Yes, I know I'm late to the party with this one. The Supreme Court of the United States is currently considering whether to uphold or overturn Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns.
The Justices appear prepared to admit that the 2nd Amendment does indeed grant an individual right as opposed to a collective, State's right. What's not so clear is what they'll do about the handgun ban.
It just boggles my mind that it has taken this long for a case like this to reach the Supreme Court.
Of course the 2nd Amendment details a private, individual right. I don't understand the gun-grabbers who try and claim otherwise. One common argument is that the 2nd is a collective right, that merely grants each State the ability to form a National Guard. If this was indeed the case then the 2nd would be the only one of the Bill of Rights that grants a right to the government as opposed to granting it to the people. This argument is completely retarded in my own humble opinion.
Of course the NRA, et al, are being vilified by all the usual suspects.
So why is the ACLU "good" when it defends a certain part of the Constitution and yet the NRA is "bad" when it defends a different part of the Constitution?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment