My original post was NOT to support the decision, but to correct the many grossly incorrect posts I have seen here. Concerning the heart of your statement:
"With the misconstrued twists in meaning that have been applied to the U.S. Constitution over the years that have turned that document into a worthless doormat of broken guarantees,"
Agreed. However, if you want to look at why that has happened, look into the mirror. Not just you, but all of us. Anyone who depends on a piece of paper with words on it to protect them is a fool. The only way to keep the protections in place is to elect politicians who want to protect the Constitution rather than curcumvent it.
That is what depresses me. Most of the people around here think that words, not actions will protect them. That judges will protect them. That someone, anyone, will protect them. They are wrong. As long as they think that, our Constitution will continue to erode.
I once (a year or two ago) saw a report that crossreferenced gunowners names to voting lists and found that there was only a VERY small percentage of them registered to vote (I forget the exact number, but it was depressingly small). As long as that continues, you can expect to continue to lose gun rights, too.
"My original post was NOT to support the decision."
That is understood and I did not intend to infer that you did support it.
"Anyone who depends on a piece of paper with words on it to protect them is a fool. The only way to keep the protections in place is to elect politicians who want to protect the Constitution rather than curcumvent it."
Solidly agreed. Furthermore, anyone who depends on an elected official to protect them is also a fool. How can we elect an official that would serve to our benefit when the norm is that they promise one thing during the election, but deliver something else once elected? They know that the chances of them being removed is slim and come the next election, most find a way to "make nice" so they get reelected only to fall back to serving their own interests once elected again.
I think that history shows us something of the character of a good politician versus that of the corrupt politician. George Washington served very well much to his dismay that he did not want to serve in the first place. He therefore had no personal self-serving motive, but instead one of public duty --a true public servant. Compare that type of character to the likes of Ted Kennedy. Ted and his ilk will never be looked upon in history with the reverence commanded by that of Washington and his contemporaries.
I also agree with your understanding of how this has come to be. Ask your average citizen, "If your rights are being violated, what or whom is your first line of defense?" The answers are generally in the realm of "the police", "my senator", "my representative" and so on.
(a big flaming) WRONG!
YOU are ALWAYS your own first line of defense.
But we all know how it goes... the big game, that new reality show on TV or Michael Jackson's escapades are more important than keeping abreast of actual news of what goes on around you and what potentially happen to you. Suddenly one day, BAM! It's you who's life is being trampled under foot and you wonder why it happened. Well, it's the "law".
For many reasons and then some, Thomas Jefferson and others were right. We are doomed and it is our own fault. Worse yet, no amount of Freeping, letter writing, blogging or demonstrating will change it, but only slightly slow it's course. Those who sounded the warning bells now and long ago are only looked upon as loud-mouthed fringe wackos looking for attention. Those who try to rebel and resist by using something more forceful than mere failing words to defend their life and property are looked upon as criminals or even terrorists.
Sometimes it seems that only way to true personal freedom is the approach of "every man for himself" and staying under the radar. While we are our own first line of defense, not all of us can afford to be. While "justice" in this country is proclaimed to be "equal" and "fair" to all, history has repeatedly demonstrated that it is neither... unless you can afford high-priced lawyers.