Guns = Legal
SUPREME COURT FINALLY UPHOLDS INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
FITSNews – June 26, 2008 – Although it’s been a part of our Bill of Rights for over 200 years, the U.S. Supreme Court finally clarified today that individual Americans can in fact keep and bear arms. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down a strict District of Columbia gun control law and reaffirmed that the ownership of firearms by individual citizens is Constitutional.
While the Second Amendment pretty clearly states that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” the grammar police nonetheless got together with the liberal PC police about seventy years ago and began arguing that the amendment’s opening declarative clause “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” prohibited individual gun ownership.
Today, that argument was finally rebuked, although the fact that four out of nine Supreme Court Justices think that our Bill of Rights is some malleable assortment of “suggestions” subject to revisionist political correct bullshit is kinda frightening.
Somewhere, Charlton Heston is smiling. And he should be. But the closeness of this vote only underscores the thin thread by which our Constitution is hanging.
Comments
By Earl Capps on June 26th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
When you said “revisionist political correct bullshit”, I think that is an understatement.
When Justice Scalia cited “the historical narrative” of firearms being used to secure life, property and liberty, both from free-market thugs and government thugs, he hit on a truth that was vindicated at Kings Mountain in the 18th century, as well as in the Sunni parts of Iraq in the 21st – the defense of liberty rests in the hands of citizens, not governments.
Scalia and four others stood the side of those who believe that this historical narrative remains as relevant and vital today as when the Second Amendment was adopted.
Charlton Heston should be smiling, you’re so right, as is anyone else who believes in the importance of our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.
Perhaps you should celebrate the First and Second Amendments with pictures of girls WITH guns?
By Crooner on June 26th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
A red-letter day for gun lovers. I’m tempted to go out and buy me one so I can attempt to take it into schools, government buildings, and Federal Court houses to test the “bear” section of the 2nd Amendment. Because clearly “bear” means hold in your grubby little hands, doesn’t it? And not allowing me to do what I have suggested obviously infringes upon my rights.
By CL on June 26th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Crooner,
If you had read the opinion, you would know Scalia addresses this very concern. Of course, you are more interested in belittling the holding than debating its merits.
By Mrs. Kravitz on June 26th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Yeah, Crooner.
By Silence Dogood on June 26th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
While I fully support the majority holding today of the
Supreme Court as well as the policy of individual rights to bear arms – the 2nd Amendment is actually a much more radical idea than most people give it credit for being.
Crooner comment is actually worthy of note, reasoning being that despite the fact that THIS decision clearly delineated that this ‘right’ could be abridged in certain places like school and government buildings, Crooner very clearly shows just how easy it is for anyone’s argument (i.e. those who supported the decision and the policy like me) to fall into the camp of thinking that the “Bill of Rights is some malleable assortment of ’suggestions’ subject to revisionist political correct bullshit .” After all the Supreme Court’s decision today is not the Constitution only the words written in the 2nd Amendment are the Constitution, and while I am very well aware of the effect of the rulings of the Supreme Court on intepretation of the Constitution, isn’t it worth considering that everything added by the Court is nothing but “malleable assortment of ’suggestions’ subject to revisionist political correct bullshit .”
Obviouly when you and me brother agree with the court….well then “finally they got one right, hoooo raaay for justice!” But when we disagree with the courts it is almost assuredly “legalistic, parcing of words, activist (read liberal) judges, living in an ivory tower, juding the issues of our lives on technicalities.”
By enemy_at_the_gates on June 26th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Even a foolish person who examines the line of time for ‘civilization’ will be presented with the cold clear fact that participatory power sharing between the rulers and the ruled did not occur until two events and one singular condition existed: Printing of the Bible – Invention of Gunpowder – and a New World separated from the old by geographical circumstance.
This concept of individual self government where the people are ‘endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights’ equal and unquestionable did not spring forth when it did without reason. (You don’t have to be a Christian to agree with the notion of INDIVIDUAL free will. It was not the Koran that the founding fathers were reading in addition to Plato’s Republic.)
To assume that the people in all of the ages of this earth who lived prior to 1776 submitted to royalty or tyrants because of satisfaction or cowardice is intellectually naive. This new nation came into being because the means coincided with the concepts of the Enlightenment.
Even the most powerful king, chief, or dictator understands the usefulness of negotiation when confronted with an armed citizenry that makes two things clear:
#1) citizens are willing to kill to secure certain rights and
#2) that they, the citizens, are willing to die in the process.
If this nation is to remain free for future generations, the rights of the people to arm themselves is much more than merely a right to be exercised. It is a necessity to freedom that the means of securing all the rights of individual man and self government be obvious and openly apparent to all who govern.
I would suggest that On this Fourth of July, that we all should review our early American history and World Civilization. If we do, we’ll find that our position to speak our minds freely [read:Blog] owes much to the right to bear arms and the threat of death to tyrants provided only by a ‘culture of guns’ in the hands of ordinary people who are free.
CONCLUSION:The only thing that should be feared more than ordinary citizens who have the freedom to arm themselves is an armed government who is the only one who possesses arms.
By Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) on June 26th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
sic(k) willie, what impact will this have on your right to possess a gun?
You have blogged about your possession of a gun since your CDV conviction. Check out 18 U.S.C., 922(G)(9) regarding possession of a firearm after conviction of a crime of domestic violence.
Better find a way to (legally) get rid of that “piece” b4 the Boyz from Charlotte catch you. Just friendly advice. Even though it’s just a 22.
BIN News Editorial Staff
P.S. Earl, don’t tempt sic(k) willie into posting more girly pictures. He has already posted so much porn that schools are blocking him.
By Scooter Libby's Lawyer on June 27th, 2008 at 5:03 am
yeah, this is such a great decision. I can’t wait for same morons who support this to commence with the hand wringing when we start seeing the increase in dead police officers …because, you know, everyone should have the right to own a machine gun.
By CL on June 27th, 2008 at 6:31 am
#7,
Speaking of morons, you obviously don’t know that it has been statistically shown that violent crimes decrease when gun ownership rises and concealed carry laws are implemented. DC has had a handgun ban for 30 years and it is the murder capital of the world. So please, explain to us bitter morons (to synthesize your views with the Democratic presidential candidate’s) how spreading these bans will make us safer. Also, since you are so much smarter than those of us clinging to our guns, I expect you know it is a federal offense (that means it is illegal everywhere in the country) for felons to possess firearms. So the only people who are prevented from acquiring guns under the DC ban were law abiding citizens.
By CL on June 27th, 2008 at 8:02 am
My previous post was in response to #8, not #7. In my defense, I, and those like me who have actually read the 2nd amendment, am a moron as #8 has so convincingly argued.
By Einstein on June 27th, 2008 at 10:12 am
BIN’S STALKING M.O.=DONNIE MYERS’ STALKING M.O.
By Sen. Cathy on June 27th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Hey BIN, can he post some of me? Please, please, please?!?