Gun battle: Heller time; D.C. gun ban overturned
Scroll down for updates…10:13am…YES! The D.C. gun ban has been overturned…Scalia authors majority opinion…There is an individual right to bear arms…McCain weighs in…”Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today.”
All eyes are on the Supreme Court for the 2nd Amendment ruling in Heller v. D.C.
SCOTUSblog is covering it live. Tom Goldstein notes that there are three decisions coming down this morning, which will be released in order of the seniority of the author of the principal opinion: most junior to most senior.”
Barack Obama’s doing “inartful” flip-flops in anticipation of the decision:
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.
“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.
The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator’s views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.
In a story entitled, “Court to Hear Gun Case,” the Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote “. . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’”
Jim Geraghty: “All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.”
Update 10:13am. Rejoice. The D.C. gun ban has been overturned. Tom Goldstein: “Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.”
More from Goldstein, quoting the syllabus: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Update 10:37am. Reader D.G.:
Prediction: Unlike the 5-4 Boumediene vs. Bush decision [the Gitmo case], which the MSM hailed as “landmark” [and] “historic” because it rebuked Bush, this 5-4 decision will be spun as a decision by the “conservative” Supreme Court, which was “controversial,” “fractured” or “splintered.” Anything to cast doubt on the decision.
“Landmark-Historic:” Any decision the court makes that the media likes.
“Controversial-Splintered:” Any decision the liberal media hates.
Update: Allahpundit dissects the ruling. You can find the PDF of the opinion here. SCOTUSblog’s summary:
Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded “we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weaons in case of confrontation” — in other words, for self-defense. “This meaning,” it added, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England.
What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.”
Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.
And McCain weighs in…
U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement regarding today’s United States Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller:
Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.
Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.
UPDATE: (See-Dubya) This goes much farther than the minimum. Not only is their an explicit right to own guns for self-defense (not just hunting or military exercises, and not just for the purposes of the militia) it explicitly mentions that this right extends to handguns.
Check out this rhapsody to the pistol on pp. 57-58. I want the bolded section chiseled in granite and ensconced someplace liberals will see it every day:
It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
And it’s not just that self-defense is a subsidiary right to the common defense, it’s (page 26) “the central component of the right itself.”
And not just self-defense in the sense of immediate threat to life: it’s for the defense of life, family, and property (p.54):
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.
Out-freaking-standing. I think there’s enough juicy red meat in there to keep the NRA’s lawyers winning victories for centuries.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- District Of Columbia vs. Heller Opinion: Heller Affirmed | Stuck On Stupid
- A Tale Of 2 Constitutional Rights | A South Dakota Moderate
- The Bottom Line : Adam Lawson
- La Shawn Barber's Corner
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » Breaking: Court finds Second Amendment protects individual right to bear arms UPDATE:“All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.”
- Rhymes With Right
- Welcoming Our New Overlords » Pursuing Holiness
- The Other McCain: SCOTUS: VICTORY!
- Supreme Court Strikes Down Washington Gun Ban | OpenMarket.org
- Breaking: SCOTUS Rules In Favor Of 2nd Amendment » Pirate’s Cove — Give No Quarter!
- Finally, Some Relief for Crime Riddled DC | The Hinge Of Fate
- Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Obama Flip-Flop Continues On Gun Bans
- Lump on a Blog » Blog Archive » Obama: Apparently He Was Against the Constitution Before He Was For It - or - Our Schizophrenic Supreme Court
- Pirates! Man Your Women! » Blog Archive » Finally A Good Decision
- The 2nd Amendment Is Affirmed « Out West
- Narrow Escape--Army of Dog
- Obama Flip-Flops on D.C. Gun Case, TODAY! | The Patriot Room
- Stop The ACLU
- Bitter, Gun Clingers REJOICE! «
- Supreme Court Humbly Permits You to Bear Arms | The Daily Conservative
- Supreme Court Confirms Individual Right to Bear Arms | shyspeak.net
- The Conservative Reader » Blog Archive » Supreme Court: Guns Still In Vogue
- THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™
- The Wide Awake Cafe » He Had to Respect the Gun
- THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS » Blog Archive » The Second Amendment will not ever be shot down
- Obama’s Slippery Stance on the Supreme Court’s Gun Ruling : BigMouthFrog
- Michelle Malkin » DC mayor still unclear on the concept explained Heller
- Supreme Courts Uphold Right to Keep and Bear Arms | unlawful termination unlawful arrest unlawful discrimination unlawful eviction
- Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Hello, Chicago!
