Guns and the Supreme Court

The uninfringed

Two-nil to the gun lobby, but with plenty of money still to be spent on lawyers

See article

Readers' comments



Its clear now that freedom of thought is taken as socialism or liberal. I'm sure from your viewpoint a lot of european countries e.g. Scandinavia, U.K., France, Germany, just to name a few, are despicably unworthy and backward countries to consider for living in.


maybe the swiss have it they have guns at home and all sort of hand graneds hand weapons nad instruction on their use so many weekends per year


Difficult for a lot of civilised people to interpret "free" to signify also "free" to kill or rob who you want to.


to kroneborge your question is political and reflects still a question if you want to stay free or be another socialist country


While most supporters concentrate on individual self-defense and hunting to support the 2nd amendment, the real reason behind it's existence is for the people (militia) to defend themselves against the predations of a tyrannical government. Those not living in the US who cannot understand our fondness for guns should look to the regularity with which the rights of an unarmed populace are violated. Perhaps then they might understand.


"Lucky we really don't care what the rest of the world thinks. They are free to choose to give away their freedoms for the illusion of safety".

Questions: Why US military is engaged in war in Afghanistan and actions in Iraq? What were they fighting for in long term military actions in Korea and Vietnam?


in a free country everybody should be able to have guns to defend himself from lawless people who do not respect the law anyhow



Lucky we really don't care what the rest of the world thinks. They are free to choose to give away their freedoms for the illusion of safety. For us we will continue to strive to keep this the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

Speaking oh which, isn't it about time that we start charging Europe for defense?


I'm sorry, but I am not all that comforted by this decision. In both cases, the vote was 5-4. We're one justice away from a full 180 on Second Amendment issues. A leftist majority on the court would waste no time in reversing these judgments, the left's newfound respect for stare decisis be damned.


With all those 'checks and balances' why don´t the US have an independent Supreme Court? Judges hand-picked by the president...anyone remember the "Harriet Mier Incident" in 2005?


It with articles such as this, one realizes that this is a European newspaper writing about American issues. America, a land with many sparsely populated areas, even on the crowded east and west coasts, is a country where many people hunt, and even hunt by necessity. It is a country where people have lived with guns, not just all their lives, but on lands where guns have always played a large role. Even today, near our border with Mexico, guns provide a measure of defense against armed drug dealers when the police are nowhere in sight.

The most recent Supreme Court case involved a Chicago man who, living in a high-crime area, had a gun contrary to the city's restrictive gun laws. He believed that he needed a gun to protect himself and his home, it gave him both protection and comfort. If you have seen the crime rate in Chicago's high-crime areas, his argument is powerful just on the merits. But what is never stated in these articles, especially those that directly or subtly express a distain for gun-owner rights, is that gun laws do not work. From Washington, DC to Chicago, not only have gun laws failed to reduce gun crime, gun crimes have actually risen. This article quotes the statistics on gun crimes, but it makes no attempt to separate the crimes in cities that have strong gun control restrictions from those that don't. Such a separation would be far more revealing. Perhaps one of the key reasons why gun crime is lower where people can carry guns, including states and communities where many people openly carry guns, is because those who would do harm with guns know that their actions can be deterred not just by the police--but by any citizen who might be nearby and also armed. Responsible citizens who have guns deter crime almost effective as police with guns do--and they are more plentiful.

It is good that we have a Constitution--at least for now. We have the First Amendment that protects free speech, the Second Amendment that gives citizens the right to bear arms... But all of these rights are being attacked by liberal, progressive judges who think, somehow, that they know what's best. That rights are not really "rights," but things that can be negotiated away because those in the new era are smarter, more sophisticated or times have changed, etc. The article gives examples on what will happen next--other restrictions that will make it hard to register a gun, where you can carry it, etc. Sad. This country is the most free in the world thanks to the Constitution. It is the land of opportunity and the land where merit counts, where freedom to say what you think is still a right. But they are at constant risk of erosion--not in the least because of well-meaning but wrong-headed people who believe that their current thinking on restricting the rights of others is best for the country. When people begin restricting the rights of others, they will soon see their own rights restricted. And in America right now, we are seeing our rights restricted with an exploding number of government regulations, restrictions, taxes. Our way of life is endanger, and that is just part of the reason for voter unrest that is sure to express itself in the fall.


For a non US person it is hard to comprehend why Americans are sticking to their some 200 year old Constitution and to their Guns. Other countries modify theirs Constitutions as required. By way of example Sweden changed their in 1719 from the one in 1544. Ninety years later the Constitution of 1809 was adopted and then 165 years later, in 1974 the latest one was adopted. Things change and the fundamental laws have to adapt to new circumstances.

Entering the US I am always struck by the fact that virtually everyone, customs officers, police, local security staff carry guns. Is this really necessary or is it just part of a macho culture. The National Rifle Association apparently has vast resources in "Lobbying monies". It would be interesting to see who they pay and how much.

Finally this gun toting culture has to change. Such a culture is for a more uncultured and primitive society. It puts the USA to shame in the eyes of the civilised world.

Kevin Sutton

"For that reason, the Democrats may be pleased that the Supreme Court has at last entrenched the second amendment so firmly. This makes it harder for Republicans to scare voters into believing that a Democratic president intends to take their guns away."

Why is this magazine so consistently naive about how politics work?

Leon Duffy

I’m not a gun owner and I don’t want guns in my house but I don’t want to get rid of the right to own guns.

Similarly, I don’t want a woman to have an abortion but I don’t want to get rid of her right to have an abortion.

What is ridiculous about the NRA is they want to fight everything such as more modern gun identification or the right to buy guns at gun shows and then re-sell them to criminals and gang members.

It feels as if they are really just a lobbyist for the gun manufacturers.

And there are a bunch of gun owners who would rather fight anything they think is liberal than to acknowledge some common sense.


Why should anyone control drugs when their legalization would actually destroy the cartels that make fortunes just because of prohibition? That would reduce crime and imports of guns. It's amazing how some people treat guns liberally but can't do the same on less harmful things like gun, tobacco, alcohol, etc. If you are under-18 you can have a gun that can kill (yourself and others, usually very quickly) and be killed (in service or outside) but you can't choose your diversion (or ultimately how you can kill yourself slowly...)!!!


Expect a lot of these guns to spread out to the rest of the world as they are already doing. In view of this, Mexico - and the rest of the World - should liberalize (legalize) producing, consuming and exporting drugs. They cause much less harm and are much less criminal in nature than guns.


From an outsider's point of view I detest the First and Second Amendments in equal measure; but if liberals cherish the former even in its most extreme interpretations, they had better accept that conservatives cherish the latter no less, and vice versa; let the liberals give up on gun control and the conservatives on public Christianity. They have plenty more to fight about with more even chances of success.


If Americans are not too bothered about the 30,000 people killed annually by guns why are they/you worried at all by the far smaller number killed by any form of terrorism?

Indeed a much more sanguine approach to terrorist deaths could well make you safer - terrorism is no more than a pinprick in actual terms, what does the damage is the terror and the over-reaction by government (& others).


One note, I don't think the NRA will have that hard of a time motivating members. The close vote shows just how important elections (and in the end justices) can be. One more vote the other way, and the God given right to self defense would have been thrown into the dust bin of history as antiquated.

An excellent rebuttal to the weak arguments put forth by the liberal justice can be found here

In short, states should not be free to experiment with 2A protection anymore than they are free to ignore the constitutional protections for free speech, etc.



Products and events



