Another 2A Victory!
What baffles me though, is that there was any question, ever, about the meaning.
When the “Heller” decision was handed down in 2008 striking down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and gunlock regulations, Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley predicted disaster. He said that overturning the gun ban was “a very frightening decision” and predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts and that people “are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute.” Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty similarly warned: “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence.”
Yet, Armageddon never arrived.
How’s it feel being wrong? Again. It’s obvious you’re running on the desire to rule a people unable to resist, because again the facts refute your fears.
Washington’s murder rate has plummeted — falling by 25 percent in 2009 alone. This compares with a national drop of only 7 percent last year. And D.C.’s drop has continued this year.
Comparing Washington’s crime rates from January 1 to June 17 of this year to the same period in 2008, shows a 34 percent drop in murder. This drop puts D.C.’s murder rate back to where it was before the 1977 handgun ban. Indeed, the murder rate is as low as was before 1967.
The Constitution may be above the “See Spot run” level, but it’s not that hard to understand if you can read beyond a 2nd grade level. The meaning is clear, and the meanings are easily understandable. There are no complex constructions, and the only way that it can be misconstrued is intentionally.
That much is obvious, that you leftists intentionally misconstrue.
Comments are closed.
Let’s just hope the court where this case lands for further deliberation makes the correct decision this time. (It ain’t over till it’s over, unfortunately.)
It’s nice that the SCOTUS has confirmed that we have the right to protect ourselves.
Here is an abstract that holds the cops are not obliged constitutionally to protect you.
Here is the article which contains many other instances of this concept.
http://www.frfrogspad.com/fantasy.htm
What is really scary is that 4 justices don’t think the 2nd amendment means what it says or that the fourteenth amendment extends the bill of rights (at least in the case of bearing arms)to the states which it fundamentally does. It was passed in order to extend citizenship rights of the federal constitution to the newly freed slaves of the freshly re-incorporated Confederacy. The 4 obviously can’t read english or know history.
You can’t abjure the responsibility to protect the populace and then curtail the natural law right(constitution is a natural law document) to protect yourself. To be fair this is not an explicit position of the 4 but can be inferred as the status quo ante McDonald v. Chicago based on the prior weight of law.
I didn’t read the dissent fully just skimmed it. Stevens sites a lot of precedents which I always consider dubious because those precedents don’t necessarily comport with constitutional precepts. Quite frankly I probably don’t have the patience or training to analyze it effectively.
What I got firmly from his view is that he viewed this as a “substantive due process” case. To me this is a slippery term akin to “social justice”. Or maybe I just don’t quite understand it. It seems, especially for the left, a manner of results based rather than law based jurisprudence, i.e the law is interpreted to garner a predetermined policy result.
This is how the left has primarily advanced it’s agenda through the courts. That’s not me that’s Bork, Coulter, Ingraham and Levine. Not a bad law firm, eh.
And hell, Ginsburg really should know what it meant of all of the lefties. She was there, wasn’t she?
True that. They will continue to attempt to erode. Thing is, it certainly seems the courts have been turning our way here lately.