Tag: Playing by the Rules

Heck, even the proponents of the 2nd amendment get caught up in the false premises promoted by the lefty lobbies arguing in favor of disarmament.  Even those who advocate gun ownership too often agree rather easily, that a fully automatic machine gun is too much. [to allow]  They agree that having a bazooka is probably just plain crazy.  And that schools are a bad place to allow guns at all; this last receiving an exclamation point with the governor vetoing SB59.

How sad.  How intellectually lazy.  

How incredibly naive.

Not in the failure of the governor to sign, but in the thinking that one does not have the absolute God-given right to defend their person from aggressors by whatever means possible.  In the thinking that some social sense of insecurity should trump the ability for an individual to provide for his or her own protection. In the thought that an unarmed populace is somehow more intrinsically safe than one which in self interest, has armed itself.

Thus the argument so predictably presented by the left, that the founders of our constitution "didn't envision semi-automatic rifles and machine guns", falls flat on its face.  The second amendment was put in place for a reason.  It was followed up by the third, (quartering without consent) which few could quote, and was placed so early in the bill of rights as to make very clear, its importance. Those two set up a very clear message to our newly formed government that it was not to assume any activity contrary to the liberty and freedoms assumed by the populace; that no action UPON the people would be accepted, and that the people had the right to defend against force in the commission of such action.

George Mason helped to clarify this fact.

A federal appeals court judge pretty much put the Obama justice department on notice when he demanded to know if they agreed to the rules.

"Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

The Rules pretty much reconfirmed in 1803 Marbury v. Madison that:

Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void.

It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

The rules are the rules.