It would seem that according to the mainstream media today, that one of the latest rulings from the US Supreme Court was all about reaffirming the right of ordinary people to only own guns for self-defense.
While self-defense was a major portion of the debate in front the Court, the main argument was whether or not ordinary citizens of this country are allowed to own guns as opposed to regulated militias and government armies.
Take a look at this photo and tell me what the MSM believe was the major crux of the ruling?
Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.
Well, no, not really. First, the ruling was not their "first-ever pronouncement" of guns rights. They made a semi-ruling back in 1791 and in 1939. But that was not a solid ruling to determine, FOR THE LEFT, what the 2nd Amendment really meant. And, from what I read of the ruling, the primary ruling was that people in general, no matter where they are living, have the unbridgeable constitutional right to own a gun. AND self-defense is one of the primary reasons for having that right to own a gun.
According to the MSM, the Court's ruling did not allow people to own guns for hunting, professional shooting and hobby shooting. According to the MSM, this ruling was that people can only own guns privately for self-defense purposes.
The full implications of the decision, however, are not sorted out. Still to be seen, for example, is the extent to which the right to have a gun for protection in the home may extend outside the home.
Now, for those who might not know (and you wouldn't looking at these photos), this ruling overturned the Washington D.C total ban on handguns. However, if one owned a handgun prior to the enactment of the ban, you were grandfathered in. Residents could not even own a rifle or shotgun unless they had a special permit. Now, as a logical southern thinker, what is the difference in death from shooting from a shotgun and a handgun? So, even liberals were illogical in their ban which begged for this to be overturned for unfairness.
The D.C. hand gun ban did not ban guns for self-defense. The ban was complete. It did not allow you to own a handgun for hunting or hobby shooting. So, to overturn the gun ban did not mean that people in D.C can now own guns for self-defense. Please!
Now, what is really scary here is the actual outcome of this ruling. Actually, for me it was the run up to this ruling. Knowing that the Court recently ruled 5-4 to give foreign terrorists Constitutional rights to our civil justice system, I feared that they would rule that citizens now had no rights based on the Constitution. If they can grant rights they can take them away, right? So, I was really fearful of this ruling prior to its announcement. But, when it did come out, I was really thankful that there were 4 conservative judges and one that sometimes leaned non-liberal.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens [Ed: who will be our next Pope] 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."
Justice Stephen Breyer [Ed: mmm, ice cream] 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."
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations,...
Idiot. Framers NEVER wanted to regulate civilian use of "weapons" as Stephens puts it.
Now, how did this issue cause a "split" within the Bush administration when it references VP Cheney and some unnamed "others"? Wouldn't a true "split" be between President Bush and members of his cabinet?
Reading what the dissenters felt and believed about the Constitution, aren't you now glad that this ruling occurred before Obama became president? "...no untouchable constitutional right.." Let that soak in a bit.
These black robed priests believe that the Constitution is not untouchable and not static. Liberals have always stated and believe that the Constitution is "a living document". According to them, that means that any part of the Constitution, the Amendments and the Bill of Rights are as flexible as Laffy-Taffy in that they, at any time, can be changed since rights are just given by a government official.
In that photo above, which is part of Yahoo News series of photos
of nothing but angry anti-gun photos, shows a woman shooting her gun at a gun range. Now, take a look at this next photo
of this woman and her marksmanship ability. TREMENDOUS!!!
And, if you look at that series of Yahoo News photos, there
or so photos
(Niki is on left as if you couldn't figure out) showing kids
looking at guns. Now, tell me what you think the suggestion of the photog was in presenting these kids and their guns.
Update: A new story
about how some mayors are saying nothing has changed or will actively seek to override the Court's ruling. And then there is this dufus:
Coal miner Kyle Lea, 28, said the slayings reinforced his belief that gun ownership should be closely regulated. "I just don't believe in guns. I don't like guns, period. And I don't think really anybody should be allowed to have guns."
I hate grapefruit. I dont think anybody should be able to own grapefruit. Yeah, stupid argument, isn't it!!!
See Michelle Malkin, Sweetness-Light, Confederate Yankee finds libs are not happy but yet willing to use guns for murder, Howie over at Jawa Report, and Hot Air found Obama supported the DC gun ban.