Sweet Mother Of Pearl But I'm Tired

I can remember driving from Manhattan to Miami in 19 hours, and I thought it was only yesterday. Hell no, it wasn't even yesterdecade so who am I kidding. Anyway, I'm even more punchy than usual, but in decompressing and checking the news I came across this tidbit from Miss George Will:

"When Madison and others fashioned the Bill of Rights, they did not merely constitutionalize - make fundamental - the right to bear arms. They made the Second Amendment second only to the First, which protects the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and worship. They did that because individual dignity and self-respect, which are essential to self-government, are related to a readiness for self-defense - the public's involvement in public safety. Indeed, 150 years ago this month, in the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney said that one proof that blacks could not be citizens was the fact that the Founders did not envision them having the same rights that whites have, including the right to "keep and carry arms."

Increasingly, however, some constitutional scholars and judicial rulings argue that several restraints the Bill of Rights puts on government can be disregarded if the worthiness - as academics or judges assess that - of government's purposes justifies ignoring those restraints. Erwin Chemerinsky, professor of law and political science at Duke University, argued in The Washington Post last week that even if the Second Amendment is correctly construed as creating an individual right to gun ownership, the D.C. law should still be constitutional because the city had a defensible intent (reducing violence) when it annihilated that right.

Sound familiar? Defenders of the McCain-Feingold law, which restricts the amount, timing and content of political campaign speech, say: Yes, yes, the First Amendment says there shall be "no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." But that proscription can be disregarded because the legislators' (professed) intent - to prevent the "appearance" of corruption and to elevate political discourse - is admirable.

If the Supreme Court reverses the appeals court's ruling and upholds the D.C. gun law, states and localities will be empowered to treat the Second Amendment as the D.C. law does - as a nullity. This will bring the gun-control issue - and millions of gun owners - back to a roiling boil. That is not in the interest of the Democratic Party, which is supported by most ardent supporters of gun control."

George of course won't say how HE frickin feels about the subject, and isn't that swell. Truth of the matter is, and how long have we been saying this...is that to be a MODERN Republican one refrains from speaking of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution because it's just soooooo 1800's. Don't believe me? Check the flabby, overweight, humongous blogs that proclaim their Conservatism from dawn to dusk, and count the right to bear arms stories. All along you've been clicking in, maybe even supporting their advertisers, and guess what?

Yeah, they're RINO's. They think that because they bitch about taxes and welfare this makes them Conservatives, but it certainly DOES NOT. It makes them greedy fat cats who couldn't tell you the difference between a modified Weaver and a Jordan, that's if they deigned to bring up the subject at all because they're flat-out ashamed about all this gun fuss.

We don't need more hangers-on lecturing us about history. If they can't toss in a personal point of reference then it isn't an editorial but a sit down, be seated, and stay quiet, class for grade schoolers they're running, but how's about them TAXES and WELFARE, huh?

Capitalism is way cool but without a soul it can morph into nothing but greed.