I was deeply pessimistic after Boumediene v Bush and then Kennedy v Louisiana that it was going to be necessary to fortify the walls and stock up on ammo when the increasingly senile group that resides down the block from the back door of the Capitol ruled on Heller.
Chalk Up One for the Founders
Justice and common sense prevailed. The republic gets a short reprieve. But there isn’t much to be overjoyed about if you note a couple of dissent comments.
How about this:
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Are you serious? John Paul, baby, what are you drinking? The whole point of the BILL OF RIGHTS is that these are very specific things that the Framers made a choice about! They specifically included these rights precisely because they want to limit the tools available to government to regulate civilian life in general. The evidence is so blatantly clear that for the last 220 years no one needed it spelled out for your predecessors.
Or how about this:
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Can this guy find his way to the men’s room alone? What could possibly be any justification at all in the Constitution for even considering that government would have a mandate to deny citizens any form of defense in their own home? It is because citizens are denied the guaranteed right to keep loaded handguns in the house that it becomes a crime-ridden area. Throw a little doubt into the mind of some thugs about whether or not the homeowner can defend himself and the equation changes considerably. Does Breyer recommend keeping a cocked banana next to your bed in crime-ridden urban areas?
If the addled thinking of these two liberal stalwarts on the Supreme Court doesn’t send chills down your spine and a wave of nausea up your gullet you might be brain-dead. One can only imagine the outcome if we didn’t have Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito on the court. It will only take one Obama appointee to reverse this next time around and I dread to contemplate the mischief that a pair of his appointments would be capable of hatching.