As always, Mr. Sowell is clear and dead-on with his logic and consitutional ideas. Thank you for your excellent thoughts on the distinct political roles of the judiciary and the voters!

I do think Mr. Sowell has missed one point, though. The media's role is to sell beer and shampoo. They do this by peddling stories. The more interest they can generate in their stories, the more beer and shampoo they can sell.

With that in mind, you really can't expect the media to accurately report man/dog interactions if they have a man bites dog story to cover.

Feed the fear.

Perhaps one day The Supreme Court will read the 2nd amendment, and emulate the Swiss in requiring that our "well regulated militia" be armed by our citizens, to protect the country and themselves.

Good article. Points out the fact that the media has

to sell news, thats all it does. The people who went to colleges to be a reporter, journalist etc

have their eye on the prize not the facts of a story. I have never beleived in the gun control laws

nor have I abided by them since my discharge from the Corps. Throughout history gun control has been a tool of the gov't. to control the people. The gov't fears an armed people. An armed people took control of this country and made it what it is today, a free nation and only guns will keep it that way. Remember guns don't kill people, people kill people. Why do criminals always have guns and the law abiding citizen can't? I think we all know the statistics on lower crime rates etc, but thats only because people have stood up for themselves and defended themselves, rather than waiting for the police to show up and do the paper work. You can't put enough police in a community to stop crime

unless you resort to the pre- war germany gestapo.

I once helped build a county crime lab with morgue

and all the technology equipment, and the reception

waiting area was protected by bullet proof glass and

bullit proof sheet rock just incase of possible gang retaliations. The place was flooded with armed deputies, now how's that for crime control? Hang on to your guns at all costs, they may save your life.

It doesn't matter, the states and cities will ignore the ruling and pass laws anyway knowing most people don't have enough money to take the issue to court. If I had to make a guess, I think Barack Ali Bama, his thieves, and Oliver Wendell Holder will ignore the law also since they have given no indication they have respect for it anyway.

Mr. Sowell continues to earn my tremendous respect for his sobering, serious, mature assessments of issues like this one regarding gun control. He strips the political fat out of the rhetoric spewed forth by the mainstream media and the political pundits, and truly tells it like it is. It is preposterous that the supreme court is even voting in this matter let alone the fact that they are dangerously close to falling over the liberal brink.

Agreeing w/MARINE. A society whose citizens have guns to protect themselves has less crime. Simple logic: criminals dont want to be shot at, they want an EASY job.

Plus, we as a people will NEED to have guns in preparation for this commie in the white house. He has shown too many warning signs for comfort. My prediction, he's looking forward to and working toward a dictatorship in America. These actions of governmental control and redistribution of wealth set him up to control us. We CANNOT let this happen! So get your gun while you can and prepare for the worst.

Mr Sowell has produced some of the best summaries and commentary on politics in this country that I have read. It is unfortunate that is to intelligent to want to be president.

The observation that the media has different goals than providing balanced information is an important one. While my childern were growing up and we would watch television (together since we only had one TV in the house by design) I would ask them while we watched advertisements - "What is being sold". When they were younger they noted that the item was what was being sold - as they got older they noted that "other things" were being sold and teh idea was the product that they wanted you to buy would help you get "other things".

Here Mr. Sowell points out the same is true for the media information business. They really don't want to inform you - they want to entertain you under the guise of information [Think of all the NBC conglomerate news shows as being one gaint set of infomercials) hence the need for crisis and disaster to hold your attention. The best example i can point to this degeneration is to look at the Weather Channel since they were purchased by NBC. They went from science and weather to a glorified talk show with weather snippets "on the eights". And theya re still crying about teh crisis in teh gulf. The only crisis in the gulf is the amount of delay and barriers being activily pursued by the US government.

Thank you Mr. Sowell.

Who took away the right to make medical decisions or where to send our children to school? I make decisions about health care every year. I choose my insurance by the cost and benefits provided. My children went to private schools because I made a choice.

In Texas we are allowed to defend ourselves. Interesting that our right to bear arms stops at the metal detector at the capitol.

