Although I don't have any handguns or rifles in my own home, the right of the individual to own such weapons has always been thought to be a right under the Constitution wherein it states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  

On Thursday, the 26th of June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gun ownership by individuals who want such weapons for protection.  This decision marked the first time that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the individual's right to own guns, not just the right of the states to maintain militias.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his writing of the 5-4 decision, stated that the Constitution does not have the right of "Absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."  Furthermore, Scalia stated that the nation's capital went too far in controlling the sale of handguns to the point that they made it almost impossible for an individual to possess a handgun for their own protection.

However, the Supreme court warned that the individual's right to possess a handgun for the "traditional lawful purpose" of protection in the home is not unlimited.  "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Justice Scalia stated.

This landmark ruling of the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's 1976 law, which made it practically impossible for an individual who resides within the District to own a handgun, and even spelled out how weapons that were legally owned should be stored.

What do you think of this recent ruling by the Supreme Court?  Do you think that American's have a right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution to own handguns, shotguns, and like weapons and store them in their homes for their own protection?  What about the criminal element?

---Posted by Dan Calloway

The U.S. has been spoiled for many years by having the luxury of not paying as much as everyone else in the world for fuel, with the possible exception of the Saudi's. When I lived in Bermuda in the early 90's, unleaded 87 octane petrol fuel cost $1.25 per liter. This equates to approximately $5.00 per gallon, US. Today, Spain is paying an equivalent of $9.00 per gallon, US for their petrol fuel. It is only now that the U.S. is realizing that the low petrol fuel prices that we have enjoyed over the last several decades is fast-becoming a thing of the past. My prediction is that 87 octane petrol fuel prices will continue to rise in the U.S. to the $5.00-per-gallon level by the end of July, and to over $7.00 per gallon by the end of the Summer.

There is no excuse for diesel fuel to cost as much or more than petrol fuel, however. Oil refineries don't have to expend as much effort to extract diesel fuel from crude oil as they do to produce petrol fuel or aviation fuel, for instance. Diesel is manufactured much farther down the "cracking tower" than petrol fuel. Therefore, diesel fuel should logically cost less to manufacture and less to purchase by the trucking and farm industry. Then, why does diesel cost more than petrol fuel? The reason is quite simple: big oil companies have artificially reduced the supply of diesel, which has artificially increased the price (supply & demand) in the market place so they can produce higher-than-normal profits for the company. These rising costs of diesel are being passed on to consumers in the higher prices we pay for heating, cooling, food, and other consumer goods that are traditionally trucked across the U.S. from point of embarkation to warehouse and then to retail outlets. This will not change in the foreseeable future. What then can be done to help alleviate the burden on Americans?

I think it is high time that the U.S. reconsider its ban on building nuclear reactor sites for the purposes of generating electrical energy. The last time the U.S. built a nuclear power plant was following the near-nuclear-disaster of "Three-Mile Island" in 1979. Albeit a tragedy, the mistake that occurred there is preventable today where it wasn't as preventable then. Building more nuclear power plants in the U.S. would mean that the crude oil that is currently converted into industrial uses for heating, cooling, and the like, could be used to make more petrol and diesel fuels instead, thus increasing the supply of these fuels and reducing the overall costs. The nuclear power plants would be able to produce much more electrical energy than conventional crude oil-producing power plants, and much cleaner. The U.S. public should demand that Congress investigate the crude oil industry and hold them accountable to the people and make them justify the unbelievable profits that are being reported.

While more crude oil is being diverted to producing greater quantities of petrol and diesel fuel, the U.S. should then step up its research & development efforts in developing synthetic fuels or moving away from combustible fuels altogether and developing alternative means of transportation, harnessing electrical power or hydrogen. The days of the combustion engine are numbered. It is time that the U.S. decides to become less dependent on foreign oil and more dependent on alternative non-crude-oil means of industrial manufacturer and transportation. --Posted by Dan Calloway