I'm not going to trade my family for lax gun laws that make it easier for them to get shot by some random gun toting yahoo just because you want to play with your guns as toys. Gun toters believe in rights without responsibility. Responsibility is "tyranny".

"No, actually, you don't. All you need is to replace one of the arch-conservatives on the court who ignored 200 years of precedent regarding gun laws."

One would think these "arch-conservatives" who care so little about precedent and proper legal procedure would have been able to get rid of Roe v. Wade by now.

Face it, Putin33. The die was cast and the arguments for an individual right to bear arms won. If you think this can just be changed by swapping out a justice then you have a stunning ignorance of how our common law system works. Stare decisis much?

As for Chicago, you're just wrong. Cook County also has strict laws against guns and Mike Madigan (the Speaker/dictator) has made sure state guns laws stay restrictive as well. And if you're making the point of neighboring states having laxer laws (which they might) I would be stunned that any of the sophisticated Chicago gangs or the mafia (still a player here) would be so dumb as to drive over to an Indiana gun show and purchase a handgun legally.

How am I supposed to provide the lengthy study of the use of bear arms which you ignored without cutting and pasting? It's not as if you're going to read the pertinent passages on your own volition.

You're not answering the question. If you or your family were to be attacked with lethal force would you want them to have access to a firearm so that they might defend themselves. And, if they did successfully fend off the attacker with that firearm would you still hold the position that they shouldn't have access to that gun?

"Face it, Putin33. The die was cast and the arguments for an individual right to bear arms won. If you think this can just be changed by swapping out a justice then you have a stunning ignorance of how our common law system works. Stare decisis much?"

You can't simultaneously invoke "stare decisis" while celebrating a court decision which had absolutely no regard for it as the final word on gun law. It is you who don't seem to have the foggiest clue about how the common law system works. It's because you have no arguments that you're so eager to shut down the debate by invoking a deviant court case as the final word on the matter.

"One would think these "arch-conservatives" who care so little about precedent and proper legal procedure would have been able to get rid of Roe v. Wade by now."

States have managed to gut Roe v Wade to the point where it's barely functioning as the law of the land. Look at all the anti-abortion legislation being passed at the state level. Roe v Wade effectively does not exist in the state of South Dakota. If that's your evidence for the court not being conservative that's really piss poor.

You're not trading your family for lax gun laws. But, you might be trading your family for strict gun law if you need one and cannot get one.

It is the final word on the matter. If you want no guns change the Constitution. You can do that.

"You're not answering the question. If you or your family were to be attacked with lethal force would you want them to have access to a firearm so that they might defend themselves. And, if they did successfully fend off the attacker with that firearm would you still hold the position that they shouldn't have access to that gun?"

The likelihood of me having a gun in my hand and getting it off before I'm shot is next to nothing. What is more likely is a kid getting their hands on it and shooting himself. Your bullshit hypothetical has no bearing on the real world.

I think it's ironic that people like Putin think that their chances of being killed by a gun are so high that they're willing to remove their own ability to protect themselves and their family from someone who is trying to kill, rape, or rob them. Do you like being a victim?

"It is the final word on the matter. If you want no guns change the Constitution. You can do that."

No, it is not. No amount of declaring it to be so will make it so. But that's all you're going to do.

"I think it's ironic that people like Putin think that their chances of being killed by a gun are so high that they're willing to remove their own ability to protect themselves and their family from someone who is trying to kill, rape, or rob them. Do you like being a victim?"

No, I do not. Which is why I want guns banned instead of making it easier for gun freaks to get their hands on them or sell them to terrorists or criminals or both.

LOL! My bullshit hypothetical illustrates how emasculated our ultra-liberal "save the world" schools have made the American Man. I don't care if the chances were 1/1million that I might be able to save my self of my family from harm with my gun, I'd like to have that chance if we were so attacked. You don't want that chance because you're scared that having that chance will increase the chance of another tragedy.

And you already said you don't care about gun violence, that it's irrelevant. All you want is an armed population. So stop bringing up these disingenuous scenarios that you don't care about.

"LOL! My bullshit hypothetical illustrates how emasculated our ultra-liberal "save the world" schools have made the American Man. "

And your statement here proves that gun "rights" is not really about freedom or safety for the gun freaks but more about macho posturing and pretending to be more manly than thou.

