by Diane Rufino
The case District of Columbia v. Heller is the landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2008, and written by the late great conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, which finally looked at the roots and origins of the Second Amendment and ruled that it confers not only a collective right to keep and bear arms when serving in a militia but also an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and for self-protection. The Second Amendment recognizes and guarantees gun rights for two articulated purposes. Both purposes involve self-defense and protection: The first is for the defense and protection of the state and the second is for the defense and protection of the individual.
We the People have the inalienable Right to Life. The corollary to that absolutely fundamental right is the right to defend and preserve it. Otherwise the right is only one recognized on paper. The right to defend one’s life implies that the individual be entitled to possess the same type of weapons, and of the same force, which may attempt to take his or her life.
The case stems from an incident, as we will see, that occurred in 1975 and which immediately resulted in the strictest gun control law in the nation – in the District of Columbia.
But first, let’s look at the wording of the Second Amendment:
“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.”
Another day and it is the same old sh_t. We have lost our country to evil for one simple reason: we have allowed it. I pray that our period of bondage will be short lived.
David DeGerolamo
There’s a Fight happening in Salisbury NC. There is a meeting Monday night June 17th if you are interested in attending. Here is my input in today’s Paper.
I care more about history than I do about whether you are offended.
I don’t think it is a good thing to tear down historic Civil War era statues just because some people are offended.
I am against the destroying of historic works of art because some people are offended. I also dont like the idea of removing every mention of the Confederacy from the public square. I wish activists were more interested in promoting understanding between people than destroying history and art.
My real issue is history. This is not about race to me, it is about preserving history and being honest about our history. This may be offensive to some, but I care more about history than I do about whether you are offended. I am offended by the “offended” culture we live in.
I don’t like the idea of catering to every person who is offended by whatever it is they are offended by. Eventually, we will live in stark gray cities with no public art at all because people are offended.
I dont see anything in the constitution that guarantees a right to not be offended.
Tearing down statues, destroying public art and being politically correct just increases divisiveness.
This is a very dangerous path that this City Council Government is going down.
Leave History and Our Statues Alone.
As an American, I want all other Americans here to remember this. The Government is against you, almost openly now, but they also know that they cannot win if it comes to open war. If it comes to a fight, THEY WILL LOSE, so there are elements in the establishment who will do absolutely everything in their power to prevent it from coming to that. The US Government is not in support of its people, and the People are not in support of the Government.
Prepare Yourselves.
No, seriously. He does.
He asked the president if he would now consider banning silencers on guns after the Virginia Beach outrage in which high-capacity magazine were also used.
Trump replied that he ‘didn’t like the idea of them’ and was would ‘serious look at’ banning the noise suppressors.
He added: ‘I don’t like them [silencers]. No body’s talked about the silencers very much, they did talk about the bump stocks and we had it banned and we’re looking at that, I’m going to seriously look at it [a ban].
‘I don’t like the idea of what’s happening, what’s going on is crazy, with schools.’
[ … ]
On the subject of semi-automatic assault rifles, Trump responded to the use of AR-15 high-powered rifles that they were used for ‘sport’.
He replied: ‘Well a lot of them use it for entertainment. They do. It’s really. For some people it’s entertainment, they go out and they shoot and they go to ranges and they have a tremendous amount of fun.
My God. Can the man construct a coherent thought for even a moment? What on earth does schools have to do with suppressors?
At any rate, we already discussed his apparent kingly choice to go around the legislative system and single-handedly declare bump stocks illegal. He’s apparently looking at doing that with suppressors too as we learned.
But what we didn’t know is how little he can actually craft a coherent argument for the ownership of semiautomatic firearms. He thinks you only have an AR-15 to “have a tremendous amount of fun at the range.”
Tell that to Stephen Bayezes. Oh and by the way, take a gander at the comments on these discussion threads on reddit/firearms. Look here and here.
Trump is being increasingly seen as an enemy of firearms ownership. I don’t believe the polls that show Trump as far ahead as they do. Those polls ignore the fact that the same level of excitement for Trump won’t be there in 2020 as it was in 2016. Gun owners may simply stay home.
Trump has no real political sensibilities except Northeastern progressive, and as I’ve mentioned doesn’t even speak the same language we do we. But his advisors are idiots as well.
