This entry was posted
on Monday, June 28th, 2010 at 12:32 pm and is filed under Freedom.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
One Response to “High Court makes it a great day for freedom”
The more I read about the McDonald and Heller decisions the more upset I get. Jackie Hilly, the Executive Director of New Yorkers against Gun Violence, is quoted saying this:
All the other amendments have reasonable restrictions on them. So I actually really like the Heller decision and the McDonald decision because they put the Second Amendment in the context of all the other amendments… people from the gun lobby like to promote the idea that you have an absolute or god-given right to possess a gun. That’s clearly not true; your right can be restricted.
This decision also makes it clear that our rights are not natural and absolute. They are subject to the whims of the current members of the Supreme Court.
We might rephrase the Second Amendment this way:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government, except by federal laws that infringe upon that right which are approved by the Supreme Court. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the state governments, except by state laws that infringe upon that right which are approved by the Supreme Court.
Get ready for broad anti-gun measures requiring training courses, gun and/or ammunition registration, liability insurance, fingerprinting, guns to be kept unloaded, trigger locks, gun registries, waiting periods, background checks, the banning of “assault” weapons, high-capacity magazines and limitations on the type and amount of ammunition.
I guess if they got away restricting the first amendment (Free speech zones) why should we expect the rest of our unalienable rights not to be transformed into privileges by a politician’s pen.
Brogan
Leave a Reply
Have questions regarding this Blog? Please email us. Comments may appear online in "Feedback" or in the "Letters" section of Backwoods Home Magazine. We read every email you send us, but due to the sheer volume of mail we receive, we can't respond to each one.
July 14th, 2010 at 11:46 am
The more I read about the McDonald and Heller decisions the more upset I get. Jackie Hilly, the Executive Director of New Yorkers against Gun Violence, is quoted saying this:
All the other amendments have reasonable restrictions on them. So I actually really like the Heller decision and the McDonald decision because they put the Second Amendment in the context of all the other amendments… people from the gun lobby like to promote the idea that you have an absolute or god-given right to possess a gun. That’s clearly not true; your right can be restricted.
This decision also makes it clear that our rights are not natural and absolute. They are subject to the whims of the current members of the Supreme Court.
We might rephrase the Second Amendment this way:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government, except by federal laws that infringe upon that right which are approved by the Supreme Court. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the state governments, except by state laws that infringe upon that right which are approved by the Supreme Court.
Get ready for broad anti-gun measures requiring training courses, gun and/or ammunition registration, liability insurance, fingerprinting, guns to be kept unloaded, trigger locks, gun registries, waiting periods, background checks, the banning of “assault” weapons, high-capacity magazines and limitations on the type and amount of ammunition.
I guess if they got away restricting the first amendment (Free speech zones) why should we expect the rest of our unalienable rights not to be transformed into privileges by a politician’s pen.
Brogan