Gun Control and the Supremes

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:09:10 GMT  <== RKBA ==> 

L. Neil Smith at JPFO - commentary on DC v. Heller. Neil sees no reason to expect the nine nazgul to prevent the destruction of the right to keep and bear arms, hence the authority for the Constitution to exist, hence the very existence of the U. S. of A. [jpfo]

Despite the pathetic lies of ideological opponents to individual weapons ownership and the act of self-defense, what the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to express is abundantly clear. All that anybody needs to understand it is to put himself in their position.

Imagine that you (as one of the Founders) have just astounded the world -- and probably yourself, as well -- by defeating the biggest, richest, most powerful and ruthless empire that our species has ever witnessed, in your fight for independence from it. You were able to do this because all but the poorest household in your tiny country was armed with a straighter- and farther-shooting weapon than the enemy possessed.

The last thing on Earth you ever want to see is your children, or your children's children back under the thumb of that brutal tyranny. If Imperial armies can be beaten by private armament, you can answer the question yourself: what do you want the Second Amendment to mean?

And, as a Founder, would you really agree that a right like this, "necessary to the security of a free state", can be regulated by the very entity that it may become necessary to defend one's family against?

Would it even occur to you -- especially since the Revolution started when the government attempted to confiscate privately-owned weapons -- to write a Constitutional amendment guranteeing to the government, not the individual, the right to keep an bear arms? Precisely how stupid or crazy do gun prohibitionists think everybody is?

Add comment Edit post Add post