D.C. v Heller Oral Argument--things looking up for freedom

I really hope that the courts find that the right to own guns applies only to militias. Then Montana will seceed from the Union and I can move there!

While the Justices, especially Suter and Breyer went on and on about militia, militia, militia, as if the context in which the term was used has nothing to do with it. While Roberts, Scalia (a neoCON who doesn't think torture is unConstitutional, but in this case, I'll side with him) argued and correctly stressed the people, the people, the people, part of the clause.

Yet, legally speaking all in govt have forgotten the definition of In&Un-alienable rights. Using various precedence of British common law, and British Bill of Rights, which, obviously like habeas corpus from the days of Magna Carta, our system, in a long line of Babylonian, Roman-Catholic-Saturnine cult derived legal canon, is based on. However, using Blackstone as otherwise probable precedence, they see nothing wrong in having govt justifying regulating what are RIGHTS, NOT privileges. Vile.

Worse, you knew this was coming with an NRA backed brief; Heller's own lawyer erroneously referred to the likes of Glock and other polymer pistols as "plastic guns" that do NOT show up on x-ray!!! A tired argument used by hoplonphobes. And he also advocated that such guns can and SHOULD be regulated! Anyone who's ever shot a polymer pistol KNOWs that the barrel, slide, spring, striker/hammer, are ALL METAL! But for the sake of argument, in the future we can make a ballistic polymer barrel and slide and springs. Its silhouette will STILL show up on x-ray. As if any TSA idiot wouldn't know what a gun's shadow looks like? Sure they think the new Apple MacBook Air is a bomb, but certainly they'd know what object that has a handle a tube and a trigger must be, no? Another in the lone line of ridiculous arguments.

But the DC vs. Heller case is about whether a county/city's mandate to ban ALL handguns is unConstitutional; in the legal framework, whether the right ot bear arm is an individual right vs. a collective right, as far as this particular case is concerned, that is the core argument. However, it is utterly wrong to take the position that one MAY regulate a Constitutional RIGHT, and treat it like a privilege, just because over the years courts have interpreted it that way.

On the plus side, the govt's arguments sucked. The attorney stuttered. As much as I despise many justices in the SCOTUS, I must say, these bastards are one crafty wordsmiths; they interjected just at the right time with redundant non-sequitur arguments that seemed rational and relevant, as well as interrupting oral arguments on both sides, by interjecting their own frame of argument, and prosing hypothetical scenarios that bear very little relevance, in essence to the issue at hand.

Say what you will, but NRA IS the pro-gun control lobby. You want real 2nd Amenment Rights lobby? Join Larry Pratt's Gun Owners of America. hey, FrontSight.com supports them. Piazza's endorsement goes a long way for me.

So the decision WILL be in favor of an individual right. But with a heavily regulatory caveat. But spin it in the MSM as a win for 2nd Amend. rights.

The gvt argued irrelevantly on armor piercing bullets and full auto machineguns as if that makes up anything more than 0.5% of over 500 million smallarms in private hands in America. In order to implement the likes of Pres.Directive51, to declare martial law, the govt NEEDS to rid our right to bear arms. But they will push heavily for the regulatory aspect of it. Though legally speaking, that is beyond the scope of this case. So once it is finally, once and for all, established that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, they'll have to hear another case to decide the limits of regulating such right like a drivers's license, which by the way Heller's own lawyer argued DOES NOT have problem with registering, or licensing. Anybody getting disturbed, yet?

Though, in gun friendly states, proliferation of extreme gun regulation is NOT likely to be an issue, but for states that are hostile, this will give them new ammunition in regulating weapons with ridiculous renewal fees, registration hassles, and believe me, insurance tie in will not be far behind. Heller's lawyer is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

That is exactly what WILL happen. If you declare a multi-billion dollar firearms and sporting arms industry, essentially for military only, no manufacturer, nor current owners will be happy. That'll mean a reduction in 40-75% of their annual sales. In case of private owners, govt will NEVER be able to confiscate the way they did in UK or Australia. There will be a violent revolution in such case. So while they'll grant individual right, they'll spin the regulatory aspect of it as a win, and spin it to death. Compromising principle is no compromise at all. It's a loss, period.

Ask yourselves what good is a right, when you cannot exercise it? Already, small non-chain FFL dealers are being sued out of existence, not just in NY, but all over the country. A right is a RIGHT, is a RIGHT, is a RIGHT, NOT a privilege!

Do these bastards realize that the Constitution enumerates in ways in which the govt is controlled and restricted, NOT We the People?

Besides if you really heard the argument, justices and the lawyers all argued based on the premise that 2nd Amendment is a right GRANTED to the People by the Govt. Not the other way around. Truly dangerous Constitutional grounds. And 50% of the argument was framed so that Heller's defense team provided a brief submitted by former generals that 2nd Amendment is essential in quickly training soldiers who grew up accustomed to firearms in civilian life. Again bolstering their position that the 2nd Amendment is solely there to provide proper defense to the the security of the State, NOT in defense of personal liberty. Meaning, you as an individual have no right to keep and bear arms unless you are somehow in the pipeline to protect the State. When in fact, the SOLE purpose of 2nd Amendment is to prevent TYRANNY of govt, be it foreign or domestic! That argument never saw the light of day. Though considering who the justices are and the false premise of phony Constitutional govt bureaucracy that they are part of, they'd never entertain such universal truth.

