Supreme Court Humbly Permits You to Bear Arms
-
Finally, the unlawful gun ban in D.C. has been overturned and the right to bears arms is reaffirmed.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.
The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
One has to wonder why the Supreme Court even needed to address this. Does no one follow the constitution anymore? Of course not, in today’s society rewriting the rules as one sees fit is nothing new. The courts were right on this one but what about yesterday’s decision on the death penelty for child rapists? One right, one wrong I suppose.
A reminder:
Amendment II: Right to bear arms and militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There’s no fine print here. Citizens have the right to bear arms. Period. Let’s stop fiddling with the constitutional rights of every citizen. Any gun law is an unconstitution law. Michelle Malkin has this whole thing covered.
Bookmark and Share:
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Related Posts
Advertisement
2 Comments
Leave a Comment
Subscribe
Loading ...Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Tag Cloud
Plurk
Advertisement
I support:
Blogroll
- Blogs 4 Conservatives
- CNSNews.com
- Conservative Grapevine
- Conservative Punk
- Hot Air
- HUMAN EVENTS
- IMAO
- Instapundit.com
- Jeremy’s Conservative Blog
- Leslie Carbone
- littlegreenfootballs
- Michael Johns
- Michelle Malkin
- Neocon News
- NewsBusters.org
- NewsMax.com
- On The wRite Side
- Pajamas Media
- Redstate.com
- Right Pundits
- Right Wing News
- Rumblepack
- THE CONSERVATIVE POST
- The Conservative Voice
- The Daily Conservative Myspace
- The Issue
- The Tygrrrr Express
- Three Conservatives
- Townhall.com::Blog
- Up North Mommy
- Urban Conservative
June 27th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
You said:
“Any gun law is an unconstitution[sic] law”
I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. “Arms” 200 years ago is vastly different than today. The most advanced “arm” of the time could at best kill a few people and damage a building. Today, the most advanced arm can vaporize thousands and kill millions.
If we stipulate that the individual right to bear arms can be applied only to arms that an individual can bear, you’re still talking about grenade launchers, flame throwers, bazookas, silencers, explosives, teflon “cop killer” bullets, spent uranium armor piercing rounds, and so forth.
All rights do indeed have limits. There’s the oft-quoted statement that “you can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” as well as polygamy being outlawed in spite of genuine beliefs that they were/are (depending on the group) commanded by God.
Additionally, there’s the unanswered question of what does it mean to “infringe” on that right? Even the word itself is vague and defies specific application.
[Reply]
Patrick Britton reply on June 27th, 2008 5:32 pm:
The discussion was not if bazooka’s should be allowed. Perhaps my “any gun law” was too vague. I think it’s common sense to not allow such weapons. I digress, any gun law restricting lawful citizens from bearing reasonable guns is an unconstitutional law.
[Reply]