And just as I predicted, all an honest citizen has to do is LOOK at a gun and they will instantly pick it up and start shooting people!"

Substitute "traitorous Democrats" for "people" and she's absolutely correct!

I kind of want to start shooting into the air in celebration. That's how us bitter, gun/religion clinging Midwesterners celebrate, right?

For the AP (and AFP, Reuters etc) the 2nd Amendment refers to gun ownership within an approved militia. Such a militia must also accept the "rulership of the jurisprudent" and wear headscarves for identification.

I am laughing so hard I have tears in my eyes. Oh, Frank... you are da man!

Time to go on a shooting spree for some crack money!

Ooops! I mean Harvey. You're still the man too, Frank. Don't shoot!

Dude, quite posting out here. Every minute I spend reading your blog is a minute not spent shooting up the nearest McDonald's or taking a flamethrower to every minivan in site. I love reading your stuff and all, but right now there is just no time.

Must... reload... faster... hippies... still... screeching... ears... bleeding...

Yesterday I was driving my truck around my part of Texas when I heard the decision announced on the radio. I had no ammo on me, nor a firearm, so I was safe for the moment. The next thing I knew, I was filling out a background-check form in an Academy Sporting Goods store for a Mossberg Maverick Model 88 Security 12 gauge shotgun.

Somehow I managed to avoid purchasing any shot shells as I numbly followed the clerk with my purchase to the checkout, and then out of the store - there were women and children in the store, it would have been a bloodbath had that thing started firing in there. Well, actually, I spent all the cash I had hidden away from my wife on the gun, so it took not so much self control....

I drove home shielding my eyes from any other stores which might contain shotgun ammo and also take credit cards, which I suddenly remembered I had with me.

I put the freakishly ugly Maverick in a closet next to a WW I vintage Lee-Enfield, hoping that the older rifle could impart some self control to the younger "Maverick" before any carnage started.

So far, so good. After 24 hours, the ultra-violent shotgun has fired not a single pellet of devastating 00 buckshot, nor a single slug, despite both being stored in the same house. The Lee-Enfield must have counseled the younger firearm to wait patiently until needed.

And by the way, how the heck has McCain gotten the Mossberg company to name a freakin' line of shotguns after him? That is so awesome...

#8 - Posted by: Mikee on June 27, 2008 12:52 PM

I’ve only had aggression problems with one of my guns so far. Yesterday, I woke from a nap to find that I had cleaned and loaded my Mini-14 while sleeping.

I'm glad you posted this, Frank, because I thought I was alone in this. Up until the SCOTUS ruling, I was having to rely on knives, rope, scissors, blunt objects, plastic wrap, and obscene carbon footprint to carry out my murderous campaign.

Now that guns are legal again, my killing is so efficient I am considering getting back into politics.

Great,you guys rock
wish I had something witty to say here but you covered it all. I hope lots of people see this.

Brilliant.........I wish the decision had gone farther (guns are guarenteed in the HOME? I don't personally care about assault weapons either way, but every honest citizen should be able to apply for a permit to carry wherever/whenever as long as they can pass the tests), personally, but was still very pleased by the court's decision. VERY accurate parody of the left's stereotypical view of gun owners.

By the way, my thanks to Harvey for your brief message of condolences the other day on the Obama post...I'm one of those admittedly cliched nostalgic, prematurely bitter Reagan babies (meaning those born during his precidency) that misses San Diego circa 1985 (or Hawaii 1988, my father was in the Navy, I practically LIVED the Top Gun domestic life as a kid!) that hates about 60% of my idiot #*#*#* generation for their tax happy, regulatory fetishes and knee jerk paranoia about foreign policy and the spooooooky Military Industrial Complex (TM). So..anyway, thats the context of the rant the other day.

We need a new supreme court and a president who is part militaristic Ayn Rand (I support most of her economic views, but I'm more of a federalist...I wouldn't, for instance, actually scrap any government department, just streamline them), part Blofeld,part Ollie North. Nuff said :D. Okay..wow....waaay too long of a post. I shall shut up now:).

but every honest citizen should be able to apply for a permit to carry wherever/whenever as long as they can pass the tests
#12 - Posted by: LokiVonBismarck on June 27, 2008 07:36 PM

You mean, "Every honest citizen should be able to carry wherever/whenever"

VIRUS ALERT!

Frankj! I was checking old posts to see if there were any new comments.
When I scrolled down through the comments on your post, "Let's take her baby!" posted on 6/18/08, and clicked on the last comment, #37, which had a link, my Norton anti-virus software alerted me that an attempt to invade my computer had occurred.
It said the virus was called 'http fakeScan Webpage'. It was blocked. Phew!
I should have known better. The link had the word 'naked' in it!
Comment #36 looked wierd too. Be warned!