I wonder? With Hillary, AND OBAMA trying so hard to make the United States become a signatory to the U.N. "small arms treaty", which would throw out the 2nd Amendment, and make American citizens "subject to the whim of the U.N.", on laws concerning gun ownership, and since the Supreme court made their ruling to effect "every governmental entity", including all STATE, FEDERAL AND LOCAL government entities", would this ruling, in effect, prevent Obama, Hillary and the Senate, from agreeing to anything, that would place an impediment in the way of an American citizen from owning a gun under the 2nd amendment? Since the Senate, Obama and Hillary do qualify as "part of the Federal government", they SHOULD BE prohibited from signing this agreement, by the Mc Donald vs. Chicago ruling. Comments and an answer to this question would be appreciated.

Of the many disappointments our forefeathers would recognize today, perhaps the most surprising to them would be the failure of a free press to act as a disseminater of knowledge to keep an electorate informed, regarding issues of the day. Instead they would find lackeys who would be right at home in the employ of King George himself.

Mayor Daley can't see why any law-abiding Chicagoan would object to being disarmed by the City. After all, the Chicago Police Department has a flawless record of arriving at the scene of the crime in time to identify the victim's body.

I wish this American was "The Man" in the White House!

I wonder how many have actually read the 2nd Ammendment, as it was written, with word definitions as they existed at the time of writing and really came away understanding that THEIR whole understanding of just 'what was said' has been shattered.

The term 'regulated' also meant 'controlled' at the time, so let's look at this again. There was also a fear of a standing army due to the excesses of standing armies in Britain (and other restrictive nations) at the time. There was no standing army for the colonies, so they had to rely on militias which were necessarily constituted of the colonists themselves. Young militias needed to be controlled just as standing armies needed to be controlled in order to prevent excesses by themselves or at the behest of the governing power.

The Second Ammendment says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In the context of the day, we could say:

A well regulated (controlled) militia (standing army), being necessary to a free state, the right of the people (each and every one of us) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

1. Can you think of a better way to insure that the military power is 'controlled' (regulated) and not allowed excesses,

2. in order to maintain a 'free state'

3. Than to insure that, 'the right of the people (each and every one of us) to:

4. Keep (own) and bear (carry) arms,

5. SHALL NOT (in no way shape or form) be infringed (denied).

Now, where you see the word militia, or army, insert the words drug runners or gangs or the name of any other lawless group. Beginning to make sense? The founders knew exactly what they were saying and meant exactly what they said. No interpretation needed, by anyone.

What is so terribly hard about understanding this?

Of the many disappointments our forefeathers would recognize today, perhaps the most surprising to them would be the failure of a free press to act as a disseminater of knowledge to keep an electorate informed, regarding issues of the day. Instead they would find lackeys who would be right at home in the employ of King George himself.

I disagree on one very important point. You cannot repeal the people's right to keep and bear arms! This is a right that preceeds the Constitution and is therefore and inalienable right. G_d has given us the right to keep and bear arms--it cannot ever be repealed!

Tiny addition to Dad's (Wheeler's) comment above ^_^

A common argument used by gun-control advocates is related to the phrase "well-regulated militia". An unfortunate number of people seem to feel that the *correct* semantic interpretation of the phrase is that people should be well-versed or trained in the use of guns/weapons of all kinds for the purpose of raising and sustaining a militia, but that when said militia is not active, guns/firearms/weapons should be restricted and controlled. Common logic demonstrates a certain amount of idiocy inherent in this interpretation. In a time of war or other danger, with the constant risk that a proportion of the standing militia may be wiped out at any moment, do not the PEOPLE have the right, the duty, and the necessity (if they are to protect themselves, their homes, and their families) to take up arms as well, if only at the very least to replace losses of the militia or make up for any of its inadequacies? And how can they do THAT if they have been restricted, confined, over-regulated, and constricted literally to the hilt?

Clarence,

I just wish 'The Man' in the White House was American.

Of the many disappointments our forefeathers would recognize today, perhaps the most surprising to them would be the failure of a free press to act as a disseminater of knowledge to keep an electorate informed, regarding issues of the day. Instead they would find lackeys who would be right at home in the employ of King George himself.

