I hope they piss their pants. These elitist POSs can go unarmed if they want, but I'll exercise my options as I see fit. hangman
http://fingolfen.blogspot.com/2007/07.. ... rvous.html
The absolute worst nightmare of any gun control group is having the United States Supreme Court re-affirm that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution recognizes an individual right. Why? To understand that you need to understand some basic Constitutional law principles. First, the Constitution grants no rights to the People – it merely recognizes them and affirms that the government will not infringe on those rights. Rights “granted” by a government can be taken away by a government, and that is the last thing the Framers wanted to see. Second, if the Supreme Court (correctly) rules that the Second Amendment is an individual right – that places the Second Amendment back on the same legal footing as the First Amendment. In short, abridging an individuals right to keep and bear arms would become as Constitutionally abhorrent as saying someone couldn’t go to a Baptist, or a Lutheran, or a Mormon, or a Catholic Church.
In short, everything the gun control lobby has tried to do for the past half century unravels if the Supreme Court unambiguously states that the Second Amendment is an individual right as all of their arguments are based on some version of the “collective rights” misreading of the Second Amendment. The fear and shrillness is evident in the latest plea (for money) by the Brady Campaign:
“District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty announced this week that the District will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision in Parker v. District of Columbia — an assault on D.C. gun laws and one that could threaten every city's gun laws.”
They go on to state:
“We must prepare for a long hard battle. So much of what we have worked for in the past and everything we're currently working on could be destroyed by the heinous decision of right-wing activist judges who chose to ignore more than 60 years of precedent in order to help the gun lobby accomplish in the courts what it has been unable to accomplish in Congress.”
Well, at least they’re honest about one thing. If the U.S. Supreme Court rules according to Constitutional principle – everything they’ve worked for – every right they’ve trampled on – every illegal law they’ve worked to get passed – every lie they’ve told about firearms and firearm owners will come crashing down around their heads. Quite frankly that will be a banner day in Constitutional law when and if it comes to pass.
Looking at the rest of their inaccurate rhetoric, however, wow – “right wing activist judges”. That’s the pot calling the kettle black. Apparently their new strategy is one of if you can’t win on facts – lie. What the Brady Campaign won’t tell you is that it’s really that last 60 years of precedent that is activist. If you go back to Framer’s intent – you quickly understand that the Second Amendment was always seen as not only a fundamental right, but perhaps THE fundamental right affirmed by the Constitution. Consider the words of leading Federalist Noah Webster:
“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States”
Note that he says “because the whole body of the people are armed”. Not may be armed, not could be armed, not could be issued weapons in time of war, but ARE ARMED. Many other commentaries of the time make equivalent statements. In short, the Framers saw an armed American populace as the last, best defense against tyranny in this country – yet the Brady Campaign calls that view “twisted”. Apparently the Brady Campaign prefers a world where the individual is incapable of defending himself or herself from oppression, a world where the individual is incapable of defending himself or herself from criminals. Sounds like some Third World dictatorship, but certainly not America. It makes me wonder what sort of “Brave New World” the Brady Campaign wants to usher in.
As always I’ll be watching this one closely! Until next time!
Post anything and everything related to guns here...
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest