Thursday, June 26, 2008

5-4?!

Are you kidding me?!?! Only 5 out of 9 justices can read an explicit sentence in the Constitution?! This should have been an easy 9-0 decision. If Obama is elected and gets to appoint more justices, I weep for the future.

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns
Well, the Supreme Court said it so that makes it so, right liberals? Just like "fundamental human right" to abortion and sodomy? Oh, wait, those aren't actually IN the Constitution...


District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

Riiiiight. Because DC is such a violence-free paradise right now without guns. This is mind boggling. It has been established in study after study that more guns = less crime


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."


Oh, really, yet, Justice Stevens, you "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" abortion.


He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."


Yeah, those Framers really just had so much faith and trust in government, they wanted to give elected officials as many possible tools to regulate civilian activity. Just like their pal King George! IDIOT!

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."

Well, how come in your view there IS an untouchable constitutional right guaranteed to abortion - never once even remotely mentioned by the Founders, never mind in the Constitution?!

Who do you think now keeps loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas? Does he honestly think that just because there was a DC gun ban that no one had guns in DC? And that now all of a sudden criminals are going to come out of the woodwork to register their guns so that they can be prosecuted for past and future crimes?!


Chicago mayor Richard Daley said he didn't know how the high court ruling would affect the city, but said that the ruling was "a very frightening decision." He predicted an end to Chicago's handgun ban would spark new violence and force the city to raise taxes to pay for new police.


What's really very frightening is that your city was the country's "Murder Capital" in 2003. Good job, gun ban! Way to sacrifice human victims for the cause!

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

The country will only be more safe if they can defend themselves from criminals.

The comments from public officials are astoundingly stupid considering that since at least 2001 the city with the most murders has also "coincidentally" also had a gun ban (or in Philadelphia's case a concealed carry ban) - Detroit, DC, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia.


Just rationally think for a moment about what a gun ban actually does - it takes away guns from law-abiding citizens. Criminals and gangs do not just walk up to police officers and give up their guns. They know exactly how to get guns and they traffic them on the black market. It is pure fantasy to think a gun ban will mean fewer guns will be available for use in the commission of a crime.

And it's not as if no guns = no crime. In other countries where there are gun bans there are mass stabbing incidents. This leads to the shocking revelation that People Kill People

There is really a huge problem when I am 100 times smarter than 4 Supreme Court Justices and most politicians.

UPDATE:

Mayors: Gun ruling won't stop prevention efforts


"There are so many guns on the streets," said Pamela Bosely, a Chicago resident whose 18-year-old son Terrell was fatally shot in 2006. "If you didn't have the guns, we'd still have our children."

You're from CHICAGO! You HAVE a gun ban! And unfortunately it did nothing to protect your son.

2 comments:

Ian Mac said...

NPR's "Talk of the Nation" this week discussed gun control issues. What boggles my mind is that one of their guests quoted an NYT interview from 1998 where Ozzy Osbourne said, "I keep hearing this [expletive] thing that guns don't kill people, but people kill people. If that's the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?"

But wait a second. I guess your "People Kill People" post addressed part of that. If there were no guns, people would use knives. If there were no knives, people would use sticks and stones; they can still break bones.

Since when is Ozzy Osbourne a credible source of political commentary anyway? NPR's credibility just got a couple more bullet holes shot through it.

Alexa said...

Yeah, aside from Ozzy Osbourne being used as a gun expert, how does he explain the fact that there were wars and murders tens of thousands of years before guns were invented? It's a part of the human condition. People kill people!