And the sickening redundancy of arguing back and forth between why if the directive is SO clear, why is there a need for BOTH "to keep," and "bear" arms. Well, legal common sense would dictate that just because you have the right to bear arms, does not necessarily mean that you can keep the weapon on you or at your residence. If that phrase was not there, one can easily interpret that one has right to access a weapon, but NOT keep one personally; such legal diatribe has justified Britons only being able to keep handguns at pistol clubs, before all firearms were banned outright in the UK. Though you saw rich a**holes protesting their right to fox hunt, in style, while their less wealthy citizens were deprived of their right to defend themselves. Sure if you can hire Blackwater to guard your property like in NOLA during Katrina, that's all fine and dandy. But last time I checked we're still a Republic, at least on paper, and not an outright aristocratically ruled kleptocracy. (Okay so we are ruled by oligarchs, but you get my point.)

So as you can see, all in all it was a long one and a half hours of BULLSH*T legal mumbo jumbo, which in plain english is not a complicated issue, but they want to have their own little party in the language that they think they're the only ones who can understand it. After all that, we still have to wait until June of this year, just before the SOCTUS bolt for summer vacation, before a decision can be made. It was the most frustrating display of useless verbiage I've ever heard. Not to mention lingering useless arguments on lock box, triggerlocks, blah, blah, blah. I would have hard time working as a Supreme Court Clerk.

Oh let's not forget the obligatory, "handgun makes for easier suicide access"-bogeyman argument. Hell if a kid is determined to go, sticking an exhaust pipe in his mouth would be easier. Another false argument. Besides, when's the last time anyone has ever seen a truly driven person being prevented from what he/she would do, anyways? Just human nature. When desperate, some weep, some mug others, some off themselves, or others. Can we please move on with this lesson. Supposedly, we've been functional homo sapien sapiens for 65,000years (it's completely off, but for the sake of argument, I'll use the commonly accepted academic number). You'd think by now, we'd agree on some universal human behavioral qualities. One can only hope.

Statistically, the number one cause of intentional, direct one-on-one human involved death in America, is committed by medical DOCTORS!!! Try 750,000 a year! Guns? 35,000-56,000 depending: that in a nation of 300 million. Car accidents account for more than half a million deaths a year. WHAT THE HELL IS THEIR PROBLEM?

And yet, Heller's lawyer did not bring up such statistics in any rebuttal to the supposed disproportionate dangers of handguns, as if there are no other leading cause of deaths in America. Hey, newsflash, buddy, guns don't kill, stupid and/or desperately driven people do. Should we ban all pickup trucks, because in one week more people died from sedans than any other type of vehicle?

Also in DC, while you can "own" non-handguns, like rifles and shotguns, you have to unload it, with a trigger lock, and keep it disassembled. As if every cop is gonna violate your 4th Amendment to knock down every door to enforce it. The govt lawyer argued he can reassemble long guns in such condition in 3sec!! WHat a lie. Well trained cops have 15% accuracy in a real gun fight. ALL operators would tell you that no matter who you are or how well you've trained, at best you're 50% readiness of your best day at the range. So some fat stuttering lawyer is gonna tell me that he can re-assemble his rifle/shotgun, load it, put the safety off, cock it, and acquire front sight, in 3 sec? And still have time to shoot his assailant accurately in the most stressful situation? NONSENSE!

Pardon folks, my verbiage is as lengthy as the old farts in SCOTUS wearing female drag/skirt/robes in black. As if really there is a difference between owning a semi-AK vs. a full auto. If a lunatic is crazy enough to kill, they'll figure out how to do it. Okay, so rarely do truly insane people go postal, it's the marginally sane, but profanely disturbed ones who actually do. Hey, you have to be slick enough to acquire a weapon, from someone else, as guns don't grow in a vegi gardens, no? So Brady Center can delude that 10 round limit in a mag is some type of deterrant. What if the bastard buys 10 magazines? Wow, what do you know, a criminal carrying 100rounds, in 10 separate mags. Bet no one in govt thought of that. If anyone thinks criminals cannot get full auto AK's, they haven't seen the North Hollywood shootout. I'm sure that guy walked into a local FFL dealer and walked out with a full auto AKM, Russian made military grade, full body armor. Utterly ludicrous.

It only takes one well placed round to kill a human being. So, if the operator is disturbed enough to go postal in a mall or at a school, what does it matter whether the gun was a semi or a full auto? When you're hit with a bullet, you're hit. So whether it's semi or full auto is moot, as Ron Paul also so often argues.

When you're a criminal, you're a criminal. As if that stopped them from getting full auto for a few benjamins. Common sense, it seems is always an oxymoron when it comes to govt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the genie is out of the bottle, and I WANT MY FREEDOM, I WANT IT BACK! I WANT MY REPUBLIC BACK!, more than I WANT SEX!! So say we all!

I AM RON PAUL!! We ARE ALL RON PAUL!!!!!

President RON PAUL: Jan 20, 2009 - Jan 20, 2017
Because, I STILL B E L I E V E!!!!!!!

The Supreme Court, if they rule totally against having guns, better be prepared to "examine" the 9th Amendment then, because that is our fallback even if the 2nd is too vague (which it's not, and I find this whole thing absurd). Let's see them explain away the 9th! Notice the MSM never mentions the 9th! That said, I wish the Founding Fathers would have been more clear on the 2nd, like "Whereas the self-protection of the individual person from acts of violence are absolutely necessary for the continuance of life and liberty, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And whereas the protection of the free state requires a well-trained and regulated militia, the right of an assembly of persons to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There - clear. Oh, if only I were one of the writers of the Constitution...