Sunday, June 29, 2008

The Common Sense Definition of the Second Amendment Reigns Supreme (Finally)

The recent decision by the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices only emphasizes the obvious, that the 2nd Amendment refers to an INDIVIDUAL right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

The fact that four of the justices refuses to see that only goes to show that just because a person wears a black robe and has a law degree does not necessarily mean they’re intelligent or even have much common sense. Perhaps they, like many elected officials and public “servants” fear that if they go too far they may find themselves on the wrong end of a citizen’s firearm. A more foreboding thought is that they INTEND to eventually go too far, and impose laws and regulations that no free person would tolerate.

One has to be simple-minded and cowardly to deny that the Founders recognized the God-given right for INDIVIDUALS to be armed and that the right did not refer to a standing army. Standing armies, either military or civilian (as in civilian police agencies) are organizations that would be used to enforce the directives of a tyrannical government, and the type of organizations an armed citizenry would have to defend against.

In all the other places in the Bill of Rights where rights of the “people” are mentioned, it refers to an individual right. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, etc. was not referring to a collective right, nor was the right to free speech referring to the right of the government to put out their propaganda unopposed.

The Los Angeles Times published an editorial shortly after the ruling, claiming the Supreme Court “…opted for the interpretation less suited to a 20th century America bedeviled by “gun” crime”. Apparently in some crime-ridden areas of this Country firearms are victimizing people without the need of a criminal hand to guide them.

The editorial also claims the court went against the “majority” and “traditional” (i.e. the wrong) interpretation of the amendment. The interpretation they’re referring to is only held by anti-gun, anti-self defense extremists.

Of course, the anti-gun eunuchs are claiming that because the law-abiding people of Washington D.C. (all two dozen of them) will now be allowed to arm and defend themselves gun violence will increase. Perhaps, but the only increase will be the violence done to criminals by their intended victims, which most people, other than liberals will see as a good thing.

It’s interesting to note that while the anti-gun zealots want to disarm law-abiding citizens, they always snivel and whine to no end when someone suggests we should actually punish criminals more severely.

But as Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.




Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home