An unfortunate rendering of the headline and author.
Judge Reinhard is such a liberal weenie.
Except that the 2nd 'grants' nothing and the decision of SCOTUS said nothing of the kind.
L
I believe that's called "projection." (Or insanity.)
That type of gun was used to devastating effect in the trenches of WW I, to force German soldiers to abandon those trenches, and subject themselves to even more withering firepower when outside the trenches.
If anything, this should cut the OTHER way. Our armed services, and our state militias, are allowed use of some very serious firepower. Citizen militias (i.e. able bodied males, etc.) should be allowed utterly unfettered access to the same weapons, in defense of tyranny.
It will be very telling if a case comes before the USSC with that set of facts as the argument as to why normal law-abiding people should be able to own full auto machine guns, for instance.
Ted Nugent summed it up nicely with this:
“SUPREME” COURT?
I CAN DO BETTER
by Ted Nugent
It is glaringly obvious that a critical lesson in history 101 is due in America, for it appears that not only does a lunatic fringe of anti-freedom Americans dismiss our founding father’s clear declaration of independence and succinct enumeration of our God given individual rights, but some Americans have the arrogance and audacity to question whether the right to self-defense is indeed one of these individual rights. Dear God in heaven, who could be this soulless? How about 4 out of the 5 so called “Supreme” justices of the land. God help us all.
Who could be so asinine as to believe that a free man has no such right to keep and bear arms for self-defense? What kind of low life scoundrel would know that courageous heroes of the US Military would volunteer over and over again to sacrifice and die for such self-evident truths, then turn around and spit on their graves by discounting the very freedoms that these brave men and women have died to protect?
Will these supreme legal scholars also affirm an individual right to chose the religion of our individual choice? Do they authorize our individual freedom of speech? Can you imagine? Them is fighting words my friends, and the line drawn in the sand has never been more outrageous.
Recent USA Today and Gallup polls showed a whopping 73% of good Americans know damn well that we are all created equal, and that we each have an individual right to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What kind of jackass doesn’t know this? Allow the guitar player to translate for the soul-dead amongst us.
Keep-this means the gun is mine and you can’t have it. This does not mean I will register it with a government agency. The government works for “we the people”, not the other way around, regardless of what Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or Barack Hussein Obama or 4 supreme justices may try to tell you.
Bear-this means I’ve got it right here, on me, either in my grasp or damn near. This does not mean locked away in a safe, trigger-locked or stored at the local sporting club.
Shall not be infringed-this of course is another way of saying Don’t tread on me, for we will not be your willing crime victims, subjects, servants or slaves, so don’t even think about it.
When the evil King’s gangsters came to collect unfair taxes from Americans, we tossed their tea into the drink. When they came to disarm us into helplessness against their old world tyrannical ways, we met them at Concord Bridge and shot them dead till they quit treading on us. Any questions children? I didn’t think so.
Corrupt men cannot be trusted, hence the right of “the people” to chose the individual church of our choice, to speak our individual ideas and beliefs, to have individual freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, and ultimately, to exercise our individual right to keep and bear arms so that evildoers cannot do unto us that which we would not do unto them. Get it? I would love to meet the human being who would argue these points with us. We would be looking at a fascist, and of course fascists, by all historical and empirical evidence, must be eliminated.
If you value the American Way, if you believe in the words and spirit of the US Constitution and our sacred Bill of Rights, if you know in your heart that you have the right, the duty, the spiritual obligation to protect yourself and your loved ones from evil in all of its forms, then you had best contact each and every one of your elected officials right away and let them know that you know exactly what the Second Amendment says and stands for. Remind them about the “shall not be infringed” clause.
It will not be the fault of the rotten anti-Americans out there who don’t believe in individual rights that rape and pillage our Constitution, it will be the fault of those who know better but failed to speak up. Now is the time to fortify America, and we better inform the Supreme Court just who truly is the “Supreme” Court of America-We the people. Individual people with individual, God given rights. The real America. Live free or die.
And what would be the consequences of that answer?
Just as the key civil rights decisions dealing with race were followed by massive civil rights demonstrations, perhaps we will see a massive demonstration by gun owners refusing to enable the registration of their arms.
I agree 100%. Some of the Court's favorite words in a decision are: "...denied due to lack of standing." Why? Because that means they've disposed of the case in about 5 minutes, and are that much closer to clearing the docket.
It would have been the easiest thing in the world for the 1939 Court to have simply done as the 9th Circus routinely does now regarding the 2nd Amendment - call or treat it as a "collective" right (whatever that absurdity means), which no single person can sue to enforce. But that didn't happen for a reason: because it would logically have destroyed almost the entire Bill of Rights.
What's particularly interesting with that "precedent" is that the Supreme Court didn't uphold any conviction; the case was reversed and remanded to trial court for further proceedings (which never took place).
The trial judge was a partisan anti-gun nut who was expected to get a Supreme Court nomination for his partisan activism. He died before he could be appointed.
Scalia was brilliant arguing against the dissent opinions by basing his position on factual evidence and not emotional rhetoric, that's the trick of the antis.
Activism by conservative judges - taking the Constitution at it’s plainly worded face value as explained by those who wrote and argued it.
I’m not reading past the first paragraph.
What a load of BS.
Terrific post. Reinhard is a good thinker and a good writer.
In recent years the Washington Post has shown itself to be more reserved than in the past in its support for socialism and the Democrat party. The paper’s editorials, especially, tend to be written in a professional manner, with care and seriousness. (Just compare the Post to that fading embarrassment, the New York Times.)
I have to believe there are people at the Washington Post who read Dionne’s drivel in their paper and plant their faces in their hands wondering when he will hang it up and go away.