Chicago

As I posted before, the Brady Campaign is spinning like a top:
"...“We are pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence. We are reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available. ..."

uh, Scalia took Stevens to the woodshed and spanked his bare ass. GOOD!

one problem is that the purpose of the Second Amendment has been erroneously redefined.

Self-defense is not the "central component".

Stevens has become an embarrassment. Although I sometimes wish he would hang on until Obama is gone, it is past time for him to go.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2010 01:29 PM:
"...one problem is that the purpose of the Second Amendment has been erroneously redefined. Self-defense is not the "central component"."

I've thought about this for quite some time.

I think what you are getting at amounts to needless splitting of hairs. Whether individual self defense is the "core component", or whether collective defense (security of a free state) is the core component ...

How might you define/compare/contrast individual self defense with defense of family and home with defense of the neighborhood with defense of the state with defense of the nation? I would suggest to you that at some level, and a rather fundamental level at that, all those above are one in the same.

Common criminals may pose a threat to one's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as do other enemies, both domestic and foreign. I see individual self defense and collective community/state/national defense as incapable of being uncoupled. And that, I suspect, is why the right to arms is considered a general right, a basic right, a fundamental one.

Carl,

Clearly the People need the permission of the government to defend the nation, otherwise, acting as the Militia, they could act unilaterally to repel border incursions.

This simply is not being allowed to happen in Arizona.

...Dave Hardy, you've labored in the trenches, through the valley of gun control, and have now seen the sunlit uplands of the Right to keep and bear arms. I thank you personally for your unstinting effort. You and millions of others stood up when standing up was crucial. We are here today, at this decision, because YOU WERE THERE through those dark times and never gave up.

I agree with Dave D

Thanks Dave

Another agreement with James D. Thanks Mr. Hardy!!!

Congratulations on the citation!
And thanks, by the way.

Congrats! Now let's finish the job.

I would like to echo the "thank-you's" to David Hardy. What a great day. I have two wonderful, happy, baseball-loving sons, age 10 and 11, who already know who Hardy, Gura, Halbrook and Cramer are from dinner-table discussions ... too bad there aren't collectible sports cards for you guys...

I would SO buy those sports cards.

David - we've come a long way since the discussions on how to get the Supreme Court to take a Second Amendment case and how to get it incorporated we had on talk.politics.guns in the early '90's :-) Glad to see you getting some recognition from the Court :-)