How did you get so smart?

I have been reading numerous comments in the media about the SCOTUS second amendment ruling. Their opinions, which are all over the map but mostly anti gun, have little basis in fact. On most issues the facts support one side the other side supports itself with emotion and or shooting from the hip. If everyones comments are "saved and played back" in a couple of years the liberals will look like the ones who didn't do any research.

Your article is right on.

I was greatly pleased with the Supreme Court's Decision upholding the essence of our Constitution's 2nd Amendment and reminding the opponents of this amendment that no matter what tactic they take to destroy the People's Right to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment stands as written and that it means what it says. Thank you Mr. Sowell for again providing knowledge and reason to a manipulated public that is being constantly injected with the toxic self serving nonsense by the very well compensated and profitable, yet biased media. The truth will prevail as long as all of us stand together with resolve and and hold fast to our faith in God Almighty and in the Great Gift of Freedom God has given to all of We the People by the Founders of this great Republic. Self-serving amoral politicians will always be with us working hard to transform our country by taking away our personal freedoms and initiatives and replacing those great gifts with misdirected and vacuous utopian promises that will never stand the tests of time. If we allow the 2nd Amendment to be taken from us, it will be followed quickly by the 1st Amendment which is now under attack by the Liberal Progressives. The remainder of the Constitution will fall shortly thereafter.

Thank you, Dr. Sowell. I concur wholeheartedly with your logic. You've provided us with yet another outstanding example of your genius for cutting through the media hype and getting to the true heart of a contentious, complex political issue. I've been an admirer of your works for years. If you ever run for political office, you've got my support.

The U.S.Supreme Court voted 5-4 in the decision of McDonald vs. Chicago, and American citizens right to keep and bear arms for self defense. Chicago

has had a gun ban in existence for a long time, yet despite having a gun ban there is still crime and killing.Criminals will always be able to obtain firearms and gun bans make their job easier to attack on innocent and defenseless honest law abiding citizens. Chicago isn't the only city in this country that has strict or denying it's law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

Court cases have states that the police are not obligated to portect individual citizens, rather society as a whole.This is not meant to degrade or criticize police officers anywhere as they have a very tough job to do.

Interestingly the anti gunnners never mention enforcing the existing gun laws against those that choose to break the law using firearms. The anti gunners always use a shooting tragedy to further their agenda of eventually eliminating guns form our society. Their claim is that no guns would make things safer, what about the countries like England and Austrailia where guns are banned? Officials there cannot understand why there still is crime ?

The politcians that endorse,support and enact gun control laws and the anti gunners are responsible for the problem, as well as not putting those in jail that violate the law. The Second Amendment

was put behind the First Amendment for a reason.

Any attaempts to destroy, eradicate the 2nd or any other amendment should be looked upon with much contempt. It is good to see the vote but it would have been better with a majority voting agains the Chicago Gun ban.It is some good news.

Mr. Sowell how about a column on the Militia Act of 1792, which is still on the books. It was passed by the same Congress that ratified the Bill of Rights. Based upon the Militia Act, most citizens should have a M-16. Why isn't the Militia Act enforced?

Also why aren't the four justices that where in the minority impeached as they obviously were not following the Constitution?

I love this man!

Howard Last,

To my knowledge, Supreme Court Justices can't be impeached, it is a lifetime appointment whereby the only way a Justice can be removed is death, or, possibly, shaming him/her into resigning. The President can be impeached by the Senate, but, there is no provision in the Constitution for impeaching a Supreme Court Justice, as a result of the 'Separation of Powers' that failed to address this issue.

Obamas' VP, Joe Biden, led the charge on the last three attempts to take the right to keep and bear arms from the American citizenry. Obama now has Hillery working with her European counterparts, to tight America into some Mickey Mouse agreement, grossly limiting our 2nd Amendment rights (if not outlawing them, outright!) Be very afraid, as you have seen the "Regime" at work!!To Hell with the Constitution, to Hell with the Courts, Barry is gonna do his thing, and the voting public, be damned! It is a well-known fact that burgeoning Marxist governments, are really nervous about arms in the hands of the proletariat..Remember Russia & Germany??

