Replies

No, our primary worry with this case is judges ignoring all that and ruling as they please, reality be damned.

Well, at least then it will be evident where we stand, and what meaning the phrase "rule of law" retains in America.

I really am not too worried about that, so since that's the primary worry, I'm not too worried at all. To wit:

The historians assert, for example, that Pennsylvania's language--"the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"--does not refer to a private right.

I'll bet when counsel for DC and the solicitor general are through being raked over the coals for this and many other absurdities in their reasoning, they'll wish they'd had 4.5 minutes, instead of 45 minutes of oral arguments.

With some slight modifications

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just posted in this forum. But different men often see the same subject in different lights. The question before this forum is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery.
It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the Supreme Court for the last seventy years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the forum. Is it that Kelo decision that makes you optimistic? It is King George II's Insidious smile? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this sudden willingness to hear a 2nd amendment case comports with those previous cases which have destroyed the basic freedom in the Bill of Rights. Are swat teams with the same firepower as the armored cav necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which tyrants resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Washington any domestic enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of swat teams and armored vehicles? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which Washington have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last forty years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing.

You don't have to change it much to put the federal government and especially the supremes in a somewhat less than trustworthy light All you have to do is substitute Washington for Great Britain, etc.