The D.C. ruling, of course, said no such thing about “regulation” being unlawful or inappropriate. It said that a categorical ban on all types of guns would be unconstitutional, and that bearing arms was an individual right–which has NOTHING to do with whether that right (like all others) can be regulated.

On that point, the Court has always been quite clear: it can. That’s why the NRA always had to work through postcards and pressure on legislators, rather than court challenges… because the concept of regulated gun ownership is clear-cut and Constitutional.

Just as we’re seeing with the financial sector, regulation is always better than deregulation. Because idiots, lunatics and selfish scum (i.e., conservatives) just can’t be trusted to act responsibly.

I’ll give you just a little on that “regulated” thing (so did the Supreme Court).

It’s o.k. to legislate to keep guns out of the hands of minors, criminals, the mentally impaired and liberals.

Sorry, don’t you read the paper or watch the news? The Supreme Court of “these here” United States disagreew with you !

That’s a “subordinate” clause meaning its only ONE reason why the PEOPLE is what the amendment meant. Check out all of the other amendments where “people” is used. Is it meant collectively or individually.

Nice try.

“The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.”

When the term “well-regulated militia” is in the first clause of that VERY SAME SENTENCE? Pretty weak.

Hmmmmmm.

Vin Diesel? (”Fast and Furious”)

Nicholas Cage? (”Gone in Sixty Seconds”)

If it was me choosing, I’d place an ad and try to find these guys, one of who apparently already at least lives in the DC area.

Oh, and did I mention that our roads still don’t work, our SAT scores still ——>suck,<—— and that even before the recession hit, our state mental-health system was so poorly funded and badly run that it drew federal attention as a threat to those it serves?-Bookman, Urinal

Hell, Tucker wrote that column last week.

Businesses —- good-paying businesses with the potential to create growth and prosperity —- come to places with roads that work and schools that teach and communities that are safe and state parks that are attractive and well-kept —- or at least open. Only government can do those things.

Kalifornia?

Table A. Leading 10 States/Equivalents by Population Change: July 1, 2007, to July 1, 2008

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/013049.html

in⋅fringe  1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29945269/

Cheney’s critique of Obama’s policies was also inaccurate. He claimed the new administration had abandoned the concept of a war on terror and returned to a pre9/11 law enforcement paradigm. But the noticeable thing about the new administration has been its retention of certain aspects of the terror war that are clearly about war and not law enforcement.

So what was Cheney thinking? My guess is that he fears he is in trouble. This fear has been created by Obama, but indirectly. Obama has declined to launch a prosecution of Cheney for war crimes, as many in his party (and outside it) would like. He has set up a review of detention, rendition and interrogation policies. And he has simply declassified many of the infamous torture memos kept under wraps by Bush.

He has the power to do this, and much of the time it is in response to outside requests. But as the memos have emerged, the awful truth of what Cheney actually authorised becomes harder and harder to deny. And Cheney is desperately trying to maintain a grip on the narrative before it grips him by the throat.

The threat, however subtle, is real. Eric Holder, the new attorney-general, while eschewing a formal investigation, has told Republicans “prosecutorial and investigative judgments must depend on the facts, and no one is above the law”. The justice department is also sitting on an internal report into the calibre of the various torture memos drafted by Bush appointees in the Office of Legal Counsel. The report has apparently already found the memos beneath minimal legal credibility, which implies they were ordered up to make the law fit the already-made decision to torture various terror suspects.

But the big impending release may well be three memos from May 2005, detailing specific torture techniques authorised by Bush and Cheney for use against terror suspects. Newsweek described the yet to be released memos thus: “One senior Obama official . . . said the memos were ‘ugly’ and could embarrass the CIA. Other officials predicted they would fuel demands for a ‘truth commission’ on torture.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article5992569.ece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izpU4YJ0ZAA

It’s a discussion/report on our current economic troubles.

Highly recommended.