If the Supreme Court gets this case and clearly upholds gun ownership as a right, it should at least deflate the political battle by ruling that courts should use only the most limited scrutiny in challenging gun laws. Firearms ownership must be treated as much as a privilege as a right.
This is the same bulls*** argument our buddy Erwin tried to pull the other day, so it appears the talking points have been distributed. "Limited scrutiny," or a variant thereof, is the new mantra we can expect to see more of.
And no, you arrogant fools at The Monitor--my rights are not privileges dependent on your or anyone's approval, and to imply there is any Constitutional basis to make this so is quite simply a damnable lie.
The outrageous travesty that property rights have been eroded through treasonous precedents is more a benchmark for how far we have allowed the ideals of liberty to be degraded by collectivism; it's certainly no justification for spreading the cancerous erosion to other foundational supports of the Republic.
7 comments:
Spot on analysis David.
As I commented on your "The Wise Guy" article:
1894C said...
what they are doing is smart tactics. They are laying the groundwork for setting the level of scrutiny so that maximum infringement is still possible.
They have to get a large body of opinion out there before the SCOTUS hears the case to make such a case though.
I think we will see many more such articles in the weeks and months ahead.
--------
It seems this will be the drumbeat.
The next time someone tells you the slippery slope argument is nonsense; Remember how eroded property rights are being used to justify applying minimal scrutiny to the RTKBA.
Then tell them to stuff it.
I find it sadly ironic that the warped precedent used to abuse property rights is being used as a wedge to abuse the RTKBA.
Using one abused right as justification to abuse another surely is clear evidence of the motives of the gun control advocates.
What makes people think they will come out OK in the end if the gun banners get their way? I guess the hope is that the crocodile will eat them last.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
--Winston Churchill
And here's a potential I pointed out some time ago--don't remember when, don't have time to search the blog right now--but if guns are property and gun rights are property, we've seen how "eminent domain" is used to confiscate property when the state decides there is a public benefit...
Ah...here it is.
Ah yes the ole' compelling state interest....
How nice.
Compulsion is an immoral urge.
"shall not be infringed" reads as a general prohibition to me, unlike the 1A, where Congress is specifically mentioned as who may not make a aw against the rights listed therein. As far as I'm concerned, this "limited scrutiny" is as unconstitutional as an outright ban.
The very objects meant to be SECURED by instituting government to begin with. Are "Life", "Liberty" and "Property". "Together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can". If the government is failing in those ends. Then it is our right to alter or abolish it, and institute new government.
"Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants..."
How did the cop who went to the gun store during the Hollywood shootout get the rifle? He did not do it through normal channels.
Post a Comment