cures for fibromyalgia

Keep & Bear Arms: An Individual Right

As you’ve no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled this morning that the 2nd Amendment guarantees what is an individual right.

It’s important that we keep a few things in mind:

  1. The official position of the United States of America is that the keeping and bearing of arms is an individual right.
  2. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution does not grant that right to citizens.
  3. It guarantees that government cannot infringe upon that right, the right that Just Is.
  4. The Court’s ruling does not change what the 2nd Amendment means. It doesn’t mean something different this afternoon than it meant yesterday. It has always meant it. Some people and some laws were just wrong when they claimed otherwise.
  5. This isn’t the end of the gun control battle.
  6. But, to coin a phrase, it might be the end of the beginning of the gun control battle.
  7. Future debates will center on thing like the definition of “arms” and what “shall not be infringed” and “keep and bear” mean.

Also of note is the fact that the decision was 5-4. Murdoc was expecting 6-3 or maybe even 7-2.

What if this case had come before the Court two years later with an Obama-appointed justice on board? I know that many Conservatives distrust John McCain on a lot of issues, but the fact is that nearly half of the SCOTUS thinks the 2nd Amendment means something totally different. Damn scary, as a commenter over at GunPundit noted.

More than ten years of personal arguments with people about this were just won because their “it means state militias” point was invalid all along.

I can’t wait to see how the Brady Bunch tries to spin this into a victory.

In honor of this momentous day, I’m going to post the entire GunPundit.com blogroll here on MO. Check them out. A lot of them will go into far greater depth on this issue than I will, either here or at GunPundit.

UPDATE: Fixed point #7, which I apparently didn’t finish writing.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Comments

  • 11 Bravo says:

    I am not convinced McCain will nominate judges we like. He has always found ways to stick it to conservatives. Keep in mind McCain voted for Ginsburg. The best defense of the court is to elect Senators that have the same balls as the democrats who routinely block our judges. We need our Senators to do the same to them. Remember how they derailed Bork? It is the Senate that can protect us.

  • AW1 Tim says:

    We have won a significant bictory, but without another surge to tavkle the issue of restrictions on gun ownership and carrying, we could still lose this war. It will be a sad day indeed if we end up with an affirmation of the right to own arms, but no means to legally purchase them or the ammunition for them. This is just the first battle. It is not unlike Normandy. We’ve gained the beach head, but there are many battles before we see Berlin fall. Our watchword but always be vigilance, with liberty it’s countersign.

  • Murdoc says:

    I am not convinced McCain will nominate judges we like.

    Neither am I. I am, however, 100% absolutely positively no-doubt-about-it sure that Obama will nominate judges we DON’T like. GOP-majority Senate was mostly a joke. No hope with a Dem-led Senate. A plan to rely on the Senate is currently a loser. I support it in principle, but it won’t get it done 2009-2010. Maybe the 2010 elections.

  • 11 Bravo says:

    Murdoc, the GOP did have a majority, but not a super majority. Having anything less than 60 senators allows a tough opposition to trip up your legislation. You are correct, there is no way we will get a majority, let alone a super majority. The key is to make sure the dems don’t get the super majority. As long as we have 40 members that hang tough, whether they be GOP or blue dog democrats, we can be in good shape whether Obama or McCain is the President. The trouble is republicans ususally don’t filibuster judges so long as they are qualified. Hence, McCain and company approved Ginsberg even though she was a long time ACLU attorney who was cleary left-wing and not in the mainstream. The dems have no such problem with voting against qualified judges that they think are too far to the right. Therefore, we need at least 40 senators who will be prepared to take the heat in the media for hanging tough and not approving revisionist judges. If Obama or McCain know this, it will force them to pick judges more to the center.

  • Murdoc says:

    Okay. I misunderstood what you were saying the plan should be. You are right that the fight for Congress is crucial, and I’m not saying to ignore it. I also don’t want anyone to think it’s okay to ‘let’ Obama get elected because the Senate will filibuster his appointees.

  • Dfens says:

    Yeah, vote for McCain because he’ll be able to nominate staunch conservative judges and get them past a Democrat controlled congress with a super majority that can kill any Republican fillibuster. Right. Even if he wanted to (and he doesn’t) that would be a pretty incredible trick. Regan couldn’t do it, and he actually had a support base.

  • Murdoc says:

    Dfens: If you’re going to reply, please reply to what I said and not to what you said I said. Thanks.

