Today in a split decision, the US Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia gun ban. This is good news for gun owners. I don't advocate gun violence or gun irresponsibilty or mental patients having a gun ect, but I think every law abiding American has the right to keep a gun in his home and be able to defend him/her self. We all know that thugs and criminals will get guns no matter what the laws are. And I think some of our board members from down under might chime in here as I understand it, the murder rate in Australia has gone up since the gun ban there has been in place?? I think the US constitution was pretty clear when it was written. Not to offend anyone as I love God, country and am all for love and peace, but if someone breaks into my home and night with ill intent. Well lets just say he might die of lead poisoning!! 
Matt B.
This is great news! I read about it in norwegian medias as well. About crime rates after gun bans, they have increased also in Britain after the gun ban.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F01%2F05%2Fdo0502.xmlI can only wish that the norwegian
apparatchiks and the
nomenklatura would allow the people to defend ourselves. Instead, we're actually supposed to let bad things happen, and then report the crime to the police later, who in turn will drop the case due to lack of fundings and manpower. However, if you decides to defend yourself, then the police WILL press charges, and you WILL be prosecuted. And usually, but luckily not always, you WILL recieve a sentence. So basically, for all practical purposes, what the law means, make sure no-one finds out about what you does...
When the state fails to protects it's citizens, and denies them to stand up for themselves, I will choose civil obedience.
Personally, I feel that everyone should have a silenced 22.lr available.
The police isn't all bad though, can't really blame them for following the politicians policies.
A friend was told by a police officer, if he happens to shoot and kill an intruder, he should fire a shot in the roof afterwards, so he could claim to have fired a warning shot. The forensics would have no way of knowing which shot were fired first.
