Sane Action from the People
Who Gave Citizen Rights
to GITMO Prisoners!Go figure. Who'd a thunk it? Imagine this: A rational, lucid policy decision from the Supreme Court regarding the ever clear language in our Second Amendment!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
District of Columbia v. Heller, #07-290, has finally become the death knell of the Washington DC 32 year ban on handgun possession. Supreme Court justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas have prevailed in the 5-4 decision with the usual ardent leftwingers Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Stevens leading up the surrender side. Now, with the legal precedent finally, firmly settled it is onward to challenge the dictatorships of New York City, San Francisco and that sultry little Obama haven of Chicago... YaHOO!
It truly warms my heart to hear Comrade Dianne Feinstein (Ass-Kalifourneah) bemoan, in her so familiar alarmist whining,
"I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it"
And therein lies a poignantly perfect example of the mindset that gives us similar feel-good, criminally ineffectual "bans" in the first place. The utter myth, the totally conceptually false precept of
"safety".
The article describing this morning's landmark decision is littered with further blatant falsehoods and inaccuracies like this gem:
"Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check."
The "law" forbidding such does NOT simply make it so. If it did, all evil could be harnessed and ceased by mere decree. Crime would not occur. Bad, twisted, evil perpetrators would have been forbade out of existence. It does, though, very nicely exemplify the typical leftwing approach to everything...
'Declare it and it shall be'.
More rubbish for your appetite?
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Yeah, schools where our innocent children attend,
unprotected, every single day. Isn't it kind of, mmmmm...
funny how police show up,
with GUNS, when a crime or incident is reported? They show up with even more numerous, more capable
GUNS and a whole lot more marksmen when a criminal is holed up armed, too. Now wouldn't logic (foreign language to the inhabitants of Camp Left) dictate that these GUNS, which are denounced as unnecessary and dangerous in common citizen hands, are ineffective and downright hazardous in police hands, too? The criminal already has one of these dangerous creations... Isn't a whole bunch of policemen showing up with more of the evil units dramatically elevating the peril to all? Thus, the police should come to the rescue with nothing but words and hollow threats. Yeah, that's it! Just show up and bull horn the directive at a thunderous dB, proclaiming the jig is up!
Hey, why not? It works in England... doesn't it? The police are unarmed there. And besides, they have some very
official and intimidating looking uniforms. (
"STOP, I say... or I shall say STOP again...")
Want some more force fed rhetorical BS? How 'bout this item?
"...are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
The "problem" is that there are MANY bad people in this world and there always will be. (Lefties don't grasp the last part especially.) It doesn't have the slightest thing to do with handguns or any other type of firearms. It is the criminal element ONLY. They are "special" and, unlike the rest of us, they don't see any imperative to work or sustain themselves legally, but rather feel invited, entitled actually, to take the fruits and/or lives of good moral folks. Bad people are going to do bad things.
Incarcerate them... hell yes! But first, People, you have to have the FORCE to STOP them.
Police, God bless them and their lofty, honorable goals, cannot and will not always be there in time to save the good guys. In fact, most of the time, they simply get there too late. They don't have a crystal ball and they are not clairvoyant. They arrive to talk to witnesses, if they exist and are willing to talk, measure the crime scene and make chalk outlines around the dead bodies. If you walk around unaware, unarmed and unwilling to take responsibility for your own survival in one of these situations, you are just kidding yourself that you are "safe". You're playing the odds. When you're wrong and unfortunate, those odds, whether they were long or short, will not change how dead you or your cherished family members are. Hiding from truth is not an effective defensive posture.
Here's the frosting on the article's cake:
"The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense."
That sounds like selective prosecution of a standing law to me. So who chooses? And what kind of standard is that? Sounds to me like, "We'll allow you to break the law and possess a firearm IF we determine that you were REALLY trying to defend yourself, BUT we will still prosecute you if we find you in possession of a firearm and you didn't happen to have your life being threatened at the time."
Should we just be OK with that kind of incredulous horse hockey?
My beautiful, intelligent and golden wife has many times told me that law abiding people in the Philippines (her native land) have, and always have had, guns despite the fact that private ownership is "banned" there. They know it is their last strength and protection. In fact, it is their only one. How sad that they must consciously make the decision to break the law in order to protect themselves. It is no less sad for people in DC, NYC, Chicago or San Francisco. In fact, in a land of freedom with a 2nd Amendment, it is the truest of tragedies.
Don't "like" guns? While that usually means you are totally ignorant of them, I say
"FINE, don't own them!" But
don't remove other law abiding citizen's
RIGHT to keep and bear arms due to your personal insecurity and incertitude.
Besides, you well may find yourself thanking an armed, capable citizen for saving
your own butt someday. THAT is something that seems to get through the lead skulls of even the most nebulous of the "Me" generation.
