Supreme Court Gun

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, expanding the conserv...

The Second Amendment has always put me in a quandary, but Scalia's opinion was not an honest attempt at sorting it out. It was a sophistical, political decision of just the type that he rails against.

So much for Scalia's much-vaunted "originalism," which advocates reading the Constitution as it would have been understood at the time of the Founding.

A government that cannot protect people should not deprive them of the right to protect themselves -- and the the D.C. gun ban did just that.

While the gun lobby may crack open that bottle of champagne, this is a victory that thrives in theory, but one that, in practice, can only be condemned.

In its ruling, the Court brushed away our nation's history of mass shootings, assassinations, and unparalleled gun violence and accepted an abstract academic argument with dangerous real-world results.

If Scalia and Stevens were competent historians, then it might be worth reading what they write. But they are not. Both offer selective readings of history to support what seem to be pre-determined positions.

In the wake of today's Supreme Court ruling, the Bush administration has announced that it's ordering all citizens of voting age to possess firearms as a preventive measure against terrorist attacks.

Today's Heller decision marks the biggest triumph so far for gun rights advocates. It establishes what was for so long denied, and the the gun control debate will never be the same.