Come Dig Up My Yard

Here we go again.

I like to read them as ONE amendment.

I. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I have to thank Justice Scalia for opening the ammo canister of worms with his new, idiotic, rather oppressive, statement regarding the Second Amendment:

“Obviously, the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried -- it’s to keep and ‘bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons -- but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided,”

Huh!?

There is nothing obvious about the right to keep and bear arms meaning hand held, except in the mind of some elite who thinks he can re-write the US Constitution – without consequences. Scalia is tripping toward “tax” meaning the same thing as “penalty.”

Do “slippery” and “slope” come to mind?

The British tried to take all the powder kegs from the American revolutionary soldier/citizens. The Brits wanted the American armories.

They did not hand carry the powder kegs. Scalia’s re-interpretation of the words in the Second Amendment would have, essentially, disarmed the patriots who freed us from England. Now Scalia wants to play King George and let us peons have pistols and fire-crackers.

Your timing is off Mr. Scalia.

If we want to go down that immoral path – back to Article I.

If a hundred rounds in a magazine are too many for the Second Amendment, are a hundred protesters in one place beyond a peaceable assembly?

Freedom of speech includes millions of dollars of TV ads. How is that in line with “hand held” when it comes to arms. It looks to me like a millionaire can own heavy weapons, but a working stiff – loses.

I’m off, like every other person with a brain in this country, to buy up as much ammo as I can afford this week.

Good for me the First Amendment allows, for now, Supreme Court Justices to blab to the press, bloated hypotheses, regarding their intentions for my freedoms.

Comments

[Rick Barnes]

Ed, I had a very similar discussion last week with one of my more liberal friends who took no time to jump on the ban gun band-wagon after the shooting in the theater. He questioned what types of weapons the 2nd amendment should allow bringing up the favorite argument of liberals that back then there were only black powder guns that two 2 minutes to load.

I pointed out that back then there were also private citizens who owned cannons and in some cases even warships which the government contracted to help combat pirates.

[Ed Naile]

We may need to ban liberal speech since the first amendment is so open to interpretation.

Just look at the word, is, for an example.

Does your tofu pal have any suggestions as to what a majority of conservatives on the court should ban come the next appointments?

It would be facinating to get some insites from a liberal.

[C. dog]

Hey Ed –
When mustering your arms, make sure you grin and bare them, 'cause you gots such a sweet, sweet smile. And remember to send a snapshot off to your new favorite pervurcator of the Constitution. I'm sure he'll receive it in the fashion it was intended, being such a lofty interpreter of words and such. Why, you might even blow a breath of fresh air up his musty robe.
– C. dog can't wait for opening season to replenish the larder with fresh meat

[Ed Naile]

dog:

If Scalia is not sure about what a citizen can posess it the way of arms - he can "bear," maybe he has an explanation as to why local police need assault vehicles plated with armor.

[C. dog]

Why Ed –
That's to control the flow of goods and services according to the odd notions of Nanny and all Nanny's ninnies. Black markets, and the monopolies they erect tend to require fortification of the police state. Lessons were learned with Prohibition I, then lost. I suspect we are about to re-learn some other lessons from the 20th century. Good thing libs are so readily scared off by anything approaching a kerfuffle in the sandbox. Just hope the soldier class refuses to escalate their war against those who seek freedom sanctuaries. Maybe the Grate State of New Hamsters could become one of those sanctuaries, and all the moon-bats and bureaurats can return to the protections afforded by MA-MA Land, VerteMont, and their ilk. I'd just love to sell them a pack of cigs and a 6-pack – real cheap – at the border crossings when they need their fix.
– C. dog

[Ed Naile]

dog:

"Just hope the soldier class refuses to escalate their war against those who seek freedom sanctuaries."

I have a friend who lived in Germany during WWII. He said the German soldiers dropped their guns and threw off their uniforms then ran into the woods when they realized they were going to lose.

There is no way American soldiers can be made to think they could possibly disarm and American public.

No way.

[C. dog]

Fortunately, soldiers are too entwined with civilians who carry guns, which is the group from which most soldiers matriculate. Let's hope the same for the police; but they're more invested in a police state, therefore a dicier proposition.
– C. dog

[Ed Naile]

dog:

As a former selectman here in my village of the damned, I was tasked with interviewing about 25 contestants for local police positions.

They are no threat, beleive me.