Needing a permit is an infringement on our rights.
we should be only required to be a citizen.

VIRUS ALERT correction.

comment 38 was the suspicious one. 37 was the wierd one. 36 is OK. Sorry.

Bingo JackG! Permitting and gun control laws presuppose guilt. Everyone knows that criminals and scum tend to hang out in large buildings in places like D.C. That lot should be watched carefully, or maybe even sequestered away from the law abiding citizens.

Hmmm, wasn't intending for that qualifier to be controversial. I guess I'm kind of a centrist (though I wouldn't have said that earlier, I consider myself fairly conservative...maybe I'm using the prism of my generation though) on this issue--I view it in the same scope as a much simpler driver's test, I guess--by "permit process" I am assuming passing a basic course on how to properly shoot, care for, and clean a firearm, and a background check for felony convictions (these seem like reasonable minimal qualifiers to me). At least, that is what I am used to and am okay with the premise. See, that, to me, ends the issue, from both a litigation standpoint (no one can bitch to their local or state government that they were lax about the process blah blah blah if that procedure is in place) and a pratical safety standpoint. Once that process is passed, then go ahead and carry, concealed or otherwise. Is the process worse than that for some states?

#18 - Posted by: LokiVonBismarck on June 28, 2008 05:09 AM

That is pretty much the process for concealed carry in AZ. Open carry, you just need to pass the background check. Obviously some jurisdictions are much worse, e.g. the need for the Heller v D.C. case. I have no problem with a criminal background check in theory per se, but the database should be such that it contains only felony convictions. Therein lies part of the problem though, a database. We have few secrets anymore. Our names and other personal, private information keeps showing up in databases due to snooping by a pervasive government that requires so many of our transactions, which should be private, to be recorded and even reported. Why should the government be privy to my financial transactions just because I happened to withdraw, transfer or spend over a certain amount? If I see that as none of their business, because they are assuming guilt on my part for having made a financial transaction, why wouldn't I take offense for them prying into the transaction of buying or selling a gun? The second ammendment has guaranteed us the right. A better solution would be to permanently remove violent offenders from free society (read what you will into that statement), and all others are unrestricted in all ways.
Now, having said this, I don't have a problem with private sellers requiring that buyers demonstrate sufficient knowledge of firearms safety before selling them one. There should also never be any avenue for holding sellers liable for crimes committed by someone who buys anything from them and uses it to commit a crime, unless the thing being sold has only one use, and that being to commit crimes. Guns do not fall in this category, because they have purposes other than to be used to commit crimes.

Loki - I want people to know what they're doing when they wave a gun around, too, but I don't think the government is the right institution to handle that. You mentioned drivers' licenses - you'll notice that they don't actually prevent anyone from driving like an idiot.

The correct institution is peer pressure. When most law-abiding citizens decide to obtain a gun, they ask their friends for advice first. If you're that friend, be sure to pound into their heads "assume the gun is loaded until you've checked it empty yourself", "keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot" and "never point a gun at anything you're not willing to destroy" before you start discussing whether they should go with Glock or Beretta.

Friends don't let friends shoot stupid.

As for criminals obtaining guns, I hope they DON'T know what they're doing so that they will shoot their balls off when they tuck the gun down the front of their pants.

Actually it is not the gun that causes the crime.
Mine crime life all started as a kid when I saw my first Red Ryder BB gun. I fell in love with the real rawhide tie on the lever. I twirled it, twisted it, smelled it and ran it through my gruby little fingers. It just turns on my manhood. Today fifty years later -I have such a tie on my hunting boots, and truth be known, also on the handle of my tootbrush. When I'm brushing my teeth at the mirror in the morning I get to pretend I'm Red and I draw real fast and shoot my image. That's the cause of gun crime -rawhide!
happy trails er...or something like that.

Harvey, the 'Email this' for this article doesn't work. Please fix it. Thank You!

The only "training" that should be required for any citizen or legal immigrant to obtain a firearm is the training that his pappy should have provided when he was old enough to hold the weapon he is trying to acquire. (Remember fathers?) The only "permit" that should be required is a certificate from the federal reserve bank.

It's clear what the authors of the Bill of Rights meant and the Supreme Court just affirmed it. If you want to change the law then change the Bill of Rights. The court or at least 5 member of the court applied the law properly.
I am tired of totalitarian judges who base rulings on their personal opinion of what they think is good policy. Here is a novel idea, let the people we ELECT make policy and confine judges to interpereting the law. I wonder if our founding fathers thought of that idea...oh yea, THEY DID!

23 & 24. Oh no!
Fool me once, shame on you!
Fool me twice, Shame on me!