[RKV]

Out of the ballpark homerun.

[RKV]

Thought you might enjoy this...

[Enterprise]

The problem with the wording is that it carries two thoughts, and this confuses the left. It states the obvious: that a well regulated militia is necessary for the defense of a free state. However, having a militia does not cancel the right of the people to keep and bear arms. What has happened over the years is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms had been infringed numerous times - in plain violation of the prohibition against such infringement!

[Christian4Bush]

bump for later

[zarf]

Outstanding. Bookmarked

[Artemis Webb]

I wish I could share the enthusiasm for the ruling by this particular court. It is a nice victory and I'm glad of it. But until the Supreme Court gets off their cowardly craven ass and addresses the 2nd Amendment (not just one particular case) the leftist on all the lower courts will continue to pick and choose what parts of The Bill of Rights they don't want enforced.

[NewJerseyJoe]

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant! The headline is a classic. And that last paragraph ("liberals reduced to trying to persuade people that they are right") really drives the point home.

[Jeff Gordon]

It's the first time that a federal court has said that the 2nd Amendment restricts or prohibits gun control."

You have to love the liberal's reverse thinking. They see the Second Amendment as restricting their rights rather than giving them rights.

[Kellis91789]

This:

[What the left does not get about the 2nd Amendment is that it is not about the National Guard, or sporting firearms or gun collections. It does not guarantee the government an army, nor does it guarantee civilians the right to hunt and shoot skeet. It's about the right of the people to maintain some portion of the ultimate power of government -- violence -- to themselves. ]

has been so thoroughly buried by the left that almost nobody still understands it. Even the NRA has been put on such a defensive stance that it is rarely brave enough to wave this at banner height anymore.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent tyranny. Period. That means the common man was supposed to have the tools at his disposal to rise up in a new, violent revolution against the government if necessary. In the era of our founding, a rifle could make a man the equal of a professional soldier. Today, we are not even allowed fully automatic weapons, much less the 'arms' that could really create that equality of the power of violence.

How many Americans feel they have no power over the government ? That even if they vote, it won't make any difference ? The systematic dismantling of the Bill of Rights is why they feel that way, with one source of power after another quietly stripped away from the people. So quietly and gradually that most people today don't even realize they once had that power.

[rabscuttle385]

One wonders if D.C. might someday even become the murder capital of the United States without its protective cloak of gun control disarming its law-abiding citizens.

No, that's NOLA aka Nagin's "chocolate city."

[willgolfforfood]

The "well regulated" phrase, at the time of writing this amendment, meant "well trained".

British troops quartered in America prior to the Revolutionary War were well trained in the use of the firearms of the day. They had to be, as firing them in great volleys on a battlefield as you walked around in phalanx formations took a great deal of skill and training. They trained often under the watchful eyes of their commanders. They trained "regularly", then.

The British troops of the day were called "Regulars", exactly for this reason.

Well regulated did NOT mean, at that time, that numerous bureaucratic hoops had to be jumped through to own a weapon. This seems to be the attitude of the anti-gunners amongst us now, but there's no historical support for that theory.

Nor were these British troops here for hunting purposes, or to amass collections of "new world" firearms to take with them back to England after their tour of duty ended here. The 2nd amendment CLEARLY envisioned none of this claptrap. Those troops were here to be soldiers, and nothing more.

[BuffaloJack]

If the district's law-and-order mayor, Adrian Fenty, is so outraged and disappointed by the ruling then he can always move th Europe where he can be with like minded morons.

[wastedyears]

Over the Green Monster.

[metesky]

Bumped and bookmarked

[jjm2111]

I concur.

[Leg Olam]

'Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented, saying the Second Amendment did not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.'

[goldstategop]

The only time liberals love the military is when they can trudge it out as an argument to disarm law-abiding private citizens. If they had it their way, they'd disarm our military first.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

If we follow the argument of the Left's new hero, dissenting Judge Karen Le Crft Henderson, DC's inhabitants should have no constitutional rights whatsoever. Now we know how the Left feels about the n*ggers on the federal plantation known as DC; it wants them kept there unfree, servile and dependent. When you strip away the high-sounding platitudes, liberals still have a racist view of people of color.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[righthand man]

for later

[Gritty]

Great article!

[RKV]

FYI