Gordon and Howard:

Another unresolved issue with the Supreme Court and "separation of powers" is the bad precedent that Frankin D. Roosevelt set with his threats to "pack the Court".

If you recall, in the early 1930s, FDR and Congress passed the first of many laws producing projects and commissions to spend money, create entitlements, micromanage the economy, and make-work departments like the CCC and WPA. There were several challenges to these law that made their way to the Supreme Court and several of them were found unconstitutional for reasons that they overstepped the constitutional authority of Congress.

How did FDR respond? Since the Constitution does not explicitly state how many justices are on the Supreme Court, FDR threatened to "pack the court". In other words he threatened to appoint as many additional like-minded justices (who, of course, agree with his interpretation of the constitution) as required to overrule the other justices and rule his laws constitutional.

The Supreme Court responded by backing down and declaring his acts constitutional. FDR had just broken the back of the Supreme Court and "separation of powers" has been in jeopardy ever since!

To my knowledge, this issue has never been resolved. It serves as an open invitation to a power-grabbing president like Obama to try the same thing if the Court declares his laws unconstitutional.

This problem needs to be resolved, possibly with a simple Constitutional ammendment stating how many justices are on the Supreme Court, or a limit on the number of justices any single President can appoint. This must be a Constitutional provision to prevent it from being easily changed by a Congress sympathetic to the President.

I was in Switzerland years ago, and stayed with the retired Commander of the Swiss Tank Corps. While standing on his patio overlooking the Rhine River, The old man told me that all men in Switzerland were required to take military training, and each and every household has firearms, owned by the country, but kept in working order by the part-time soldiers, who were required to go on active duty, at least two weeks per year, to brush up their skills. Switzerland is known historically as a neutral nation, but I found these facts to be refreshing...

Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776,

Article XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

How on earth are we ever to understand the intentions of the Founding Fathers, when they put forth such declarative, outstanding documents explaining exactly what they were? That 4 Supreme Court Justices remain willfully ignorant of the origins of our Constitutional Rights is nothing less than despotism. The militia is composed of the body of the people, not the National Guard. It's simple English, it's not ObamaCare gobbledygook. There's no commissions, no Congressional panels, no municipal review boards, it is "the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state". Opponents of the right to keep and bear arms are either opponents of a free state, or of a free citizenry. Never forget that. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?

Mr. Sowell,

Nicely put!

Just a couple of remarks about some of the comments.

Federal judges including Supreme Court Justices can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors", the exact meaning of which has changed over time and is the source of some controversy.

In the 18th century "well regulated" had nothing to do with regulation. A well regulated militia was one that could coordinate movement on the battlefield and provide disciplined fire on command. A well regulated militia was something other then a rag-tag, undisciplined armed mob. The term has fallen out of fashion, but before the advent of quartz watches, the face of many well constructed precision watches would be labeled "Well Regulated" referring to the watches precision movement.

Sir why in the name of God were you not President

other than that Kenyon idiot..He may be very [free collage] smart but no working ability to manage the office..Obama is like the dog chasing a car .once he has caught it he can't figure out what to do with it..

Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776,

Article XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

How on earth are we ever to understand the intentions of the Founding Fathers, when they put forth such declarative, outstanding documents explaining exactly what they were? That 4 Supreme Court Justices remain willfully ignorant of the origins of our Constitutional Rights is nothing less than despotism. The militia is composed of the body of the people, not the National Guard. It's simple English, it's not ObamaCare gobbledygook. There's no commissions, no Congressional panels, no municipal review boards, it is "the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state". Opponents of the right to keep and bear arms are either opponents of a free state, or of a free citizenry. Never forget that. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?

People, would the para-military groups throughout the country be a well regulated malitia? They seem to have training regularly and fire discipline, and function as a unit. These are the groups the gov't. has been trying to get rid of for years. Remembe OK city, waco tx., ruby ridge? These were the reasons the gov't. used to find and get rid of these groups. I'am a well regulated malitia for I have had training in various areas of the military, especially in marksmanship and can function well in a military setting on or off the battlefeild. Can I declare myself a malitia?

Mr. Sowell, you speak the truth. I am afraid that liberal justices and the liberal media will never again be true to what their job descriptions might list as their duties and responsibilities, i.e., deciding cases based on the rule of law rather than personal bias and opinion, and reporting the unbiased and unvarnished truth, respectively. As a member of the voting public, I must be responsible to research answers to my questions, carefully considering the sources so that I can make an informed decision (which should be the standard anyway, but herd mentality, unfortunately, prevails). Though the "media's job should be to give us the information to make up our own minds, not slant and filter the news to fit their vision," I fear we are long past that ideal ... or were we ever really there in the first place? Probably not.

Having followed and studied, over many years , the dialogue by our Elected Few and the special interest groups and individuals attacking the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, it has become clear to me that the underlying reason for such vicious and continued attacks is very cleverly disquised under the banner of "Public Safety". Most who are ignorant of the Constitution and of the Rights which the Constitution protects for We the People and who are easily led by hype and lies abundantly provided by the attacking special interests through an amoral media and many Elected Few, are easily caught in the web of deceit and deception and become proponents of the "Public Safety" doctrine as concerns the people's right to bear arms.

A people who can not defend themselves against crime, evil and tyranny become dependent and controlled by the greater force of those who seek to control the limits of fredom of a free people for reasons serving their own special and self interest. Most often those forces are silently and stealthly driven by greed and power associated with aquiring greater wealth at the expense of the people who live every day believing that they control their own lives. The silent stalkers (for lack of a better word, "The Elite") are dedicated to the cause of maintaining their nobility ,their wealth and their power and their growing control over the people. Globally, they have been successful in their mission of gaining world dominance in every country except the United States. We the People, of this country, enjoy the last remaining Constitutional Republic in the world. We still have the right to defend our selves against harm and danger brought upon us by criminals, domestic and foreign (the 2nd Amendment), and the tyranny of our own government (the right to vote). We have many of our Elected Few who strongly advocate the "Public Safety" doctrine in their actions, legislative proposals and public statements and are unchanging in their committment to ban all guns in the United States. This comes from the Left. Look in Chicago or New York, or in California or in Wisconsin of in Massachusetts or in New York State.

The battle is raging and the Silent Stalkers are not going to go away. The recent Supreme Court Decision will continue to be defied by those special silent interests through our Elected Few who have been heretofore obviously obedient to such influences. A free people can not and will not be controlled by anyone or any thing. Those things we can count on.

Mr. Sowell is a genius. However, he mistakenly began his article with this statement,"Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the Second Amendment to the Constitution means that individual Americans have a right to bear arms,..." SCOTUS has decided nothing!, in this case they have no power to decide!, they have merely reaffirmed the obvious truth. We must be careful of our wording, because we too often allow the Left to define issues, which would otherwise not exist---same-sex marriage???, pro-choice??? don't ask, don't tell??? the list unfortunately goes on & on, & we allow them to set the parameters of the debate by complacently adapting their terminology. How about perversity, murder, depravity. for the 3 above?

Gordon and Garry Check Article 3, Section 1. ". . . The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, . . ." This is the authority to impeach. It has been used several times for judges of the inferior courts.

A government "of the people, by the people and for the people" has no reason to fear an armed populace. A dictatorship [I would have said 'socialist dictatorship' - but that would be an oxymoron] has a great deal to fear a citizen who is armed.

With that in mind, we Americans need to answer three questions to clarify the infringements on the Second Amendment that have been ongoing and relentless as a matter of Progressive liberal policy.

The first question is: Is the Federal government becoming more or less powerful as time goes by?

Two: Will the power grab stop before a de-facto dictatorship is reached?

Three: Historically there has never been a socialist dictatorship that allowed its citizenry to 'keep and bear arms'. Will the 'American dictatorship' (if it gets that bad) stick with its Constitution and break with history?

If it does, we can all go back to sleep.

If it does not ...happy nightmares!