fluff, he's right. if you strip people of thier right to protect themselves and provide a disincentive for thugs to commit crimes against a potentially armed target, you help individuals protect themselves.

If you don't have any inclination for self-preservation, it's your right not to own one. but don't strip anyone else of the ability to protect themselves and keep others at bay solely on the fact that you feel queasy about guns.

Have you even visited the United States??

i agree with the ruling. It's sound. Even Breyer on dissent agrees that it is an individual right: "the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to self-defense..." with some added caveats.

To nullify a Constitutional Amendment, which is what some of the above authors want, is an outright travesty of thought, and a glaringly obvious knee-jerk reaction to thier own feelings...valid only without reason.

Even Scalia has said that there be minor restrictions on gun usage (presumably to convicts, etc...)...

chuck norris has jumped the shark. officially. with the original post on the main page.

His movies were b-rated (except when he was not the main character, such as Bruce Lee), his politics are beyond absurd and cannot stand against even slight scrutiny....He isn't even a conservative ffs! Everything he stands for is to expand government and intrude into our lives.

...so why do we continue glorifying him, even out of mockery?

There should be an anti-Chuck movement.

The only reason he is popular today is because Huckabee gave him credibility. And we should take that platform away from him.

how can one misintepret a line they create?

if you read the passage, maybe you'd understand.

knee-jerk reactions are always funny to read, because it takes just a few comments to set them straight.