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.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.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.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly talked about the Second Amendment in terms of an individual right over the past 70 years. Even Kennedy and Souter concurred in Verdugo-Urquidez, which talked about the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments all in the same sentence.
The terms "shall not be infringed" and "the people" are subject to much less ambiguity than "public use," and their clear and unambiguous meaning is meticulously documented in David Young's most excellent book, extensively cited in the Fifth Circuit decision.
I don't think my hope is illusory. The Fifth and the Second Circuits agree with me already, and a few stalwart justices in the Ninth Circuit do too. If I'm proven wrong by the US Supreme Court, and they fail to meet my expectations, then so be it, but I think the absurdity and circularity of the DC gun banners' logic when it comes to the Second Amendment is too much even for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to swallow, let alone a majority of the Supreme Court.
I thought we pretty much figured that out when the Felon in Chief responded, "it depend on what your definition of "is" is..."
Don't forget, the Sinkmeister was ultimately impeached and disbarred regardless of the gyrations he went through along the way.
Saying that Pennsylvania's right to arms provision is not an individual right, or that only two states made such a right part of their Constitutions, is the same kind of desperate absurdity as careful parsing of the word "is" and will serve them no better than it did the Sinkmeister.
Say it with bullets!