After 200 years of debate, the Supreme Court has finally ruled that the Second Amendment means that individual Americans - as opposed to state militias - have a constitutional right to own guns (at least in their homes).
In a tight 5-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia stated:
"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," Scalia wrote. "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." [...]
"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns," Scalia wrote. "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
Link | Previously on Neatorama: US Supreme Court to Review Right to Bear Arms
Do you agree with the ruling?
(Actually, this may well be what the writers of the constitution meant. Not having the balls to change that to something sane and modern 200+ years later says something about the progressiveness of America, though.)
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-baby_16nat.ART.State.Edition1.4d4f3b7.html
http://thevitalvoice.com/node/613
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-stab9-2008jun09,0,4629101.story
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2008/06/27/6000611-sun.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/01/asia/AS-China-Police-Killed.php
http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Man-killed-in-knife-attack-89198418.html
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080630/NEWS01/809057264/1005/BIZ
I always seem to aggree most with the side that actually reads the news and statistics, and doesn't just gloss over them so they can move on to proving how stupid everyone else is.