Saturday, June 28, 2008


I've not had time to read through the decision completely yet but a couple of things need to be commented on.

First of all 4 of the 9 justices failed to recognise the fact that the right of the people to keep and bear arms means that people can keep and bear arms. I am at a loss that a supposedly educated and intelligent person can read the Second Amendment and then conclude that it does not mean that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

How the hell do you go about firing these traitors incompetents who have, I would presume, taken an oath to uphold the Constitution? Anyone? Note too that of the four dissenters two of them were nominated by Republican presidents.

Next of all note how the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed has somehow mutated in the Court to mean this-

Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

So, what part of "shall not be infringed" means you need to have a government approved licence to keep a firearm in your own home?

No comments: