Unable to Move On

It’s amazing how many anti-gun people just can’t move on:

Many are smart enough to see through the fog of the National Rifle Association. Many understand that the Second Amendment mentions a “well-regulated militia” because the right to bear arms is only within that context.

It is mentioned only in the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Therefore its mention is purposeful and within this context when guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms.

Nope, you lost this one. It’s done. Over. There’s no more debate. It’s not the National Rifle Association anymore, it’s the Supreme Court of the United States. There seems to be a concerted effort among our opponents to stick their heads in the sand and pretend they aren’t losing.

10 thoughts on “Unable to Move On”

  1. To be fair, he is “moving on.” He’s moving on from one issue to the next. I looked him up, and he’s an anti-war activist who was focused on protesting Bush & the Iraq War. Without Bush or the war to focus on, he’s reaching to find some issue to keep attention on him. According to one article, he regularly emails more than 100 people to turn out his little pet protests.

  2. Just one quibble about Heller and how it is portrayed many times in blog postings: Heller did not hold 5-4 that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep arms. It held 9-0 that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right to keep arms. The 5-4 decision was over the D.C. gun law was an unconstitutional infringement on that individual, unanimously held, right.

    I think that we should emphasize that when we attempt to correct the misconceptions of the anti-gun folks.

  3. “There seems to be a concerted effort among our opponents to stick their heads in the sand and pretend they aren’t losing.”

    I disagree. A “concerted” effort would suggest that they have some sort of organization or cohesion. :)

  4. The “militia argument” lifted off the planet after Heller and has since departed the legal solar system. People who bring it up are not dealing with contemporary reality; they’re dealing with their nostalgia for something that never really existed, except in the self-serving and warped fantasies of their depraved political imaginations.

  5. Yes, we won. But President Obama’s appointments to the Supreme Court over the next four years are going to do their darndest to find that $1000 annual license fees per gun do not infringe on the right.

    I really wish that I believed that Obama was going to lose. But most of the population isn’t paying attention.

    1. Do you think Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas would hold out of retiring another four years so see who wins in 2016? It certainly seems the liberal judges waited to retire until the Democrats won the executive branch. Certainly Ginsburg gets replaced by someone young in Obama’s second term, but it is not as bad as losing a seat to the dissenters.

      1. I’d like to think that they can do this, but their health (and for that matter, the health and lives of even the younger Justices) needs to hold out as well.

        Since it’s generally impossible to predict this kind of thing, my hope is that Obama will be ousted, and replaced by someone who would pick good Supreme Court Justices.

        Of course, it’s impossible to predict what will happen with regards to Obama, too, or even what said Supreme Count Justices will do–it seems that liberal Presidents almost always manage to get liberal Justices appointed, while “conservative” Presidents have a 50/50 chance of appointing a wildcard, or even a downright liberal.

        (And here, sadly, the word “liberal” means anti-freedom.)

  6. Don’t you see? This just proves that the wicked NRA brainwashed the Supreme Court!

Comments are closed.