11 July 18
“‘Civil War’ happens when the victimized are armed.
‘Genocide’ happens when they are not!”
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 insure 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 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 government to provide them with everything they need, should not be astonished when government first “defines,” then dictates, “needs.”
When 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