Have you read the reports about the Supreme Court throwing out Washington DC's handgun ban?

This is the one that gets to me:

>Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."<

No untouchable constitutional rights? What's wrong with that man? Didn't anyone tell him what his job was when he put on the robe? It's to preserve and protect the constitution. Period. That's his whole job.

We're not talking about interpretation here. It's not a question of what the founding fathers meant. He's not unclear about the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

He's saying, point blank, if we don't like what they meant, we can ignore it. "No untouchable constitutional rights guaranteed by (the Bill of Rights)."

Y'all better get posting to SpicePlace out of your system tonight, cuz tomorrow Justice Breyer will tell us there is nothing untouchable or guaranteed about free speech. And, oh, yeah, starting Saturday we all have to subscribe to the Pentecostal view, cuz there is no freedom of religeous choice after all. No right to peaceably assemble. No right to sue for redress of grievences. And all those newspapers that didn't back his nomination? They're gone, cuz there is no untouchable guarantee of free press whatsoever.

Sure, all that's in the Constitution. But, what the hell, let's just toss it all out on a whim.

Somebody needs to take Justice Breyer out behind the barn!

KYH,

They have been trying for yrs. now to unravel our Constitution, slowly and surely our Constitutional Rights will all be a thing of the past!
THAT IS REALLY A FRIGHTENING THOUGHT

I just wrote a very depressing thing about my reaction to this, the market today and ---thank goodness for delete--then got this in an e-mail-- are you aware of who opposed him for the Nobel Peace prize??
Irena Sendler of Poland, Nobel Peace Prize, a real winner « Citizen Wells
If you do a search on Irene Sendler you will smile through your tears and then astounded this could happen.
Nobel Peace Prize???
hugs my friends,
Nan

Really makes you wish Republicans and Democrats had a different kind of candidate. I do not trust either of these bozo's when it comes to USSC appointments. What scares me was how close this decision came from going the other way.

I read most of Scalias opinion on this today and he pretty much nailed it. He basically asked the minority why it is every other right in the BOR applies to the individual (i.e. the 1st amendment) yet they chose to not apply the same the 2nd.

He also noted that the right is recognized by the BOR, not given by it. The document clearly states: "The right to keep and bear arms will shot not be infringed". The first 7 words show that the right already exists, and the BOR definition is not a right to the people, but it denies the right of Governments in the United States to INFRINGE upon it.

He also tore apart the militia argument basically pointing out the term militia at the time meant any able bodied man. This is why other language says "call up the militia", "organize the militia", etc.. It does not say to create a militia.

It really is an interesting read in fresh Americana and I hope to one day get it in book form because it is lengthy and rather hard to read as a PDF:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

I myself was brought up to use firearms. When I was old enough to fire a .22 I was instructed on how to handle the weapon. I currently own a couple of rifles and handguns and am confident in my ability with them.

Having never been dictated to that I cannot defend myself, I could not imagine living in DC where crime is running rampant (even after 30+ years of an unconstitutional weapons ban that supposedly protected people) and not being able to defend my family in my own home.

Nothing makes me sicker to my Stomach than watching the Mayor of Chicago wail over the decision. Here is a man surrounded by secret service, who are all carrying weapons to protect HIM and HIS family, yet he is enraged when others who cannot afford such protections now have the right to take it into their own hands.

Should Governments be able to regulate firearms? Sure, I think every reasonable person agrees with that. The last thing I want if Charles Manson gets out of prison is to see him walk into a gun shop and pick up a tech 9. However, outright bans on gun possession by law abiding citizens does nothing more than leave them defenseless.

I certainly agree with almost everything you say, Jaffo. But my point wasn't a question of whether anyone agreed with the Supreme Court decision or not.

That 2nd amendment issue has always been fought over interpretation of the word "militia." And Justice Scalia was completely correct, in that the word has always applied to the amateur citizen-soldier prepared to defend home, family, and country.

I'm an 18th century reenactor, who belongs to a militia, and know, firsthand, exactly what the responsibilities are. Indeed, not only did the militia have to respond to a call up, it brought its own arms. The founding fathers saw that fundamental to defending freedom was the ability to do so, and you cannot do that without weapons.

Switzerland is the only modern country that recognizes that fact.

However, that was not what was at stake. Justice Breyer wasn't saying, "I disagree with Justice Scalia over the definition of 'militia."' He was saying, "If we disagree with what is written in the BOR we can just ignore it."

To me, that's the scary part.

Is the Court politicalized? Of course. And has been every since FDR staked the deck. But I have never seen such a patent disregard to both the law, and the intent of the law, by a man who has sworn to defend it.

The Bill of Rights was aimed precisely at people like Justice Breyer. The founding fathers realized, as soon as the Constitution was ratified, that they'd made one mistake. The had assumed that the rights and privledges they had fought for would be recognized by all. But, realizing their error, they quickly rectified it. In effect, they said, "hey! All that gobbledegook in the Constitution has to do with how we are organized as a country. But this Bill of Rights is what it's all about. This is what it means to be a citizen of this country!"

As to your other point, well, I don't think there is any question that if "none of the above is acceptible" were on the ballot this fall he would win hands-down.

Public service used to be an honorable profession that attracted first rate people. Now? Phui! If John McCain is really the best we can produce, we're in big trouble.