"...The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had ruled that the blanket ban on handguns in the capital was unconstitutional. The 2-to-1 decision held:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms ... Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them."
The District of Columbia appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not taken a Second Amendment case head-on since U.S. vs. Miller in 1939. That involved a man robbing a bank with a sawed-off shotgun.
In Miller, the court ruled unanimously that the right to bear arms hinged on whether a weapon "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia," meaning the National Guard.
Wow. Here I was thinking that the National Guard wasn't even a thought let alone a reality back when the Framers were drawing up the Constitution. See the things ya learn?
"It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view," the court decreed.
That did not stop the gun industry and its witless stooges, the gun lovers, from continuing to clamor that the Constitution said otherwise. The National Rifle Association inscribed just half the amendment over its headquarters entrance, editing out "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and keeping only "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Such twisting of constitutional intent prompted former Chief Justice Warren Burger to say the amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud - repeat, the word fraud - on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
Ah yes, was there ever a more stealth liberal than good old Burger the King? Gay rights, abortion-loving, gun-hating Warren the "conservative".
Quickie primer for the clueless:
Well regulated; supplied. maintained, kept in good order.
Militia; all males between the ages of 18 and 40.
Since males are responsible for the safety and well being of kith and kin, no law shall be passed to deprive them of keeping and bearing the arms necessary to do so.
Hmm. Maybe the libs have something there. Maybe we need to disarm all females to get in line what the Constitution really says.
Thats really what the liberals want. Disarm the weak; them gals and uppity negroes because we can't be letting the powerless feel powerful or they won't need us.
And, by the by, this silly essay was thought of so highly by the NY Daily Snooze as to be featured "above the fold" on their web page, entitled: "Gun kooks at it again"
Is it any wonder that Clinton and Bloomberg are beloved in this burg?
No comments:
Post a Comment