A Nurse with a Gun

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Agendas and Common Sense

It really came as no surprise to most gun advocates. The US Supreme Court. 5 to 4. The Washington DC gun ban struck down. The second amendment solidly defined as an individual right. ¤POOF¤*˜¨¨ The notion of the right to gun ownership being somehow tied to a militia as a collective right to be enjoyed by National Guardsmen was shot full of holes as surely as an IDPA target in front of Rob Leatham.

What the Supreme Court's ruling on District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller means to gun owners will be up to them. Historically, a biased mainstream media has misinterpreted the second amendment. Gun owners can likewise expect them to misinterpret the meaning of DC v. Heller. Expect them to continue to cling to believing "shall not be infringed" means "walk on me if I do not resist." Even as the Supreme Court's ruling was released, the mainstream media has splashed a video of an anti-gun Presidential candidate's take on the implications of the historic ruling.

"You know, I have said consistently that I believe the second amendment is an individual right, and that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on, and it also recognized that even though we have an individual right to bear arms, that right can be limited by sensible reasonable gun laws," claimed Barack Obama, "The DC law, according to the Supreme Court went too far, and now the key is going to be for us to come together and say people do have an individual right, and there's nothing wrong with common sense gun laws, background checks keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill, and creating what I think is the common sense belief among people that we can uphold our traditions with respect to firearms and prevent the senseless killings that we see on the streets of so many American cities."

Some will say that District of Columbia v. Heller was about Washington DC and the right to own a firearm in the district. Others will say it was about the right to own an assembled firearm in the district. District of Columbia v. Heller was about much more. It has reverberating implications across American society. Expect the Supreme Court's ruling to be painted many different colors, with many different brushes, in the months to come. As politicians are forced to change their platforms, simply to maintain political viability when confronted with the paradox of their unconstitutional stance against the rights of American citizens, their agendas will be exposed. Expect the talking heads of the mainstream media to do the same. Ideas die hard, even wrong ideas. I do not believe that any of them realize just how broad reaching this ruling is. The defining of the meaning of the second amendment, after so many years of debate with those who seek power through oppression, is a reaffirmation of the ideals the United States was founded on. The government is founded for the people, by the people and it serves the will of the people. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment to prevent this ideal from becoming twisted, masquerading as "common sense" and being used against the people.

Common sense to one man is often not common sense to another. Indicative of this is the fact that many people cited the now defunct DC gun laws as common sense laws. Senator Obama is on record as advocating the abolition of the right to own handguns, any handguns, to the point of confiscating them from their rightful owners. He is also on record as advocating the repeal of concealed carry legislation that was hard won across the nation on a state level. Nay.....Senator Obama's common sense is not the common sense shared by commoners. His common sense is the same elitist fear of the common man's ability to depose him from his lofty perch that he sneers at the common man from. His "common sense laws" are only a foil to gain what is on his hidden agenda. That hidden agenda is one of power, control and oppression. But Obama is not alone. His agenda is shared by all who seek to strip the common man of his ability to protect himself. Fortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the common man's right to own and carry a firearm not only for self defense, but also so that he might again rise up against an oppressive government and regain the liberty endowed to all men by their creator. That is the ultimate protection, and the greatest fear of the elitist firearms abolitionist.


Labels: , , ,


Anonymous Jack said...

Time to party it up...weapons and ammo style!

5:56 PM  
Anonymous Alex said...

Nice one, Pete, trying to spin this one as a victory for the Brady Bunch.

6:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


8:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well yea they ruled you can own handguns now in DC. But I guarantee you the anti's wont take this lying down.

So lets see how many ways can they can screw with this ruling. Lets see, you can own a handgun but it can only be 22lr caliber. You can own a handgun but it can only be a single shot. You can own a handgun but can only posses 1 round of ammo. On and on.

They can make up as many asinine laws as they can think of, essentially making the ownership of handguns in DC worthless.

10:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hadn't seen this - thanks, as always, for your blog.
And appropriate, as I took son and heir to the range today. Sunday is the 2nd and last concealed carry class, and they'll be shooting as a part of it. He decided the air-weight S&W .38 wasn't what he wanted, even with the "lower power" ammunition I'd bought. But the CZ 75 in 9mm, now that was another matter. First time he'd fired either. And he's good, probably better than I was when I was 22. Olde, much older, Force

10:18 PM  
Anonymous Travlin said...

This is a great day! The consequences of this ruling will take a long time to settle, but it is a victory for freedom.

The important thing is that the court clearly stated the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, for self-defense, and to guard against oppression.

Sometimes things do turn out the way they should. Its still a (sorta) free country after all.

11:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That was an amazing post! honestly, you have amazing writing, i felt like i was reading some literature here.

but while reading your post, something tugged at my literary memory. Something reminded me of George Orwell's 1984. I don't know if you read that book, but in that, the totalitarian government would change "reality" to always be on the winning side. When they beat Eurasia or some other nation, they change all the news reports ever published to show that they(the government) always supported the conflict against Eurasia and knew that they would win.

Obama must've taken a page or two out of the "Party"'s book from 1984....

great post again Xavier.


2:29 AM  
Blogger Joker23 said...

On one of the boards I visit regularly to discuss firearms, someone asked if the ACLU would finally tackle issues having to do with the second amendment.

I responded with a quote from their website:

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47

(bolding is mine)

Now that the 2nd has been decided to be an individual right, I can't wait to see the ACLU try to squirm out of taking on 2nd amendment issues. If they actually do the right thing and start fighting for the 2nd, not only will I stop cursing them at every opportunity, I will support them financially.

8:45 AM  
Anonymous tjm said...

Did anyone else notice how in almost every news cast they made a reference that this NOW gives us the right to bear arms? I am pretty sure that is what the Constitution did… Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively about what he meant and why so that there would be very little ambiguity. I guess people just don’t want to accept it...

12:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link