Get a gun; while you can

Yesterday the Supremes announced they would take up a challenge to the District of Columbia's gun laws. DC (aka the murder capital of the world) virtually bans handguns and requires that rifles and shotguns to be kept locked and unloaded. So while armed illegal aliens are threatening your family while empting out your china cabinet and ripping off your flatscreen, you’ll be hollering to your wife, “honey, where’s the damned key to the gun safe?”

I have to say that it’s a bad omen when the 9 dopes in robes decide to take up a case that I think was fairly settled in the lower court. That is, the declaration that DC’s draconian gun laws violated the plain language found in the Second Amendment. Why would the Supremes take on this case unless they wanted to tinker with the lower court’s decision?

If there is any good news in all of this the Supremes have framed the question in such a manner that the answer ought to be clear to anyone capable of reading and understanding the English language. Which given the state of our open border and the public school system may turn out to be a bad thing. Then throw in the foreign law crowd on the court, the sheer lunacy of four of the justices, the overall elite nature of the court and you have a recipe for disaster.

The question the court will take up is this:

"Whether [the laws] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

This question always comes up in gun arguments with dopes who can’t read and understand the constitution. The Second Amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So anti-gunners zero in on the opening clause of the amendment, “a well regulated militia.” They ignore the last clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." When you ask the anti-gunner who the founders might have meant by “the people,” the argument is generally won. Only the dimmest of wits will continue the argument by saying “the people, in this case, means those in the militia.”

Oh really? Well then who did they mean in the preamble then when they wrote “We the people…?” or in the first, fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth amendment as well as Articles I, II and V when they noted “the people?”

You truly have to be a moron to believe that when the founders wrote “the people” they meant - the people of the United States - in every case but the Second Amendment where “the people” meant only “the people” in militias.

Next, I’m not sure the Second Amendment language applies to militias at all. There is a strong case to be made that the founders wanted to protect Joe public’s (aka the people’s) right to keep and bear arms as a check on militias, least they become unregulated and harmful to the republic.

Last, when confirming Supreme Court Justices, remember how Chuckles Schumer and other weasels are always concerned with abortion and stare decisis, that odd legal term that requires a judge to give undo weight to prior decisions of a court no matter how wrongly decided? Why is it that stare decisis never comes up with regard to settled Second Amendment law?

I have no confidence whatever that this case will be decided based on the plain language found in the US Constitution. Four of these dopes are as likely as not to vote along ideological lines or in accordance with some foreign law as anything found written in our own constitution.

As such I make the same recommendation I always make when pols or lame brained judges start tinkering with the Second Amendment, get ye to the nearest gun store and buy a gun. If you already have a handsome gun collection, go buy more ammo.