Opinion
Ft Collins, CO –-(Ammoland.com)- “‘Civil War’ happens when the victimized are armed. ‘Genocide’ happens when they are not!” ~ AE Samaan
Second-Amendment issues are being stridently argued now, in the wake of DJT’s announcement of his latest nominee for our nation’s Supreme Court.
The nominee’s qualifications are, of course, superlative, but leftists only care about his political leanings.
Non-leftists are “automatically unfit,” in their view. Yet, during the confirmation process, “political leanings” should be irrelevant.
The job of our Supreme Court is to fearlessly interpret, protect, and defend our Constitution. It is not to promote a particular political party, nor legislate, nor “invent” extra-Constitutional dogma.
To their credit, our courageous Founders refused to compromise individual liberty and fought our Revolutionary War as a result. They defined and defended our rights as free citizens and did their level best to ensure that individual liberties were not subsequently infringed, nor regulated out of existence.
Yet, past Supreme Courts have cowardly looked the other way as our Second Amendment rights as Americans have been the contemptuously infringed, essentially abolished in some states and cities.
To be fair, SCOTUS has at times audaciously stood-up for our rights, but not very often.
Who naively expect the government to provide them with everything they need, should not be astonished when the government first “defines,” then dictates, “needs.”
When the government tells you that you don’t “need” a gun, then don’t be astonished when they subsequently tell you that you don’t “need” a particular medical treatment, nor a boat, nor a house with a view.
The foregoing is why our Constitutional individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is so critically important to the continued existence of this civilization, and thus must be defended by SCOTUS against relentless attack by sleazy leftist politicians who believe all individual rights are “relative,” and that powers of government (when they’re in charge) are, and should be (and will be), unlimited.
“Few tyrants argue for ‘slavery of the masses.’ Instead, they argue for the power to ‘protect people from themselves.’” ~ AE Samaan, again
/John
About John Farnam & Defense Training International, Inc
As a defensive weapons and tactics instructor John Farnam will urge you, based on your own beliefs, to make up your mind in advance as to what you would do when faced with an imminent lethal threat. You should, of course, also decide what preparations you should make in advance if any. Defense Training International wants to make sure that their students fully understand the physical, legal, psychological, and societal consequences of their actions or in-actions.
It is our duty to make you aware of certain unpleasant physical realities intrinsic to the Planet Earth. Mr. Farnam is happy to be your counselor and advisor. Visit: www.defense-training.com
President Trump is on record as being an advocate of the 2A. However his nomination of Mark Jeremy Bennet to the ninth circuit court conflicts with that position. It may not be enough for a politico to simply say “I support 2A”,
it seems necessary to require their complete understanding for, and interpretation of 2A.
I advocate for national constitutional carry, sans permit (citizenship and the current check is sufficient).
State registration schemes (ccw permitting) are infringements. Certain elements, that failed in the last presidential
election, would use such registry and “universal” background checks to protect and enshrine their tyranny.
Yes some of our politicians and few supereme court justices are trying to read into the second amendment put in it that are not there, furthermore the second amendment say what the people can and cannot have it just says we have the right to bear arms that could mean from a 22cal to a tank it does not specify.
@KC, Correct, but the framers did demonstrate their desire to completely and permanently preempt later Congresses, presidents, federal agencies S. Cts, state, county, and local governments from making any law diminishing the peoples ability to arm themselves, anywhere they went.
People do not seem to realize that Civil Rights curtail government power over them. Reducing Civil Rights increases governmental power over them. Asking for “gun control” is begging the government to exercise more control over you.
…shall not be infringed, gov-t**ts & lawyer-t**ts
There is no need to interpret the Constitution, it is not some ancient RUNE which is out of reach, with no ability for the common man to understand.
The job of the SCOTUS is simple, and boring under Constitutional dictates.
The SCOTUS is responsible to ensure the laws are within the confines of the Constitution, and that they do not break the law.
Unfortunately John, the Constitution is a collection of words strung together intending a certain meaning. Those words, and that meaning, are open to interpretation, and everyone has an opinion. Fortunately our founding fathers knew this was going to be case and they added something to the Constitution to help keep things on track. The US Supreme Court. But then again, that court is made up of humans, each with their own belief’s and opinions, but a mandate to ignore those and consider only the Constitution and the intent of the writers of that document. They also knew that there would… Read more »
Relief of firearm disabilities discussions
https://www.facebook.com/groups/435505196958450/
…or commiecrats!!!