The Heller Decision

No right that is granted is a right. It is merely a privilege we have until such time as the government decides to take it away. Our rights are inalienable, endowed to us by our Creator.

That the decision in Heller was 5-4 is stunning. Indeed, any but a unanimous ruling says that the Supreme Court has strayed ever so far from the Constitution. We see (in both the decision and the dissent) many cites of previous cases. Why? One would think the only documents having bearing on this would be the Constitution and the Federalist papers.

But what do I know. I bow to the enlightened editors of the Chicago Tribune, who tell me the Second Amendment should be repealed.,0,478588.story

Crossposted in comments at The Daley Gator.

9 thoughts on “The Heller Decision”

  1. I actually wonder how someone can read the second amendment and think it applies to the state! Just who was the bill of rights written for? The state? How does “…the right of the people” mean right of the state? What freakin planet are these people from? It certainly is not a english speaking one. Where else in the bill of rights where it states “the people” does it mean the state? In the first amendment where it says “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ” Mean the state? If it did does that mean only the state can petition the government? What about the 4th? The right of the people to be secure in their persons…”
    Are the people there The state that Mr Stephens says the second amendment is talking of? Is a person a person in the 5th? Or is a person a state there too? Shall I go on?
    That is just the contextual argument read the federalist papers, or the contemporary state constitutions.
    Section 21 of the Pennsylvania constitution states “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. ” I can go on here, but do not want to hog all of Xbrad’s blog.
    Forgive me for taking up so much of your space. I guess I got a little hot and bothered by the idiocy of that article.

  2. “Could have used an editor”. Could the editors of the op/ed section of the Tribune possibly be more arrogant?

    How about we repeal that section of the First Amendment having to do with freedom of the press since the Founders clearly didn’t mean for the press to become advocates rather than reporters and propagandists rather than unbiased and skeptical observers? Excuse me, but how long do they think they could, as unarmed folks, hold out against armed intruders, until the police arrived following their 911 call — if they live long enough to call 911, that is. Dumb fucks.

  3. I’ll tell you what I told the guys over at ++UD:

    6 You know what the Founding Fathers really needed? Not just an editor, oh, no. They needed multiple layers of fact-checkers and editors. It worked so well for newspapers.

    And re: 911 calls, remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

  4. Xbrad.
    Off Topic, but I have been wondering about this picture.
    Are the spirals condensation? (have you ever seen something like this?) You can do something like this with front flash vs rear flash, but the photo seems too bright. However it was made it is a cool picture of a herc.

  5. V. That’s condensation alright. Pretty common in moist air. I’ve seen it on helos from time to time as well.
    Instapinch has another nice example, but not many people think the Greyhound is all that sexy.

  6. I love how when the SCOTUS goes against the views of The Deciders, the Founding Fathers needed an editor. Yet, let SCOTUS side with the terrorists in that Gitmo case, and we hear about the Constitution being defended.

    Go figure.

  7. Thanks Xbrad,
    I read instapinch once or twice a week, he is a good ref. I had missed those picts.

    I agree with Eddiebear, the Deciders, weave a deceptive web of lies and half truths.

Comments are closed.