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Guns
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Pundit & Pundette
» Various and sundryStop The ACLU
» Obama To Hold Another Prime Timer To Explain Our Afghanistan Strategy To Islamic ExtremistsAmSpecBlog
» Lieberman Says He's "Stubborn" on Gov't PlanWeekly Standard
» Dowd on PalinTigerHawk
» Negative equity
“A well regulated militia, being vital to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
What part of that is Washington DC not understanding?
Pins and needles.
in the meantime…
Congratulations to the National Champion Fresno State Bulldogs!! wtg!!!
I wouldn’t worry. Think this one is in the bag. The ban will be overturned.
I am not so certain of this with the track record as of late from the SCOTUS.
If they do uphold the ban (which would be just one more slap in the face of the founding fathers) will Obama once againg flip-flop back to saying that the ban is constitutional as the story quoted above noted?
If they overturn the ban, he’ll say it wasn’t the gun ban he knew.
Affirmed.
Individual right.
YES!
good
Well I see that the SCOTUS did overturn the DC Ban 5-4.
That’s perfectly true.
Unfortunately, to people like Obama an outright ban on gun possession is a common-sense law.
Yesterday, SCOTUS decided that the legislature and people of LA were incapable of providing justice. Today, the same SCOTUS may decide that when their (5) feelings match those of the D.C. legislature, it is perfectly fine to suspend the Bill of Rights under certain circumstances. This could open the door to suspending the 19th Amendment due to the damage it has done. /sarc
He uses that excuse to the maximum on most issues. I believe him. Obama is too busy promising stuff he can’t deliver versus having an opinion on issues that matter. Empty suit!
Liberals still can’t get it through their collective little brains that legally purchased pistols, rifles, and shotguns are rarely used in crimes.
Upholding the Constitution, what a concept.
And a loud cry from criminals yelling “Dang it !”
What is sad is that only 5 justices where willing to uphold the constitution.
“Don’t tread on me!”
To echo Rusty: YES!
Did a Cossack dance when I heard the knews.
OK … they finally got one right …
Good for the residents of DC …
But … they are still not hitting many out of the park on behalf of the people of this great country …
Pretty poor batting average overall … don’t you think?
Potential SCOTUS appointments by the next POTUS scares the daylights out of me …
Four of the 9 Justices are anti-Constitution. Do you care? I take no comfort in the fact that the 4 extreme liberal Justices don’t care about what the Constitution says. I think we are in tremendous danger of loosing our Freedom and Liberty. The Liberal’s on the court have no respect for our founding documents and have shown as much. They, including Justice Kennedy, aren’t qualified to be Supreme Court Justices. They need to be impeached. And if they aren’t they will eventually get around to stripping our Liberty eventually. Sit silent at your own peril. Extreme language? Only if you have no problem living under tyranny.
Barry: That’s not the gun I knew.
That’s not the constitution I new.
But after the ruling comes down, I may rethink the issue.
One vote away from Marxism.
Yay!
It really bothers me that it was a 5-4 decision. We were that close to losing the 2nd Amendment.
Are retirements announced around this time???
In my wildest dreams, Stevens retires and Bush nominates JANICE ROGERS BROWN!!!
Thank goodness, the 2nd amendment is alive and well.
Hey Barry, you have the backbone of a worm.
*steps outside and pops off a few rounds
That felt good too!
Woo-HOO!
Need to go to the range real soon to celebrate… Like cave-man, find range, go bang-bang, eat meat, grunt, scratch, and do other manly things.
*phew!* That’s close.
This decision is a perfect example of how important it is to have a president who will appoint judges who will not use the bench to legislate their leftist policies.
Although it turns my stomach I have to vote for McCain because the thought of anti-gun rights Obama becoming President and adding more liberal judges makes me have a migraine!
