Online users
???: Message   

Slapping the ipstink lefty upside his haid:
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

11/11/2017, 15:29:09

Author Profile Mail author Edit




sandiegouniontribune.com

Supreme Court created America’s guns crisis


U-T Letter writers



First
of all, there’s nothing wrong with the Second Amendment. James Madison,
who wrote it, set the “right to keep and bear arms” in this context: “A
well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
state.”

Clearly, the founding fathers were thinking Minutemen, not National Rifle Association fanatics or maniacs with AK-47 knockoffs.

The Second Amendment is 27 words long. In 2008, a five-man majority of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Antonin Scalia,
who famously loved shooting little birds, decided to simply ignore
those first 13 words and make the “right” to own and misuse guns
virtually universal. It is these justices: Scalia, John Roberts,
Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito, who have turned
America into the gun-mad killing ground we live in today. Scalia, of
course, wrote the disastrous opinion.

There’s nothing wrong with the Second Amendment, except the decision, by five arrogant jurists, to deliberately misread it.

Ron Bonn

Tierrasanta









Yet again we hear a smug oration delivered from atop a soapbox of ignorance.

D.C.
v. Heller (2008) didn't 'create' anything. The fact is that the public
understanding of the people's right to bear arms dates linearly back to
the founding era, and can best be described by Thomas Jefferson's
synopsis:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only
those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such
laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;
they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas
Jefferson

Times change, but the principles of natural law don't.

Jefferson's
analysis clearly illustrates the public understanding of the people's
right to bear arms, i.e. that the government should not and cannot be
permitted to materially deny the right.

In 1939, liberal legal
academics (and their enthusiastic cohorts in the media) embarked on a
propaganda campaign to tout a revisionist interpretation of the U.S. v.
Miller ruling, positing that the Court had held that the Second
Amendment protected only a 'right' to bear arms in a militia.

Justice
Scalia, writing for the Court in D.C. v. Heller (2008) in response to
Justice Stevens's ridiculous regurgitation of this folderol, said:
"Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that.
. . Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible
for Second Amendment protection[.] . . Miller stands only for the
proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature,
extends only to certain types of weapons."

Grammatically, the
liberal straw man is false on its face. The subordinate clause (i.e. the
"militia clause") merely announces the purpose for the written
guarantee. It does not create the right, nor does it place any
conditions upon it. The operative clause assumes the right as
preexisting and of the people (not the states' governments), and
declares it sacrosanct. Generically, it can be paraphrased thus:
"Because of THAT, we are guaranteeing THIS." THAT /= THIS. They are
distinctly different things.

James Madison was a meticulous wordsmith, and this grammatical structure is no mistake.

While
I realize that this will fall on deaf ears, I beseech the Left to stop -
just STOP - this perpetual lying, disingenuous, ideologically-motivated
nonsense. The people have a natural, fundamental right to keep and bear
their own private arms, immediately available for lawful use in
self-defense, in public and with (very) few limitations, everywhere
else.





LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Modified by TEEBONE at Sat, Nov 11, 2017, 20:07:03


Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page