleuggsoutlet.com" >uggs sale online</a>,the first to come is <a href="http://www.uggsonsaleoutlet.com" >uggs sale</a>,many style <a href="http://www.uggssalecheap.com" >cheap uggs</a>,they supply <a href="http://www.ukcheapuggs" >uggs  on sale</a> as wholesale price in <a href="http://www.wholesalewebstore.com" >wholesale clothing</a>.by the way,the link to <a href="http://www.northfaceoutlet.net" >north face jackets</a> page.and there is new style <a href="http://www.jacketsnorthface.com" >north face denali</a> and <a href="http://www.onlinep90x.com" >p90x for sale</a>,you can do here <a href="http://www.ourdesignerhandbags.com" >cheap bags online</a> or other online <a href="http://www.chiflat-iron.net" >chi hair product</a>.

Welcome, Replica Watches, Wholesale Watches, Rolex Watches, A.Dunhill Watches, A.Lange&Sohne Watches, Alain Silberstein Watches, Audemars Piguet Watches, B.R.M Watches, Most men think that accessories can decrease their masculinity. Baume & Mercier Watches, Bell&Ross Watches, Blancpain Watches, BMW Watches, Breguet Watches, Breitling Watches, Burberry Watches, Bvlgari Watches, Calvin Klein Watches, Carl F. Bucherer Watches, Cartier Watches, Our store gives you a great possibility of ordering a high quality Chanel Watches, Chopard Watches, Christian Dior Watches, Chronoswiss Watches, Concord Watches, Corum Watches, D&G Watches, De Witt Watches, E-Sprit Watches, Ebel Watches, Emporio Armani Watches, Fendi Watches, Ferrari Watches, They are high quality timepieces which is attractive, durable, and affordable as well. Fossil Watches, Franck Muller Watches, Girard Perregaux Watches, Glashutte Watches, Graham Watches, Gucci Watches, Guess Watches, Hamilton Watches, Harry Winston Watches, Hermes Watches, Provided in our online website are the most popular and latest replica watches in the world.

"It's about white males in America feeling threatened by becoming a minority and the gun is their last psychological reassurance of entitlement power against an encroaching demographic change in our democracy.  After all, the City of Chicago allows citizens to own rifles, so there never was a ban on guns in Chicago; there was a ban on a certain type of gun, which didn't even exist at the time the Constitution was written."

The plantiff in McDonald vs Chicago is black.  Try to know what you're talking about before speaking.

uh excuse me?

"there was a ban on a certain type of gun, which didn't even exist at the time the Constitution was written"

that was your first factual error - handgunds did indeed exist then. 

but beyond that - gun control in America has its roots in racism (see http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html , 1993, and http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html, 1985, among others).

So, what we really have in McDonald is a bunch of "conservative" justices expanding rights to "keep and bear arms" to the very same people (blacks, remember all those blacks in Chicago like Otis McDonald who are defenseless while Lord Daley has armed bodyguards) who have been disenfranchised since the time of the founding of this country while the "liberal" justices voted to maintain the prohibition on arms posession and self-defense in Chicago which blacks had to endure throughout the south until well after the Civil War.

Who is really the racist?

Mark:

Let us know how you feel after an armed invader is done holding you and your loved ones at gunpoint while the accomplices rob you of all your possessions before making their getaway.

What? They didn't like the milk and cookies you had waiting to greet them? Or, maybe they just didn't want to stick around for the Bible reading after they were done?

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr .... you deserve what you get.

I oppose anyone's "need" to have a handgun, however,  it DOES bring to mind that some of us women who have had  or still have an abusive husband or partner, should definitely have one for her "defense".  I certainly hope that every wife of the justices of our famed Supreme Court has one for her "defense".  They seem like a pretty heartless crew when it comes to all the ordinary citizens of America.

Mark, I admire your work, and agree with you on most subjects, but this is quite possibly the worst, most ill-informed article I've ever seen you write.  Just terrible.

In this day and age, what do we need guns for anyway? All they do is mame and kill people! If you're the police or going hunting then sure, have your guns but after that what is the purpose? Just watch a few minutes of Trama Life in the E.R. and see what guns do! I just can't for the life of me figure out what you need to carry a gun around for? It's mostly a man thing and once again, it seems to be a mans world!

