18 March 2008

The Supreme Court Will Make the Right Decision

I have faith that the Supreme Court will affirm what every one already knows, that the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right and that the D.C. Gun Ban will purged forever. It's the only logical decision they can make. There really shouldn't even be an argument. The Bill of Rights was and is a list of rights that the individuals in American are entitled to, it is a cut and dry, and plainly stated. Liberal hacks who interpret the Second Amendment as being only granted to those in "militias" are completely dishonest. It is indisputable that the Founders hammered out the Bill of Rights for individuals.

The Supreme Court took up the Heller case and it's sparked a debate. With the typical Leftwing nuts and the MSM on one side and level headed Americans on the other side. Here's the Liberal argument:

Justice John Paul Stevens noted that Congress and all but two states had focused the "right to keep and bear arms" on the militia, not on personal self-defense. It was seen "as the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense," he said.

But the court's liberal bloc did not appear to have the votes to uphold the law.

Uh-huh. So in Liberal's minds the right to bear arms to defend from an over reaching Federal Government (the same kind, ironically, that they seek to create) is a right of a militia in an effort to fight off or overthrow said government. Say....that was done once before....I think that militia was for...the Confederacy. Interesting view, moonbats.

So besides the handgun ban in D.C., the lawyers for the city said, "hey, people can still OWN a gun" but......

He said the Washington law should be upheld because it allows homeowners to have a disassembled rifle or shotgun at home, even while it bans small handguns.

Ah yes, a disassembled rife will come in very handy during a home invasion. I mean, should a criminal bust in your home, with an illegally owned handgun, and is pointing a gun at you, rest assured, in that brief moment, you move with Superman-like quickness to assemble said rifle, load it, and defend yourself.

Utterly ridiculous. It looks like the non-retarded members of the SCOTUS will prevail though:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. "In my view, there is a general right to bear arms" that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.

Most Americans believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding persons to "keep and bear arms." But the legal meaning of this provision remains in doubt. The high court has never invoked this right to strike down a gun law nor has it ruled that it protects a personal right to own a gun.

The left always goes off about how our rights are being taken from us when a Conservative movement in in control of any of the branches of government, but really, who assails our rights? The leftists are attempting to strip away the Second Amendment and the individual right that it grants us that is on equal footing to the First Amendment, as are the other components of the Constitution. I'm not going to make any bones about it, one area that was grossly abused by the Bush Administration was the illegal surveillance of American citizens on our own soil. The FISA argument is slightly different, as if we have a known terrorist calling into or out of the US, yes, we should be all over that. However, for intelligence gathering on US citizens, it is our right to have to have search warrants be granted before such action. The same can be said here.

The Second Amendment is an individual right that is granted to us by our Constitution, and here, we see the liberals once again assailing it. Think of their proposal for national health care. Does anyone not thing that giving the government full access to our medical records and telling us how and by what means we will receive care is not an erosion of our right? The government has no right to know our medical history and be able to dissect it. What then if a person had ever had mental health care administered? The government could easily strip them of their right to vote even if it was temporary or minor condition. We can not allow our individual rights to be usurped by a liberal populist movement who clouds their oppressive and Constitution eroding desires to be cloaked under the guise of "public good." We must recognize our rights, cherish them, and protect them at all costs.

On a lighter note, I was on the Communist News Network's (CNN) website and read a brief little update on the case much earlier in the day. Well, as always the morons at CNN didn't disappoint, and even brought a little ray of sunshine into my day:

Thirty-one states along with groups like the powerful National Rifle Association -- a gun rights lobby group -- support the gun owners. A handful of states such as Maryland, Massachusetts, Chicago, and San Francisco support Washington.

Classic leftist writings write there. First, they try to make the NRA seem like the boogeymen, which is entirely not true. Second, CNN makes sure that we know that the STATES OF CHICAGO AND SAN FRANCISCO are firmly against this. Proof read much? Or if they do, I wonder what it feels like knowing that the average first grader would have caught that major mistake. Gotta love the liberal media.

-Caomhin

1 comment:

JohnMcLachlan said...

"The Second Amendment is an individual right that is granted to us by our Constitution"

I disagree. Does the Constitution assign or confer every particular "right", or does a "right" exist, without being being specifically described in a written constitution? Does a "right" exist if it is not formally described or if one is unaware of it? If a constitution assigns a "right", then it's existence cannot be held to exist independently of the first accepted declaration thereof and may be abolished or revoked by a government at any time, provided the proper process is followed. However, if the constitution is merely a (partial) description or catalogue of "rights" which are intrinsic to a human being, then these "rights" can never be revoked, in principle. Prohibiting people from exercising their "intrinsic right" and punishing them for doing so is possible, but has no legitimacy other than the actual power of the parties attempting to do this violation of an "intrinsic right" of all human beings. If the constitution assigns "rights", then it may be considered that "rights" are arbitrary entities, subject to being revoked by an accepted process and their continued exercise thereafter being considered unlawful. If the constitution is merely descriptive, then no attempt by any party, government or private or any partisan group can remove the "right" from a human being and no court or majority opinion, in support of the violation of an actual "intrinsic right", can ever make the exercise of the "right" to be unlawfull, only potentially dangerous to exercise. In connection with the 2nd Amendment, does the constitution's wording matter? The right of all living creatures to defend themselves to the best of their abilities, is in my view, intrinsic. The abolishion of the "right" to bear arms is equivalent to the arbitrary assertion that a person does not have the "right" to defend himself and must submit to superior force, regardless of whether that force was itself lawfull or unlawfull.