Criminals do not obey the law. In fact that’s the definition of a criminal, a law breaker. Here’s the definition:

criminal
noun
a person who has committed a crime : these men are dangerous criminals.
adjective
of or relating to a crime : he is charged with conspiracy to commit criminal damage.
• Law of or relating to crime as opposed to civil matters : a criminal court.
• informal (of an action or situation) deplorable and shocking : he may never fulfill his potential, and that would be a criminal waste.
.

So today a decision was finally reached in the case of the D.C. handgun ban, and it was deemed unconstitutional. I’d like to say, “Thank Christ,” but really the thanks go to the five judges who have no problem understanding what it means to have and defend our individual rights.

What is deplorable and shocking is that the vote was so close. For a reminder of the Second Amendment and what it says, like it needs any clarification, here it is:

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.

Not surprisingly, the four who are more than happy to see our individual liberties eroded while they sit on the bench are, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

I remember a former friend of mine commenting, with an outraged voice during the Gore/Bush fiasco in November 2000, “It’s about the supreme court. Whoever gets elected gets to nominate supreme court justices!”

Her primary concern was the woman’s right to do with her body whatever she pleases; you know, the Pro-Abortion versus Pro-Life debate. (yes, I phrased that properly)

Somehow the socialists in this country have no problem being concerned with individual rights while the right in question is the right to kill the unborn, but these very same socialists want to get rid of the death penalty and remove the right to defend ourselves.

The four who voted to uphold the D.C. handgun ban, the dissenters, were also in the majority when it came to taking away someone else’s private property in the Kelo vs. City of New London eminent domain case of 2005, which sadly was more about economic development and displacing a private owner from their property instead of what I thought eminent domain was about, government confiscation of private property in exchange for just compensation, for the public good.

Every day, and with each new socialist that rises through the ranks of the judicial system, and the socialist politicos who appoint them in hopes of seeking more and more power, and with each new attack on the constitution of our once-great country, we lose more and more of our individual freedoms.

On second thought, I am going to thank Christ for today’s vote, because I think it was divine intervention that I get to keep this one individual liberty a little while longer. I’d also like to thank John Adams for such a clearly written amendment, even if you did have to use four commas in that sentence. It’s beautiful, man, it’s beautiful.

And to those criminals who might ever get a bug up their wazoo to invade my home and attack my family, I still have the law on my side, so don’t even think about it!

I am Uncle Jack

Source: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights

Said Uncle Jack @ 8:26 pm | Permalink   

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website