If, as Mr. Karlin claims -- without substantiation -- that the verdict of McDonald v. Chicago is the result of "white males" who "feel threatened", then clearly such "white males" have begun to disguise themselves and their motives, as is evident by Mr. Otis McDonald, the plaintiff in the case, who has hidden from the public his motive of being a "white male" who "feels threatened" very effectively simply through the fact that he is not white.

I believe that Mr. Karlin should investigate and expose Mr. Otis McDonald as a "white male" who has become "frantic" and "in need of firearms reassurance", so that he will be able to explain this fact to his readership who may not readily recognize that a black male such as Mr. McDonald is actually a white male.

If Roberts' US Supreme Court doesn't think guns are a problem for anyone why do the Supremes have this ban? C'mon Roberts let us bring our AK - 47 s to the gallery - What are you afraid of -don't you support the second amendment? We citizens need protection where ever we go.  

REGULATION THREE

1. Except as authorized by the Marshal, it shall be unlawful for any person, within the Supreme Court Building or upon the Supreme Court grounds, to carry or have readily available to the person, any:
   1. "firearm," as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. §921(3);
   2. "explosive or incendiary device," as those terms are defined by 18 U.S.C. §§844(j) and 232(5);
   3. "dangerous weapon," as that term is defined in 40 U.S.C. §193m(3) or District of Columbia Code §§10–503.26(3) and 22–4514; or
   4. other substance, material, or other item that may pose a danger to Court property or the safety of the Justices, Court employees, guests, or the general public.
2. Officers of the Supreme Court police shall have the authority to deny entry to, or expel from the Supreme Court Building or grounds any person whose presence would violate subsection (A).
3. This regulation is promulgated pursuant to 40 U.S.C. §§6102 and 6121. Any person failing to comply with this regulation, including a person who fails to comply with a valid order from a Supreme Court police officer under subsection (B), shall be prosecuted under 40 U.S.C. §6137.

Since I am descended from a Revolutionary War soldier I consider the first ten amendments my birth right. Ulnlike the ACLU I defend all of them. When they ask me for for money or to join, I point out their weakness on the second amendment. In the first place " the people or the right of the people" has to have a consistent meaning throughout the documents. It's not just handguns that existed at the time but rifles that fired ten rounds as fast as you could pull the trigger. You did have to cycle the action but that doesn't take long. It recharged from ten round mgazines. You could fire 50 rounds before any delay in the rate of fire and that was brief. They were a death ray compared to black powder muzzle loaders but they were not banned nor were cannon. My favorite is " well ordered militia" This stuff was written in taverns and that phrase probably got a good laugh. A few more pints and they left it in. They are so well ordered they elect there own officers and unelect them when they don't like the orders just like pirates. They obey no general and leave the battle when they feel like it. Well odered? They must have been drinking. Still the militia is a hallowed concept and probably goes back to the earliest beginnings of democracy.  Celts. The Greeks stole the Idea.

Opposing court decisions or legislation is the right of every American, but it would be nice if you could get your facts straight.

The Supreme Court is not an exclusively white male body and hasn't been for some time.

Handguns not only existed at the time of the Revolution but existed for as long as there were firearms.

Why do police officers carry handguns? Since you obviously don't know, let me explain. The handgun is a defensive weapon. If police know that they are going into a gunfight, they carry rifles. Soldiers carry handguns only as backup and only as defense against a totally unexpected attack. These are facts not opinions.

Now a question which I suspect you will choose to ignore. Why do you believe that the right to self defense is appropriate for police officers but not for citizens?

The citizens most in need of self defense are blacks in the inner city, women who must be on the streets at night, and not white males in condominiums. Criminals and gangbangers couldn't care less what the law says about having handguns.

Since you clearly support the removal of guns from citizens, why do you think this would be more successful than our half-century campaign to take drugs off the street?

And where did you get your statistic that private ownership of handguns causes more deaths than war?

If you want to advocate repeal of the Second Amendment, that is certainly your right and many American might agree with you. But can't you come up with better arguments than the racist pseudo-psychological ones in your post?

You can start your campaign by responding the points I have just raised