Moderators Note: This "side" discussion has been split off the main Heller thread so as not to have to delete the posts or close the thread. Antipitas
In the US today, we seem to have a large number of people, typically democrats, who believe that our personal safety and security should be entrusted 100% to the government, including the feds, the states, and the locals. Many people realize, however, that government is not able to protect us 24/7. Thus, we need to be able to have the best tools available to us to protect our lives, our homes, our families, and our property. This includes firearms which include handguns and even those evil black rifles which are semiautomatic versions of their full auto counterparts. This issue revolves around free people being able to choose how to live their lives. Choice is the key word here.
Some people make a choice to not own firearms and rely on the police or other government agents to protect them. Not a wise decision IMHO, but it's their CHOICE.
Other folks want to have the legal "choice" for an abortion. Even if they don't believe in abortion themselves, they'll fight tooth and nail to keep abortion legal so others can have that choice available to them. Many of those same pro choice people are anti gun. They don't want gun owners to have a choice in protecting themselves. The anti's want to force them to rely on the government and its agents to protect them. Remember, the democratic party is pro choice and typically anti gun, even though they don't publicly trumpet the latter anymore. Yet, no where in the bill of rights does it mention anything about the right to have an abortion. This all comes about due to a very broad reading of the right to privacy. OK, fine. But then shouldn't it follow on that under the right to privacy, we should also be able to keep guns in our homes? The founders even codified that right via an amendment to the Bill of Rights. They came up with it as the second amendment, meaning it had to be extremely important in their minds. The right pre existed, and the 2nd A. was penned to protect the right. There is no ammendment protecting the right to have an abortion, but that is a right which many anti gun folks would defend vigorously. I am a little perplexed by this.
The tyranny of the majority is one reason that the Bill of Rights was written. We are not a democracy. Our founders understood the danger that democracies can present to a free society, one where personal, individual rights are held sacrosanct, as our founders believed they should be. We may have a majority in this country that would vote in a heartbeat to ban handguns and so called "assault weapons" because they believe or "feel" it would make them safer. They have a choice in our free society, to shun firearms. That's there business. They do not have a choice to suspend a right which is protected by an amendment to the Bill of Rights. That is not a choice.
The Heller decision makes that pretty clear. The government, even by popular vote, cannot just ban a class of commonly used firearms unless they can come up with an extremely important justification and it must be as narrowly applied as possible to achieve the desired result. This is the protection that the Second Amendment provides. The Heller decision reaffirmed that. It's a building block to increase our freedom, but not an entire solution by any means. It's also a stumbling block for the tyranny of the majority. They will have to, eventually, vigorously defend any laws they pass that bump up against the Heller decision. The government(s) will be sued, at least hopefully, any time they pass laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. There are many court battles ahead, but at least we can go on the offense, rather than stay defensive.
We at least no longer have to fight the secondary battle of the right to keep and bear arms being associated only with membership in the National Guard or some other organized state militia. That battle is over and we won.
Now we have to concentrate on taking more ground away from the anti gun people like Mayor Fenty and his henchmen. They are already demonstrating that they intend to keep fighting, but they are without one of their most cherished weapons now. That being the "collective right only" arguement. That weapon was nullified by Heller. It opens the gate for gun rights supporters to move forward and begin taking the battle directly to the enemy. People like Fenty are an enemy. They are an enemy to freedom, which means they are an enemy with regards to the constitution. I would hope they get voted out at some point in time, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that. The other weapon we have to strike at them is the courts. We scored a direct hit with Heller, but there were some survivors. We will strike again. It's quite obvious that Fenty and his army of miscreants are giving the USSC the finger. Like the French in Monty Pythons "The Holy Grail", they are taunting the USSC from behind their walls and farting in our general direction. They will eventually have their walls breached and they will lose their power.
In the US today, we seem to have a large number of people, typically democrats, who believe that our personal safety and security should be entrusted 100% to the government, including the feds, the states, and the locals. Many people realize, however, that government is not able to protect us 24/7. Thus, we need to be able to have the best tools available to us to protect our lives, our homes, our families, and our property. This includes firearms which include handguns and even those evil black rifles which are semiautomatic versions of their full auto counterparts. This issue revolves around free people being able to choose how to live their lives. Choice is the key word here.
Some people make a choice to not own firearms and rely on the police or other government agents to protect them. Not a wise decision IMHO, but it's their CHOICE.
Other folks want to have the legal "choice" for an abortion. Even if they don't believe in abortion themselves, they'll fight tooth and nail to keep abortion legal so others can have that choice available to them. Many of those same pro choice people are anti gun. They don't want gun owners to have a choice in protecting themselves. The anti's want to force them to rely on the government and its agents to protect them. Remember, the democratic party is pro choice and typically anti gun, even though they don't publicly trumpet the latter anymore. Yet, no where in the bill of rights does it mention anything about the right to have an abortion. This all comes about due to a very broad reading of the right to privacy. OK, fine. But then shouldn't it follow on that under the right to privacy, we should also be able to keep guns in our homes? The founders even codified that right via an amendment to the Bill of Rights. They came up with it as the second amendment, meaning it had to be extremely important in their minds. The right pre existed, and the 2nd A. was penned to protect the right. There is no ammendment protecting the right to have an abortion, but that is a right which many anti gun folks would defend vigorously. I am a little perplexed by this.
The tyranny of the majority is one reason that the Bill of Rights was written. We are not a democracy. Our founders understood the danger that democracies can present to a free society, one where personal, individual rights are held sacrosanct, as our founders believed they should be. We may have a majority in this country that would vote in a heartbeat to ban handguns and so called "assault weapons" because they believe or "feel" it would make them safer. They have a choice in our free society, to shun firearms. That's there business. They do not have a choice to suspend a right which is protected by an amendment to the Bill of Rights. That is not a choice.
The Heller decision makes that pretty clear. The government, even by popular vote, cannot just ban a class of commonly used firearms unless they can come up with an extremely important justification and it must be as narrowly applied as possible to achieve the desired result. This is the protection that the Second Amendment provides. The Heller decision reaffirmed that. It's a building block to increase our freedom, but not an entire solution by any means. It's also a stumbling block for the tyranny of the majority. They will have to, eventually, vigorously defend any laws they pass that bump up against the Heller decision. The government(s) will be sued, at least hopefully, any time they pass laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. There are many court battles ahead, but at least we can go on the offense, rather than stay defensive.
We at least no longer have to fight the secondary battle of the right to keep and bear arms being associated only with membership in the National Guard or some other organized state militia. That battle is over and we won.
Now we have to concentrate on taking more ground away from the anti gun people like Mayor Fenty and his henchmen. They are already demonstrating that they intend to keep fighting, but they are without one of their most cherished weapons now. That being the "collective right only" arguement. That weapon was nullified by Heller. It opens the gate for gun rights supporters to move forward and begin taking the battle directly to the enemy. People like Fenty are an enemy. They are an enemy to freedom, which means they are an enemy with regards to the constitution. I would hope they get voted out at some point in time, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that. The other weapon we have to strike at them is the courts. We scored a direct hit with Heller, but there were some survivors. We will strike again. It's quite obvious that Fenty and his army of miscreants are giving the USSC the finger. Like the French in Monty Pythons "The Holy Grail", they are taunting the USSC from behind their walls and farting in our general direction. They will eventually have their walls breached and they will lose their power.
Last edited:
