The gun ban ends

In the very first sentence of yesterday's landmark Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller, a constitutionalist jurisprudence to protect the Second Amendment emerges. The right to bear arms as the Founders inscribed it in the Bill of Rights "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," proclaims the ruling. Thus does this 5-4 watershed address frontally the many decades of dispute on a most basic constitutional question. Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to bear arms, or a collective one? It is an individual right, the court ruled. The District's handgun ban is overturned, as are the city's firearm disassembly requirements. The gun-control movement must respect the Constitution.

Rarely have 27 words caused so much controversy: "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." And yet, by reaching straight to the heart of the dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment, this decision lays the foundation for a very welcome and stable future on gun rights. It immediately becomes the most significant constitutional ruling of this generation.

Have gun, less crime

In response to the startling discovery by the Supreme Court Thursday that the 2nd Amendment exists, Obama at first tried to fake support for the decision, then showed his staggering mastery of clueless-ness with: "What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."
The Supremes struck down the District of Columbia's moronic, 32-year-old blanket gun ban, ruling that the 2nd Amendment's language -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" -- mysteriously means the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Amendment's language had always been manifestly clear, but apparently not clear enough for liberals who seem to find clauses spelling out "gay marriage," partial-birth abortion, forced busing, racial quotas and habeas corpus for bin Laden; so libbies -- including four mentally impaired lawyers on the High Court -- are still confused. "An individual now has a constitutional right to own guns," sniffed James Vicini of Reuters, thinking a shiny "new right" had rolled off Scalia's assembly line. From the beginning, the 2nd Amendment was understood by real Americans to be an individual right, so libbies insisted it only applies to state militias that don't exist anymore. The ruling was SCOTUS's first-ever interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and, short of writing the ruling in crayons for liberals, attempted to settle the long-running debate liberals have had with plain English in the Constitution. (Liberals were sure "2nd Amendment" had to mean '2nd class citizenship' for gun owners.)
The doofus mayor of D.C., Adrian Fenty, complained hysterically that "more handguns will lead to more handgun violence." Apparently, the District's gun ban had "worked" so well that around 300 people were being murdered every year by handguns with access to bullets, human hands and car keys.
Liberals were so devastated by the ruling, the poor little dears were even showing signs of moving through the four stages of grief. Denial: Impact of Gun Ruling Limited, Experts Say -- New York Times. Pelosi Says D.C. Should Continue Gun Regulation -- The Hill. Anger: Gun-Control Supporters Show Outrage -- New York Times. Despair: "Sen. Dianne Feinstein says the ruling destroys decades of precedent. 'I think it opens this nation to a dramatic lack of safety,'" (USA Today). Acceptance: "This opinion still allows commonsense gun control laws," said Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign, which argued before the court that this opinion would not allow "commonsense" gun control laws.
Sounding as coherent as ever, Chicago mayor Richard Daley said he didn't know if the court's ruling will affect Chicago's insanely stupid gun ban, then moments later called it "a very frightening decision."
Taking their guidance from staunch gun-control advocates Hitler and Stalin, liberals of Obama/Daley's ilk in Chicago had enacted their own idiotic ban on handguns and, because the ban has been a total failure, have kept it in place for decades. The ban is so strict, the only ones exempt from it are police officers, aldermen and every deadly gang in Chicago.
Liberals had this brilliant idea that the way to solve crime is to make sure only criminals have guns. It's like communism during the Cold War. You'd explained until you were blue in the face that the basket-case Soviet state was a basket-case for a reason, but libbies insisted the way to go was 5-year plans, bureaucrats and gulags -- keys to "prosperity," if only the Soviets hung in there another 75 years. It's working so beautifully in North Korea.
The evidence didn't fit the beloved template, so they ditched the evidence. And judging from the evidence, gun-banning "works" as 'really well' in Chicago as it's "worked" in the propped up basket-case of D.C.
From 1990-1999, Chicago's "reasonable" "commonsense" gun-grabbing resulted in over 8,000 "commonsense" murders, even as crime overall was falling in the rest of America. From 2000-2006, there were nearly 4,000 murders in Chicago -- we need a timetable to withdraw from this civil war now. The gun-grabbers claim that gun control is "working" because there were 628 murders in 2000, whereas last year only over 430 people got murdered.
And as if this wasn't good enough, only 27,308 crimes have been committed in Chicago in the last 30 days; 440,300 crimes in the last 12 months; nearly 82,000 thefts, 26,000 assaults, 25,000 burglaries, 78,000 cases of battery, all accomplished in the last 12 months. Numerous hit-and-run traffic crimes, too. There's "gun violence," so this is "car violence." We need "reasonable" "commonsense" car control!
Big picture-wise, it's been the case for decades that one out of every four "gun murders" occur in New York City, Washington D.C. and Chicago, gun-banning meccas representing under 5 percent of America's population.
Obama says he's always supported the 2nd Amendment since last Thursday morning. Before that, from last November to around February 12, Obama insisted the D.C. gun ban was "Constitutional"; then from February 15 to June 24, Obama declined to take a position on the D.C. gun ban; then on June 25, Obama said he'll wait and see what SCOTUS decides before deciding what his core belief is on the D.C. gun ban; then the next day, Obama disavowed the position he took last November on the D.C. gun ban, insisting it wasn't his position but that of some staffer who was "inartful" in trying to explain Obama's position on the D.C. gun ban. But this mysterious "staffer" fella told interviewer Leon Harris in a forum on February 12 that he supported the D.C. gun ban. Harris kept referring to this "staffer" as Sen. Barack Obama. This is the same chap who was standing behind a podium next to Hillary in the Philadelphia debate back in April, who confessed to moderator Charlie Gibson that he hadn't "listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence" in the case of the D.C. gun ban. Don't worry, he'll change his mind again when he's delivering his concession speech in November.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.