U.S. Supreme Court targets liberal superstition

This is a discussion on U.S. Supreme Court targets liberal superstition within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Column from The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colorado. Well worded IMO. U.S. Supreme Court targets liberal superstition | GJSentinel.com By Rick Wagner Wednesday, June 30, ...

Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: U.S. Supreme Court targets liberal superstition

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Western Colorado

    U.S. Supreme Court targets liberal superstition

    Column from The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colorado. Well worded IMO.

    U.S. Supreme Court targets liberal superstition | GJSentinel.com
    By Rick Wagner
    Wednesday, June 30, 2010

    This week, the United States Supreme Court moved a dog-eared superstition of the left closer to the door and out of the United States Constitution. In McDonald v. Chicago, the court decided that the Second Amendment of the Constitution is to be read as guaranteeing a personal right for individual citizens to possess firearms for their protection.

    The left has long sought to dismiss the Second Amendment by trying to treat its application as being only appropriate to an undefined and to their thinking, a nonexistent militia, which is in no way appropriate to the individual.

    They have been forced to treat this plain language of the Constitution in this way since they have adopted a metaphysical belief that firearms in general and handguns in particular are supernatural objects — in much the same way a camera can steal a person’s soul, a firearm can turn a peaceful individual into a cat’s paw of evil.

    In reality, anti-gun laws are essentially a white flag of surrender to the results of misguided and destructive social and economic policies of the last 50 years. They are a scapegoating and feeble smokescreen to blame inanimate objects for a broken social order that has been the hallmark of staggering societies from the fall of Rome until today.

    It matters little if the actor uses a dagger or a pistol as part of a criminal act as it’s the sense of disorder and lack of structure in society that most often animates a criminal, not the availability of a weapon. This decision realizes that disarming a population does little to discourage the wolves of society. It simply brings the population closer to sheep.

    Predictably, if wrongly, the left has responded with concern and alarm, much of it directed at the effects that allowing gun ownership will have on minority populations, but the court’s decision points out that firearms ownership for self protection has been an important civil right for minorities in America.

    In post-Civil War America, one of the first actions in many former Confederate states was to ensure that blacks did not possess firearms or, if they did, to disarm them and leave them at the mercy of various marauding bands of former Confederate soldiers and, eventually, the Ku Klux Klan. North Carolina Sen. John Pool is quoted in this week’s court decision as having remarked that the Klan would “order the colored man to give up their arms; saying that everybody would be Ku Kluxed in whose house firearms were found.”

    The court also takes note that in South Carolina, black citizens held a convention to address the adoption of the state’s Black Code and drafted a letter to Congress which included a plea for the protection of their right to keep and bear arms: “We ask that, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States explicitly declares that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ... that the late efforts of the legislature of this state to pass an act to deprive us [of] arms be forbidden, as a plain violation of the Constitution.”

    In the face of this, Justice John Paul Stevens, in his last session and whose seat Elena Kagan is slotted to fill, dissented from the majority opinion and had the bizarre observation that “firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty.” This clearly was not the thinking of blacks in post-Civil War America.

    This also is not the view of the majority of Americans, who see the fundamental right of self protection inherent in the Second Amendment, as did the Supreme Court in the preceding District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision, which struck down the Washington, D.C. gun ban. There the court asserted that self-defense is a basic right and that individual self-defense is a central component of the Second Amendment right.

    Nevertheless, remember the Supreme Court voted on whether this fundamental right applied to you and the vote was 5-4. Too close for comfort — superstitions are hard to give up.

  2. #2
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Good read!
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

Remove Ads

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court and 2A
    By JoJoGunn in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 01:13 AM
  2. Now That The Supreme Court Has Ruled On The 2A...
    By TN_Mike in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: September 10th, 2008, 02:58 PM
  3. US Supreme Court Over Rules Bush and The World Court (Merged)
    By Sig 210 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: March 28th, 2008, 08:56 PM
  4. Supreme Court says YES!
    By Glock_19 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 20th, 2007, 03:57 PM

Search tags for this page

american superstition and the u.s supreme court


liberal pistol targets


liberal superstitions


rick wagner ccw

Click on a term to search for related topics.