Amendment 2: The Right To Bear Arms
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
FRANKLY SPEAKING, I am not a fan at all of this Bush Supreme Court.
With five Ultra-Neocon justices, the cards are have been clearly stacked against a ruling having anything whatsoever to do with compassion, progress, or even Truth.
So when I heard “The Gang of Five in Black” — as a New York Columnist once labeled them — were going to hear arguments about the Second Amendment, something that has never before occurred since the court’s inception, I began feeling quite nauseous and then some.
Funny thing about the Constitution: Our founding fathers knew this society would evolve as time elapsed, so they left room for flexibility and broader interpretation of the finest document ever written. Yet, “The Gang” has shown itself to be anything resembling flexible or broad minded.
The Second Amendment’s purpose was to protect the rights of “regulated militias” — which just happened to make up the vast majority of our fighting forces during the Revolutionary War. It was not about letting any idiot purchase a gun for his/her (alleged) private protection. The founding fathers clearly had no idea that 232 years later, the average citizen could get a hold of an Uzi, AK-47, M-16, or a sniper rifle — fully equipped with telescopic and laser capability.
The case in front of the court is two-fold: clarification of the Amendment’s meaning and the constitutionality of D.C.'s and other major “concrete jungle” cities’ – with noticeable angry, irrational populations — to ban guns, which I happen to think is a damn intelligent idea!Having grown up in Brooklyn, N.Y., while visiting D.C. and Chicago a number of times, I can assure you if the ban is lifted from those and other metropolises, those places would turn into modern-day Wild-West towns – PRONTO!
The problem with that is a lack of brilliant law enforcement people today like Buffalo Bill Cody, Wells Fargo, Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, or even the made-for-television Matt Dillon, to deal with the fallout.
Can you imagine two New Yorkers riding the subway, getting into a shouting match about the one vacant seat available. I guarantee you without question, the next two things you would hear were “draw” and then a revolver going off. I’m not joking about this. It is serious business — dead serious (pun clearly intended).
While “The Gang of Five In Black” have already backed private ownership of guns, another dumb decision, they have opted to take more time before handing down a decision about the major city bans.
And this might be the first right move they made in the past 7.5 years
2 comments:
Glenn-- my first 'reaction' to your post was an 'emotional' agreement about wanting to ban guns in certain areas. That being said... Banning guns isn't the answer to the problem... and banning guns takes them also out of my hand somewhere down the road , of this very important decision that is about to open a giant can of worms
lynda,
It's not so much about the total banishment of guns, just the elimination of them in the crime-infested major cities, whose populations are far more high-strung than in less densely-populated areas.
Post a Comment