Although this decision came out well for 2nd Amendment supporters, we know very well that the anti-gunners will shift their tactics and disguise their motives.., but we’re on to them!
The criminals in Congress should take note.
It bothers me that this ever went before the Supreme Court. I think it’s a sign of how far down this country has gone that they had to issue a ruling on it.
-sigh- I guess this is why I am going to have to hold my nose, get drunk, and vote for Juan McAmnesty… it just isn’t fair.
I hope McAmnesty picks a conservative vp to be his successor…
Praise the lord, and pass the ammunition.
I am so glad I get my news source here! Fox has not even reported this yet! They are busy reporting filler stories like a mom trying to find a donor via face book and pigeon problems! OY Vey!
One would think this is one of the most important rulings of our life time and I get to see Megan Kelly worry about facebook and pigeons.
And a loud cry from
criminalslgm yelling “Dang it !”Long overdue and glad that things went the way they did.
Now to actually buy two guns; one for me and the other for my wife and set aside quality time at a range.
Bloomberg will be crying in his beer tonight (or his cheap red wine).
This is a great day for America!
Lock and load baby!
Kennedy voted with the majority.
He still votes the right way occasionally, I guess.
Not full blown Souter-itis yet. And I guess he hasn’t started meeting men in highway rest stops. Yet.
GOOD NEWS!
2nd Amendment upheld, and Ohio has the Castle Doctrine going into effect in September.
I think now is the time to go buy a hand-gun or two and get my CCW permit.
The four dissenting judges are complete jokes.
Sorry, Dave, they know but don’t care. Liberals don’t believe that citizens should have guns because their appeal is to victims. Why do you need the means protect yourself? The state should do that for you. As a matter of fact, the state should do everything for you.
Could anyone honestly believe or argue that the rest of the Bill of Rights were individual rights, and the Second alone was completely different, authorizing the states to have militias, as the libs argued?
I’ve been feeling very pessimistic about current affairs for a long time now but then something like this happens. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful.
Thank you Lord.
guess Kennedy forgot to check his backbone at the door today..
Hip, hip, hooray!
good decision today though..
I have a thrill up my leg
Sanity wins, and insanity loses – but by only one vote.
If McCain wins I pray he will not “reach across the aisle”, as he so loves to do, when it comes to nominating justices…
More guns, less crime.
The empirical evidence exists for it.
This is such wonderful news. I signed a petition on ‘open gun carry’ here in TX this morning and sent to Gov. Perry.
L
“Inartful” = inept, inexperienced, ignorant, uninformed, unqualified, unAmerican, just plain stupid, and “how did this guy become a lawyer?”
I knew there had to be a gray lining, somewhere. Do I not also have a right to defend myself with deadly force anywhere else?
Now that those last three words are in there, shabby local and state gov’ts will use them to fight off ’shall issue’ ccw laws.
Sorry about bein’ negative, folks. I am ecsatic that SCOTUS did at least overturn the ban…..
Apparently, four Supreme Court justices.
Great news indeed. The SCOTUS gets one right.
And what color are the freaky four
Yellow
and now we know
This is an awesome decision! Thank you Kennedy for following the Constitution! Kennedy has turned into the swing vote and has put two big wins in for America – overruling this handgun ban, and overruling the Military Commissions act. Although I didn’t care very much for the child rapist verdict, it matters very little in comparison to the other verdicts. Big day for Constitutionalists.
WoooHoooo!!! I would submit a post but I’m gonna go clean my gun and head out to the range. LOL
Thank God! We came so close today to losing one of our most precious, fundamental freedoms. God Bless the SCOTUS for making the right decision!
Robert A. Heinlein
Non gun carriers also get the benefit of the doubt by criminals.
I guess that answers lgm’s questions on individual gun rights.
Needless to say I am quite pleased the Constitution was upheld and my rights to my firearms intact.
Amen to that.
I just came back from the firing range with my (legal) Sig Sauer handgun.
It’s nice to know that the Supreme Court says I have a legal right to own it. But I, too, am worried that the vote was 5-4.
We really are “that” close to losing quite a few of our freedoms. And, in my opinion, it will be because people don’t live up to their responsibilities.
