Posted by
JayPeriod on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:06:26 PM
As has been reported, this spring the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the Washington, D.C. gun ban of 1976. This is clearly a Second Amendment case. I just have one question.
When does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not mean "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"
As I understand this case, the gun control lobby are using the argument that the amendment was designed for the army, since the amendment starts out by stating that, "A well regulated militia, being a necessity to the security of a free state." It could be argued that keeping guns for hunting was a given in the 18th Century and handguns had not yet been invented. Therefore, the arms that the amendment must have been talking about would be those for a "well regulated militia." That would mean, in our day and age, rocket launchers, tanks, artillery, etc.
That this is even being argued is a testament to the amount of judicial activism that has crippled our nation. The law should have never been allowed to be put into use. It is a clear violation of Constitutional rights. Only in our upcoming socialistic society would this even be considered.
Remember, when Adolf Hitler came to power, the first thing he did was remove the right of the people to own arms. An unarmed society cannot defend itself against a totalitarian government. Thomas Jefferson said as much. (Remember, he's the one the left loves so much for his, apparent but non existent, wall of separation.)