  • Flanker says:

    I hear what you’re saying on McCain’s leanings……..just goes to show he’s a moderate and not in the Republican right wing. If there were more like him and Ike Skelton from Missouri……the Congress would be getting more accomplished instead of playing tit for tat. Like blocking each other’s Court Nominees because of who nominated them, rather than considering them based on their qualifications. This is a perfect example of what I was saying the other day about too many in both parties having gravitated into far left and far right orbits……causing gridlock, because each side is unwilling to compromise and worried the other side might get some credit for something. BTW: Take that you pinko, gun haters! Woo Hoo! :)

  • USCitizen says:

    Thanks for making the necessary point – and for the link! It’s a great day for the republic.

  • Dfens says:

    What you said, Murdoc, was such a remote possibility that I chose to comment on your original premise, which was that with McCain as president we’d get good conservative judges unlike those wild eyed liberals we’ll get with Obama. It’s ironic how since Reagan nominated Judge Bork conservative means they actually read the US Constitution once in a while instead of ‘interpreting’ it in light of what the Europeans are doing. I guess a moderate ‘interprets’ our Constitution by keeping up with the Europeans less often than a liberal? It’s so f’ed up, it’s hard for me to tell anymore. One would think that a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress would prefer to maintain what little power the judicial branch allows them instead of appointing an ever more activist oligarchy, but they’ve got such a long history of doing the opposite it seems unlikely. Anyway, if you think the Republicans are in any immanent danger of retaking the Senate, you haven’t been paying attention to politics much lately. They’re going to be routed from Congress, the only thing left is to find out is by how much. The Democrats may actually end up with a super majority. Not that McCain is going to nominate any judges that would elicit a filibuster. I know the Republican tactic is to force McCain down our throats by trying to stir up fear and hatred of those evil Democrats who just happen to also be our fellow American citizens. I just don’t have any use for those tactics. Years ago when the Republicans actually had some conservative candidates they ran on ideas instead of fear. I preferred those days.

  • Murdoc says:

    Okay Dfens. It’s simple. I hate to have to spell things out like this but you seem to want it. Let’s pick nits. Original point which you claim you were responding to: I clearly asked if things might have been different with Obama-appointees on board. I then said that nearly half of the Supreme Court held a far different view of the 2A than seems clear. The only mention of McCain was that I knew a lot of Conservatives didn’t trust him. My point in comments which is relevant even though you claim not to have been responding to it: I don’t trust McCain but I trust him more than Obama. Congress cannot be trusted, particularly now when it’s certainly Dem majority. I didn’t even trust it before. Other point in comments: Conceding to Obama and hoping Congress stops his judges is not a good plan. Please point out where I said anything about McCain appointing ‘staunch conservative judges‘ and ‘get them past a Democrat controlled congress‘ or that ‘with McCain as president we’d get good conservative judges‘ or ‘if you think the Republicans are in any immanent danger of retaking the Senate Show us, please, or dispense with the straw men and don’t make up crap when asked not to make up crap. Thanks. Next you’ll be telling us about the president Paul plan or the president Huckabee plan or the president Barr plan, instead of stupidly voting for one of the people running for president.

  • Dfens says:

    Wow, Murdoc, it must be horrible to be so tragically misunderstood. Especially when you would never put words in anyone else’s mouth. My heart bleeds for you, it truely does, but obviously not as much as yours does.

  • Murdoc says:

    Dfens: All you gotta do is be honest about what people said. It’s all right there for anyone to see. I don’t really understand why you get all worked up when someone points out that you’re refuting points that haven’t been made.

  • Murdoc says:

    Oh, and: Especially when you would never put words in anyone else’s mouth. Show me. Let’s take a look. If I did, I sure won’t react by making snarky remarks about you.

  • 11 Bravo says:

    Flanker, how do you know about Ike Skelton? Are your from Missouri?

  • Flanker says:

    No……I’m in MI. I’m a long time subscriber to the Armed Forces Journal, and follow military affairs on line (as evidenced by all the time I waste here! LOL!). Rep. Skelton has frequently been mentioned in regards to his long standing interest in MA, especilly his service on the HASC. Some of his positions struck me as being very thoughtful, and definitely BIG picture views, with the best interests of the country as a whole, and not just what’s best for the Dems or himself. He sounds like an old school Truman kind of Democrat instead of the new wave Hugo Chavez kind. LOL! That’s what we need……….more conservative Dems and more liberabl Rep………………maybe they’d talk to each other, work togather, instead of posturing & yapping so much, always trying to steal a march on the other side.

Comments Closed