No, a shotgun (no sneer quotes) won’t fit in the nightstand. It will fit nicely behind the closet door or under the bed. Also, when loaded with birdshot, it’s much safer than a handgun. Would you shoot a handgun in a room with a loved one near by? If so, you’re either a crack shot, a fool or both.

A shotgun can take down a bad guy without the necessity to have to aim carefully. In the heat of the moment, it’s point and shoot. Also, the shot won’t make it through two layers of wallboard to kill a child or wife in the next room, or a neighbor in the next house.

The only problem you have with a shotgun is cleanup. It makes a real mess. The added bonus is that the sound of a shotgun slide racking is the most frightening sound a burglar can hear, so if you rack the slide, and wait a couple minutes, you may not even have to confront the bad guy.

‘Tis a pity it isn’t possible to go back in time and explain to the founding fathers how the defition of “militia” would be twisted in time and that it might be wise to leave that reasoning out. It wasn’t necessary to explain WHY other rights were enumerated and it should have been obvious why the right to bear arms exists.

“The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias.”

That unsupportable opinion has, at last, been eliminated as a possibility.

“… in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.”

Only if a) you agree that states have rights as opposed to powers given to them by the people, b) that the Bill of Rights enumerates the rights of the people with the inexplicable exception of the Second Amendment, and c) that you misinterpret the actual results of that decision.

“On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count.”

I see … you didn’t actually READ what the court decided or are incapable of understanding it. Your lack of an intelligent response is beginning to make sense.

“… they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.”

They have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to disarm you. How disarming you is supposed to protect you is unfathomable.

“We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact. People don’t have to go far beyond the city borders to buy a weapon that’s prohibited within the city.”

Where’s the “argument” about the effectivness of bans? They have limited impact and people can obtain firearms anyway, THAT’S your best argument?

“But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns.”

So another of your arguments FOR gun bans is that it’s OK to have and use one?

“… the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens.”

Have to agree with another’s response that the typical gun banner has no problem taking other public policy issues out of the hands of citizens, so where does this argument go?

“The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders.”

He got something right! That’s EXACTLY what it means.

That’s really rich.

The knife has become the weapon of choice now, and in many ways the threat of being sliced and diced is even more frightening than a gun threat, especially to the defenseless elderly.

Exactly, the Constitution limited the power of government, not the rights of the people.

No one has limited the power of the legislators to protect their citizens, you just have to do it in the boundries of the Constitution.

Like, isn’t that what the democrats (ie: socialists) have been screaming about since 911?