I’ll climb off my soapbox now.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!
My father-in-law is helping me purchase a gun and safe for our home. As someone who believes in the Constitution and 2nd Amendment, this is a good, good day.
I wouldn’t say this statement implies that guns should/could only be carried for defense within the home. Rather that “self-defense within the home” is simply one such purpose. No one can read this as being all-inclusive; self-defense at home is not the only defense allowed….again, simply an example.
Scalia likes intellectually beating Breyer over the head and shoulders. QED
The liberals fear the second amendment. It’s the method of last resort to fight their tyrannical efforts to subjugate everyone to total government control.
Breyer should be disbarred for sheer stupidity.
The horror. Yes, all attempts to explain Obama’s “consistent position[s]” do, indeed, need to be “artful.”
Now, maybe, people in D.C. can defend themselves against criminals. You have a better chance of getting shot in D.C. than you do in Baghdad; more bullets flying around too, especially at night. The crooks know the people are not armed, so it is a fox in the henhouse mentality. All that, I hope, changes, unless D.C. finds some way of circumventing the ruling. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment wasn’t so people could go to ranges and go hunting. The people have the right to arm themselves in the face of a tyrannical government. We had just gone through a revolution against such a government, with armed citizens, mostly. That is why the politicians fear this amendment. The first thing a government does, that wants total power, is to disarm the people. But, now D.C., and other states will allow gun ownership but perhaps with a lot of stupid, “yes, but” laws or taxes so high, most couldn’t afford a gun if they wanted one.
I am not a Constitutional lawyer; what implications does this ruling have on other cities like Chicago and New York?
As a resident of midtown Manhattan I’m willing to bet that it will be 20 years before the City of New York is willing to comply with this ruling.
Seems as if they FINALLY understand the constitution!
This is why I bought my first gun a few weeks ago. They were THAT close to legislating tyranny. I figured if they ruled the other way, there would’ve been an immediate moratorium on handgun sales. I wasn’t taking any chances.
SUPER!
While the decision is great for the US, it is particularly disturbing that this came down to a 5-4 vote.
Despite the overwhelming support for the decision in the Constitution itself, the Federalist Papers and other historical documents, 4 justices went out of their way to try to reengineer the Constitution as they saw fit.
The Constitution is not a menu from which one chooses what they want. It is an all or nothing proposition. And the liberal members of the court were one vote away from turning it on its head.
Conservatives and liberals should take note: as goes one Amendment in the Bill of Rights so goes all rights. If the Justices are capable of changing the original meaning of one right set forth in the Constitution, they open the door to imposing similar restrictions on all other rights.
The Supreme Court is but one vote away from turning a Constitutional Republic into a socialist state where the powers of the Court trumps both the executive and legislative branches of government. One vote away from subverting the checks and balances so carefully set forth in the Constitution. One vote away from creating a judicial monarchy.
Our Supreme Court was supposed to be the conscience of the founding fathers, bringing the executive and legislative branches back into line when their actions strayed from the Constitution. Yet, we are but one vote away from a Court that views the Constitution as an impediment to their goals rather than a guide to their duties.
#60 Ed
I am curious to read the dissenting opinion, to see how those four justices could possibly frame their dissent.
It’s clear enough what the framers of the Constitution meant from the most casual study of their writings, but you’d think they might have been a little less ambiguous in writing the 2nd Amendment.
Just as clearly the 14th Amendment was never meant to give U.S. citizenship to jackpot babies as a reward for sneaking into the country. Let’s hope the Supreme Court will act on this issue.
Orson Scott Card said it in one of his books, (Ender’s Game series.. I think it was ‘Xenocide’) Like words written on water..
BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!
(reloading…)
BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!
Responsibly, of course.
Thank you, SCOTUS, for ruling correctly, and thank you, God, for the right to keep and bear arms which was given to us by You and You alone. After all, the Bill of Rights is nothing more than an enumeration of our God-given rights.
Every once in a while the SCOTUS gets it right. For this I am truly thankful, and I believe there may be some hope for the country.
Thanks, SCOTUS – Well done.
