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

Why Don't Democrats Want Voters to Show ID?

You would think it's a no brainer that an individual who identifies himself as being Mr. X would have to prove they are, in fact, Mr. X. It's a pretty logical, and basic assumption. Then again, it's hardened Moonbats we are talking about here, and nothing is ever basic, easy, or logical with them. According to the hardened Liberal, having to show an ID is a violation of an individual's rights, and under no circumstances, ever, must you have to prove who you are in order to vote, even going so far as to the Supreme Court in order stop people from having to prove who they are. Does this make any logical sense at all?

They claim that this unfairly disenfranchises people, which is preposterous. People could get ID cards from any state institution or verifying place such as a bus station. Now should you have to show ID in a town of 50 people where everyone knows each other? No, of course not. However, if you live in a large setting where a great deal of people live and not everyone is on a first name basis, then yes, you should. Now why wouldn't Democrats want people to identify who they are in largely populated areas where they have a majority of registered voters where only about 40% of the people registered to vote actually show up to vote; and with multiple polling locations where workers wouldn't recognize them at the next station should they choose to wander over to a second or third location and simply say they are another person? Hmmmm....

-Caomhin

The Second Amendment Challenge is Frightening

Really, I'm quite sure the Supreme Court will find in favor of what our founders had in mind in regards to our Second Amendment when they take up this case. D.C. has subverted our laws for quite sometime now, and I'm confident that they will lose this case, and lose harshly. The one escape clause that the Supreme Court has and could utilize is that D.C. is not a state and is therefore not subjected to the wording of the Second Amendment which does include the word of "state" directly in its context. I, however, don't think they would take the case just to reinforce the fact that D.C. is not a state in the union. What's at stake here is whether individuals or state approved militias have the right to hold arms. Should be a no-brainer. It's apparent that the rights of individuals are what the founders had in mind in the Bill of Rights. It's a fallacious argument to say that founders felt that individuals did not feel that individuals should be allowed to possess arms as that is exactly what allowed them to overcome the British government in the cause of gaining America's freedom. It wasn't exactly a decision that was made from the colony's legislature that allowed those residing within the state to take up arms to overthrow the Brits. I'm confident the government will see it this way. As if a harbinger of things to come, even the leftist leaning PA legislature threw our Rendell's pathetic attempts to pass the buck on his horrific executive skills in enforcing laws that has resulted in outlandish murder totals in his only interest, the city of Philadelphia, by attempting to strip PA residents of their rights to bear arms. I'm confident in this one. It's something amazing that the two appointees that President Bush got on the Supreme Court will help us to keep the rights we have had since our founding in the face of the Socialist Left-Wing onslaught. Thank you President Bush.

-Caomhin