"Supreme Gun Court" BADLY BOTCHED SECOND AMENDMENT INTERPRETATION!
dillydally
Justices.
Their miserably air-headed decision reveals a distinct lack of
analytical thinking. But we knew that in advance, and so the result
was not unexpected. Just wrong.
But "laws" are made to be obeyed.
Let's hope that ALL WHO SUPPORT this latest Supreme Court travesty
will never experience the tragedy of having children, spouses, or
other family members SHOT and killed or maimed, intentionally or
accidentally, by another family member.
The following letters include measured and insightful expositions of
clear thinking on "bearing arms," but they are probably beyond and
well above the intellectual levels of most, if not ALL, gun nuts.
----------------------------
"The Overturning of D.C.'s Handgun Ban"
Letter to the Editor
Friday, June 27, 2008; A16
After a Supreme Court decision gave detainees at Guantanamo Bay the
right to challenge their detention by the United States, Justice
Antonin Scalia said in a dissent from the bench that the ruling "will
almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" ["Justices Say
Detainees Can Seek Release," front page, June 13].
Is he equally bothered by this possible consequence of his support for
the court's decision yesterday striking down the District's handgun
ban?
DEAN SCHLEICHER
Owings, Md.
***=B7
So the Supreme Court has affirmed an individual's right to own a
firearm.
This should reassure the National Rifle Association that any future
regulation of firearms will not contravene the individual's right to
have them. So can we now have an adult discussion about common-sense
measures such as closing the gun-show loophole for background checks
and mandatory registration of firearms with authorities?
Let's just say I'm not holding my breath.
CHRIS WILCOX
Severn, Md.
***
=B7Justice Antonin Scalia and his concurring colleagues need to be
sent
back to grammar school. The first clause of the Second Amendment -- "A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State" -- is known in Latin grammar as an ablative absolute.
It is absolute because it governs the meaning of the rest of the
sentence: "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." In plain English, the purpose and condition of the right
to bear arms is dependent upon raising a well-regulated militia.
Government agencies, not individuals, have the task of regulating any
militia. It is the right of the people to secure themselves as a
people and not individuals as individuals.
The authors of our Constitution were well aware of the rules of Latin
grammar, and their syntax was shaped by those rules. Clearly, Justice
Scalia and his cohorts are not. Despite their purported devotion to
the "original intent" of the Framers, they have radically rewritten
the Second Amendment to read: "In spite of a free State's need to
secure itself with well-regulated militias, the individual citizen has
a right to bear arms, even if that right threatens the security of the
People."
FRANK K. FLINN
St. Louis, Mo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603601.html
YosemiteSam
> They don't deserve to call themselves, or to be called, Supreme Court
> Justices.
>
> Their miserably air-headed decision reveals a distinct lack of
> analytical thinking. But we knew that in advance, and so the result
> was not unexpected. Just wrong.
>
> But "laws" are made to be obeyed.
>
> Let's hope that ALL WHO SUPPORT this latest Supreme Court travesty
> will never experience the tragedy of having children, spouses, or
> other family members SHOT and killed or maimed, intentionally or
> accidentally, by another family member.
>
> The following letters include measured and insightful expositions of
> clear thinking on "bearing arms," but they are probably beyond and
> well above the intellectual levels of most, if not ALL, gun nuts.
>
> ----------------------------
Before responding to your perspective, please define what a gun nut is
in clear and concise terms.
YS
EVIL KNEVIL
the gun nuts. Conservatives, you know.
YosemiteSam
> The Court didn't botch it ... they'd agreed beforehand to side with
> the gun nuts. Conservatives, you know.
How do you define or determine what a gun nut is?
YS