Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freethinker_for_freedom

“How about the leftard scumbags on the US Supreme Court who just struck down Chicago’s anti-gun ordinance? Were you pretty upset to see the federal courts being used to strike down a “duly enacted law”?”

What kind of nonsense is that? You should know, if you don’t, that the Supreme Court is one more Chairman Maobama appointment away from declaring the 2nd amendment null and void.

That said, it seems to me that any rational, honest person would immediately see that no law that denies us our God-given right to self-protection could possibly be deemed “duly enacted.”

And no, with a heavy sigh, there is no God-given right to falsely claim that one has been awarded military decorations and medals for the sake of self-aggrandizement. That being the case, a government is at liberty to pass and enforce laws against impersonating a police officer, doctor, military officer, or even a decorated war hero.

I am so glad that we don’t see the old false moral equivalence too often here at FR. It is *so* tiresome to explain it for the eleventy-hundredth time.


67 posted on 07/16/2010 3:59:14 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: dsc

“That said, it seems to me that any rational, honest person would immediately see that no law that denies us our God-given right to self-protection could possibly be deemed “duly enacted.”

What does “duly enacted” mean to you then, if not a law passed by through proper legislative channels? Is every law that you disagree with not “duly enacted”?

I’m with you on the Second Amendment. I’m just saying that the courts’ job is to strike down every law that conflicts with the constitution of the U.S. Obviously, you are sometimes in agreement with the right and duty of the courts to do so, so long as you agree with the outcome.

And by the way, the question before the Court in the Chicago handgun case was not whether the Second amendment was null and void, but whether its protections should be extended to the states through the mechanism of the 14th Amendment, because the Supreme Court has always found that the original intent of the Founders was that the Bill of Rights only applied to the actions of the federal government.


89 posted on 07/18/2010 2:55:21 AM PDT by freethinker_for_freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson