Posted by
Alan Davidson on Friday, July 04, 2008 2:34:40 PM
Much of the talk about the recent SCOTUS "Heller" ruling on the right to bear arms as an individual right has died down to a trickle lately with most on the right along with the well known, much listened to and highly regarded pundits hailing the verdict as a victory in regards to the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and are calling it historic as if this right should have been questioned in the first place.
This is what is not being focused on or blasted out of the airwaves:
It was a split 5 to 4 decision.
That means that FOUR Justices disagreed that the 2nd Amendment lays out a right of individuals to keep and bear arms and that it instead applies only to "militias".
This is the big news
It shows how utterly fragile our liberties are in this Country today. If only one Justice such as Scalia, Roberts, Alito or Thomas were not on this current Court, the right to bear arms would have been taken away from every American last week!
June 26th, 2008 might be heralded as a great day. The flip side is that it was a sad one.
A day that shows that we are one seat away on SCOTUS for our individual, Constitutional, inalienable rights to be overturned and taken away en mass.
For these rights to become NOT self-evident.
In the Heller SCOTUS decision, a careful look at the two dissenting opinions authored by Stevens and Breyer should be seen as nothing less than a grave danger. The dissent(s) by these two Justices are different, but equally as incredulous. Yes, you can read through them and feel lost as these "brilliant" men dazzle you with historics and past case law (as they interpret such), but clear away the fog.
If you have the fortitude to get through their twisted dissents, their conclusions are plain and shown to be nothing but an apology of partisan opinions with little regard for the 2nd Amendment and that they will do whatever need be to twist it to their own liking.
Stevens, who was joined in his dissent by the far left Ginsberg, Souter and Breyer, basically states that the right to bear arms is not an individual one, but only that of a "well regulated militia". We should have seen this interpretation coming a mile away.
Let's be clear here: if it is EVER left back up to these dissenters and are joined by just one more of their pack, they will find it unconstitutional for individuals to own guns and the States will be forced to follow such a ruling and confiscate all the guns from those law abiding citizens who own them.
We all know who will be left with their guns. Just like we know who has and uses them today in D.C. where it is illegal to own one. Funny thing that the number one cause of gand land deaths in D.C. is by gunshot wounds, being that that are illegal there.
That law worked out well.
But the separate dissent authored by Breyer, who just couldn't help himself, is so nutty, convoluted and insane as to cause your head to spin around like Linda Blair in the Exorcist.
Again, you can read through his dissent and be dazzled by twisted historics, interpretations, past case law dissemination, bloviations about trigger locks, yada, yada, yada, but unlike the Stevens dissent, Breyer actually finishes his with a clarifying conclusion that boggles the mind: "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas"
Just let that sink in for a second and let those body shivers subside while you regain your balance after falling down.
Let's just suppose for a second that you live in D.C. or any other "crime ridden urban area", and have for all your life, back when the neighborhood was relatively safe. And suppose you know that today, the only people who have guns in D.C. are the same people who are killing other people EVERY DAY in D.C. with GUNS, and who are also those who disregard the law currently in place that makes gun ownership illegal.
Breyer is simply saying: Tough Sh***.
You want to own a gun......... you have to risk breaking the law and going to jail. You have no right to own a gun to defend yourself since you happen to need one because you live in a CRIME RIDDEN URBAN AREA.
Just take the bullet from the criminal who uses a gun against you because the law doesn't mean nothing to him and too damn bad for you since now you are dead.
Sad indeed..............