Personal ruminations on SCOTUS and the 2A

Well I guess the black-robed wizards of the Supreme Court are considering a second amendment issue today. In light of the Heller vs. DC ruling (that gun rights are vested in the individual rather than the militia) lots of new legal challenges have sprung up around the country. Today’s case is whether the 2A applies to states and municipalities.

How silly.

Either I have the right to keep and bear arms… or I don’t.

The plainly written and clear meanings found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been steadily subverted over the years by lawyers and judges that tell us that UP means DOWN and RIGHT means WRONG. The most glaring example I can think of is the right to privacy that the in-Justices found years ago when they ruled on Roe vs. Wade. The word “privacy” doesn’t even appear in either of these documents, but the Wizards of Law tell us they’re there nonetheless.

Yet we have crystal clear verbiage from the Founders that culminates with the phrase “shall not be infringed”, and I still see infringement on my 2A rights everywhere I look!

It doesn’t say infringements are okay if “within reason”. But there are thousands and thousands of gun laws in every direction covering what kind of gun you can own, who can possess guns, where you can carry guns (or can’t), who can buy guns, how many you can buy in a given period, etc. And usually the anti-gun camp claims to only want “reasonable” restrictions.

I also hear a lot from both the Pro and Anti side of the debate about “sporting purpose”. Who dreamed that up? What the hell is “sporting purpose” and tell me how it’s relevant or where it appears in the 2A?

There’re a lot of things in this world I don’t know. But there are a few things I DO know and no amount of propaganda or coercion will EVER sway my opinion on the following truths:

1. The Second Amendment was written to make it clear that government power has its boundaries, and the citizenry would forever have the means to enforce those boundaries if government should forget them.

2. The right to defend myself and my family (and not just in my home) is what the Founders called an unalienable right. That is to say it is a Natural Right that supersedes all Human authority.

3. Many people cry and wring their hands over what effect some piece of gun regulation is going to have over their lives. That includes many so-called “gun people”, because they know that whatever laws come down the pipe, they’re going to obey them.

4. My line in the sand is citizen disarmament. And it’s not drawn in sand, it’s drawn in stone. The rotten, corrupt scumbags that pretend to be our masters can write whatsoever laws they like. But when it comes to legislating my right to keep and bear arms, they are on IGNORE mode where I am concerned.

My final word on the topic is simply this: No one needs to fear me if they have no plans to hurt me or my family, or they have no intentions to rob me of God-given liberties like the right to keep and bear arms. But putting my rights, my person, or my family in peril will draw a most vigorous response from me. Of that I can guarantee!


dakotas5 said...

They have also decided ANY penetration is RAPE. What part of that don't they understand?

Rev. Paul said...

Hear, hear! Well said, sir. I've made the same speech to my family and friends.

Did it MY way said...

I agree....Please don't try to them unless you bring body bags. You will need them.

See Ya

Vanadium said...

Amen. Who cares what the Constitution says, because it doesn't say it loud enough for the politicians to hear it.

God indeed gave us our lives, and thus the right to defend our lives with the best means in existence. That right is independent of anthing any black-robe, document, politician or anyone with a shiny badge says about it.

God gave us all of our rights. No mere mortal gave us any of our rights! Therefore, no man can take away our rights. The most they can do is infringe our rights.

To any who would infringe our rights: Steer clear.

sofa said...

Since all of us can read the plain language of 2A - Isn't this really a test of the Supreme Court adhering to their oath?

As all laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void (John Marshall,SCOTUS, Marbury vs Madison 1803)... Do not Courts and Governments which act in a manner repugnant to the Constitution make themselves Null and Void?

As SCOTUS can declare laws null and void, the role of the people is to determine if/when the Court and/or the Government acts contrary to the agreement constituted among men. "It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Does the government still hold to the agreement, plainly worded and instituted among Men? Or do they ignore it, nullifying the agreement, thereby nullifying themselves?

We watch and we wait.