Really sad, actually. We're allowing 100,000 gun victims per year (30,000 deaths & 70,000 injuries) and jacking up healthcare rates because a bunch of sexually insecure males want to feel macho.

I care about them deeply. I think you have a right and a duty to defend yourself and your family. You want to take my ability to defend myself and my family away. You want me to have to rely upon the police to protect me from these gun carrying criminals -- many of whom aren't carrying "legal" guns anyway. I take offense to you telling me you're scared, and because you're scared I have to give up my right to defend myself.

Do you have children?

Do you have a wife?

God forbid they are ever in mortal danger. But, if they were, would you defend them?

You want to paint me as "sexually insecure" because I want to have the right to defend my family from people that would do them harm?

You want me to give up that right so that 100,000 people -- most of whom are involved in some criminal activity already which is why they got shot -- won't get shot and killed?!?

Implementing unfettered gun ordinances isn't defense, it's surrender. I'm tired of having suburban and rural gun hobbyists impose their ridiculous notions of anti-statist paranoia on communities not their own so that said communities can't defend ourselves from harm by implementing common sense legislation.

The trouble with people is that they are creatures of mood and emotion. They have good days and bad days, and occasionally they have really bad days. The sort of day when they lose their job or wife, or they find out that everything they've worked for has been destroyed by investing in the wrong sort of shares, or their child is killed by a drunk driver.

When deciding whether we should allow people to arm themselves for whatever reason, we should not think about people acting as they normally do and thinking clearly, but instead think about then acting at their lowest ebb and highest degree of desperation. Guns make taking a foolish choice all too easy.

It's fine to question whether the 2nd Amendment has outlived its usefulness as a means to ensure state security. It's fine to wonder whether we'd actually be safer in a country where gun ownership is not a fundamental right. But as far as what the law is, there can be no question that the constitution does provide for a personal right to bear arms.

Reasonable regulation is still possible, and in fact, necessary. In Mcdonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court explicitly refused to remove all gun restrictions, recognizing that some - such as restrictions against felons and the mentally ill, and geographical restrictions - were constitutional. There is a reasonableness standard that, admittedly, has recently been interpreted to favor the individual right over the regulatory power of the States. But States nonetheless have absolute power to put reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, and, in fact, every states does restrict gun ownership to some extent.

If someone really wanted to ban all gun ownership, that person would need to amend the Constitution. No Supreme Court would ever go so far as to implicitly repeal a constitutional amendment, which is what they would have to do if they ever approved a complete ban on gun ownership. Recent cases may have expanded the 2nd Amendment, but there has never been serious doubt that the amendment provides at least some protection of the right of individuals to bear arms. But is anyone really arguing that guns should be totally outlawed. That's a pretty extreme position. I like to think that even the most rigorous 2nd Amendment defender would not (seriously) suggest that States cannot take any regulatory measures - even, say, to prevent violent felons from obtaining guns. And if one did, I doubt many would agree with that position. Likewise, even the most rigorous proponent of gun regulation would not (seriously) suggest that no one should be allowed to own any guns for any reason. And if one did, I doubt many would agree with that position either.

Common sense to you maybe, not to others. Again, you're asking me to give up my right to defend myself because you don't want to.

"You want to paint me as "sexually insecure" because I want to have the right to defend my family from people that would do them harm?"

You're the one who brought up 'emasculation of American men' by 'liberals'.

"You want me to give up that right so that 100,000 people -- most of whom are involved in some criminal activity already which is why they got shot -- won't get shot and killed?!?"

Such a glib attitude towards 100,000 unnecessary injuries and deaths. I guess 100,000 people is no skin off your back, eh? You got your toys and that's all that matters. Nevermind that gun violence is one of the single biggest killers of young people today. Or that gun violence is a big killer of women involved in domestic disputes (5 times more likely to be murdered if you're a woman in a home with access to firearms. For every one woman who uses a handgun in self-defense, 83 are killed by acquaintances using handguns). You have your toys, you can pretend to be a manly man, and that's all that's relevant.

" there can be no question that the constitution does provide for a personal right to bear arms."

Except there's plenty of question about it. Read the dissent in DC v Heller.

you think that by removing the tool you wont need to defend yourself. but you wont remove the tool, and then you wont have it if you need it. sounds illogical to me putin

I want to remove "tool" used to threaten me to begin with.