It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.
Freedom is slavery...where have I heard that before?
It's been well over a decade. I guess I won't hold my breath waiting for an admission that they were wrong...
5 comments:
You read the opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens: [The majority five Justices] "would have us believe ... the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
Yes, exactly. Limit them to ZERO.
If a Supreme doesn't -- or WON'T -- get it (the "freedom" thing), he gives people throughout society an "expert" to point to. They will. With what results for freedom?
For "civil liberties"?
I have a list of quotes that I add to nearly daily. Many of them come from Straightarrow and Defender, such as:
Knowing how corrupt the system is, why would anyone submit to a trial?
This will all end in blood. I see no other future for the former United States of America. And I'm an optimist.
I need to find and join a local militia.
You'll be an asset anywhere, g.
And thanks for the compliment.
Some people can turn a phrase; some can turn a rifle barrel on a lathe; some can turn a man-size target to a sieve at 600 yards.
The most important thing, which EVERYONE can do, is to simply turn up.
the article says
"To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government."
I'm 33 and have never heard this wild interpretation of the simple, unambiguous 2nd.
The Court's willingness to recognize a new right to bear arms was not matched by a willingness to enforce the fundamental right to vote.
A new right??? Even ACLU lawyers can't be that obtuse.
Post a Comment