Friday, March 21, 2008

Slimeballs and Heroes

This month I will be skipping the normal Slimballs and Heroes to focus on an action at the Supreme Court. This week they have heard the case DC v. Heller. This is a huge case deciding whether the US Supreme Court Justices can read plain English or not.

The following is a link to most of the discussion on the case:
Scotusblog Index-to-Heller-Coverage/

I often wonder why it is so easy for many of the elitist leftists and their drones to understand the meaning of the word "people" in several other places in the Constitution, but when they get to the second amendment, they treat it like some Cryptic Satanic message that cannot possibly mean "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There is actually one commenter that said
Individual-right advocates frequently compare it to the First Amendment. The difference is that the First Amendment protects speech, but the Second Amendment protects, in some form, the right to have a deadly weapon. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

Where do theses imbeciles come from?

UPDATE: (6 Apr 08)
It has been pretty quiet on the net about Heller v. Washington DC
A couple posts to note, however:
Sentencing Law and Policy Analysis
Intellectual Conservative Second Thoughts

UPDATE: (11 Apr 08)
I see there is a Washington Post article on Obama's position, or more like non-position on gun control. I see that he was for gun control before he was against it. Or so he says. Having lived in Illinois for many years (and never going back to that police state) I will say that his new position is temporary and just for the sake of getting elected. No one should be taken in by his false face he wares when saying he believes in an indevidual right. He says he taught constitutional law for 10 years. In all that time, he didn't cement his position on the 2nd Amendment? Horsehokky. He will revert back to being a gun grabber, immediately after the election, with more speed than the striking of a rattle snake.


Anonymous said...

I do not have the ability to grasp the complex arguements supporting the philisophical underpinnings intended to legitimize the left's interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. Who does? lol!

I think that the secoond ammendment requires only a superficial undestanding that an any moron should be able to grasp. Maybe these progressives are educated beyond their intellegence! But I don't think so!

I think it is safe to assume that for our forefathers, using their firearms for hunting food and self defence were a given, and therefore only a moron would suggest institutionalizing the obvious.

The obvious cannot be challenged so it makes sense that you have to be stupid to deny the right to bear arms. Now if you are not stupid, yet have a political agenda that might antagonize an armed populace you had better act like you believe your stupidity is a wisdom you must convince others of. If not, you are trying to take away the olny right we have that can protect us from the enevetable extremes of government.

Pissing on our boots and telling us it is raining only works while we trust and believe in the system. That trust is now gone and you are provoking us to fear.

I have acquired a fiirearm. I do not particularily like or dislike firearms. But feeling the need to get one has caused me to develope a certain respect for them and, a desire for more. I now understand the 'collector'.

Previously I did not want firearms in my home. But I demended the right to easily get one at a reasonable cost anytime I changed my mind for any reason whatsoever. Any reason that is nobody elses business. Am wanting them now out of concern that they could become to expensive or difficult to get later on. Difficult can also means 'acquire legally'.

'Acquire legally' is supposed to to mean you simply pay for and walked away with a firewarm.

TRex said...

Aquired legally is a key phrase. With the ever increasing encroachments to the right to keep and bear arms, especially after the ill advised panic legislations coming on the heels of the Virginia Tech shooting, we may soon have a short list of those people whom the government authorises to keep a firearm.

If you look closely, there have been similar and parallel attempts to infringe other rights of the people, though none as obvious.

Anonymous said...

"I often wonder why it is so easy for many of the elitist leftists and their drones to understand the meaning of the word "people" in several other places in the Constitution, but when they get to the second amendment, ..."

They have a result orientated situative wisdom that lesser minds cannot fathom?