The headline for MSNBC:
Court says individuals have right to own guns
Decision is justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history
I don’t see ’splintered’ or ‘controversial’ in there anywhere. For once, at least on this one item, an outlet of the MSM reported news, not opinion.
Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg Dissented anyone suprised????
Hmmm, I’m elated , of course, and will wear “Snuffy” on my hip today in celebration… but as others have noted, this was 5-4 …. we need to be as ever vigilant if not more so. Oh and Happy Birthday, Chesty! Where ever you are…. Semper FI!
Actually, Justice Stevens the evidence is found…in the amendment itself. How does a judge not notice that it states that the right of the people shall not be infringed??????
I wonder if Stevens would have consented if it stated, “shall not be infringed… by elected officials?”
#69 Ragman Here ya go
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Great point Howie. In the home will be added to mean something the 2nd amendment was never intended to mean. Imagine fighting a war on our own soil and we can’t do a thing unless they enter “WITHIN THE HOME”. That just may have made matters worse.
Amendments have been revised before and taken out of context. Remember “separation of church and state”?
I’m not a lawyer myself.. but as I understand it, a case would need to be brought up in NYC and Chicago as a case by case basis.. and this SCOTUS decision will hang heavily in those cases..
Well said Jim M., much too close for comfort and a sad realization of how close we all just came to living under tyranny.
McCain summed it up well in his 2/6/2006 letter to Obama:
This brings to mind two quotes:
“Your credibility is not a boomerang”
“In Washington, trust is the coin of the realm”
Credibility and trust, two things in short supply with Senator Obama. Instead, he will shade, adjust, clarify, renounce, denounce, and at times even throw various things and people under the bus.
Hallelujah!!!!!
Harris GMTA, what is likely to happen once the law is challenged in Chicago and NY is that they’ll do what they’ve done here in the People Republic of Mass, impose regulation upon regulation until it is virtually impossible for an average Joe to own a pistol.
Yashmak –
The FIRST major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history? MSNBC must’ve missed the second amendment. LOL
I was listening to Mark Levin on the way home yesterday and he called it perfectly… saying Kennedy would switch. How do you think he’ll start his show today?
Wrong MSNBC, the court doesn’t say it, the CONSTITUTION does.
This was the correct decision. I hope the whole state’s rights crowd will remember this as an example of how SCOTUS CAN overturn a decision by a state legislature that conflicts with the U.S. constitution. It’s not about how a state legislature, elected by the the people, can decide their local governmental policies however they want. It cuts both ways folks. The analysis has to be consistent, even if the intepretation and results differ(usually along party lines).
State’s can provide more rights than what’s provided for in the U.S. Constitution, but not less. This was the correct decision in my view, partisan politics aside.
McCain and Obama will check the polls, and decide what their viewpoint will be, but they will likely applaud this decision also.
This is bad. They left in place the licensing requirements. Not a concealed carry license, an ownership license. Washington D.C. has a one year renewal. Look for the fees to rise.
I’ll bet the Brady Bunch are already drafting draconian licensing laws. If they have their way that license will cost more than the gun. Look for $1000 dollar a year handgun licenses all legal under today’s decision.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights will be attacked again. Those Marxists never go away!
God Bless America, Freedom and Liberty affirmed today!
This is a great day for freedom and the rights of the US people!
From the Daily Kos (I think this is both telling and unintentionally funny):
“I encourage you to read this fully before rendering your opinions, because, well, it’s a Constitution we’re expounding here, and this comes up in other contexts as well. Sometimes in life (and in law), there are things that we might desire from a policy standpoint — like certain forms of gun control, or restrictions on some election-related speech — which are nevertheless forbidden by the Constitution. And as liberals — unlike the other guys — we ought not try to pretend that the Constitution doesn’t exist when it gets in the way of our policy preferences.
Tragic day for America DC has a tremendously bad gun problem and they can’t take these extremely resonable step of banning the gun most frequently used in crimes? It’s outrageous and despicable.
That said, I certainly appreciate the difference between gun ownership in rural areas vs. urban areas.”
Bufoons.
Nice, as much as McCain irks me on many many issues his speech today on gun rights was not only a dead on bullseye-grandslam on Obama but extremely well said.