Here’s an interesting reaction from one of our illustrious leaders regarding today’s Supreme Court case ruling upholding the Second Amendment in relation to the Washington D.C. gun ban:

"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."

– Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

In the undoubtedly scattered mind of Dianne Feinstein, ‘respect for precedent’ overtakes the respect of our for our Constitution.  At least she’s honest.  She  obviously isn’t interested in following the Constitution, but rather a set of unfounded and unconstitutional court decisions which have been facilitated by slick attorneys, emotional ‘advocacy’ groups, crooked politicians, and powerful, activist judges.

Folks, this is why we have a Constitution.  Our Founding Fathers knew full-well how crooked and power-hungry humans could be.  They knew that if they left their freedom up to mere men without some sort of legal recognition of their inherent freedoms, men would soon indulge in their inherent desire for power, money, and political gain at the expense of that freedom.

When our framers wrote the Bill of Rights, they did so for one main purpose:  to identify and force their new government to uphold and respect the rights that they knew were inherent (God-given, nature-given, whatever way you prefer to look at it). 

Government doesn’t give us our inherent rights.  This is why they are ‘inherent’.  If you view the government of the United States as an entity that ‘allows’ you rights, or ‘gives’ you rights as a prison guard brings inmates their food, you miss the entire purpose of the federal government. 

Our federal government was not formed so as to ‘allow’ rights, but rather to uphold those rights that ‘we hold to be self-evident’.  As Americans, we believe that individuals have certain unalienable rights.  One of those obvious rights is the right to protect your own life, your family’s lives, and your private property.

If you take a look at the first four Amendments in the Bill of Rights, you’ll notice a common theme:

• First Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
• 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.
• Third Amendment –  No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
• Fourth Amendment – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It has been argued by some (successfully in Washington D.C. over 30 years ago) that in the case of the Second Amendment, the words ‘the people’ are somehow talking about the right of a ‘Militia’, or, the military.  If you read the sentence alone, you could argue all day long about the placement of ‘A well-regulated Militia’ into the beginning of the sentence.  You could even argue about the placement of the comma after the word ‘State’.  But when you read the entire document, you understand that there is no other meaning for the words ‘the people’ than ‘the individual’. 

Sometimes I think that modern-day government-lovers actually believe that the people who wrote our Constitution were idiots.  They believe that somehow, they (the government and judges) have advanced intellectually to the point of eliminating any sort of misfortune in our society.  They see the Framer’s view of inherent human rights as simplistic and in good need of a modern update that will surely bring us the Utopia we are now so obviously now capable of attaining.  *Cough*

What these self-righteous, puffed-up pontificators forget is that we will never attain that Utopia so long as there are evil people in power, and evil people living among us.  In a perfect world, guns wouldn’t be necessary because no one would try to rob someone’s home or murder them.  In a perfect world, those in power would not oppress their citizenry.  Unfortunately, we will never live in a perfect world.

So why not give the gun ban-ners the benefit of the doubt?  I mean, they obviously mean well, and are only trying to help save us from ourselves.  Right?

The entire goal of the D.C. gun ban was to supposedly ‘protect’ the innocent and leave the shooting up to the cops.  Unfortunately, it’s gotten them one of the highest crime rates in the nation. 

So even if you’d like to throw the Second Amendment out the window on the basis of ‘public safety’, evidence has shown that gun bans don’t do what they’re supposed to, and can very easily prove to be a detriment to society rather than a benefit.

To sum up my reaction to the decision today, I’m relieved, but at the same time it frightens me that four of nine Justices chose to disregard the Constitution they swore to uphold.  It also frightens me that elected leaders like Dianne Feinstein continue to be re-elected by idiots who obviously don’t appreciate the freedom that they enjoy, and who don’t fully comprehend the price by which it was gained. 

Tweet This Post