While any dimwit who can read understands that the Second Amendment applies to the people, not the militia, liberal courts and organizations such as the Brady Bunch continue to try to establish a basis for the 2nd as a COLLECTIVE right, that is, applying ONLY to a state-controlled militia. They make OUTLANDISH claims regarding previous Supreme Court decisions, usually Miller, and the 5th Circuit?s Emerson case.
Let us examine the latter first. Emerson was accused of packing while under a restraining order. Maybe so, but the restraining order prevented him from contacting a person, not necessarily specifically from packing a weapon (unless in the vicinity of the complainant, who was seeking more than just a divorce, and whose motives in the restraint were suspect at best). Convicted by the state, he appealed, and lost at the Federal Court of Appeals level. Appealing to the 5th Circuit, Emerson won, as the 5th Circuit stated:
?We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, CONSISTENT WITH MILLER, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller.?
I commend to you the words of the 5th, ?CONSISTENT WITH MILLER.? So much for Brady Bunch claims of Miller?s rejection of the individual rights model. And, basically, so much for the Brady Bunch.
Pretty much open and shut. So why do the Brady Bunch, and their liberal state and federal court friends, continue to blindly grasp both MILLER AND EMERSON as if they were a panacea of prohibition against private arms? Is it some form of collective, insane myopia ? or just plain and simple hornswoggling? One would suspect the latter, but to what purpose?
Let me phrase the question another way. Most well-off liberals seem to have some kind of a class and status issue with their liberalism and wealth.
Michael Bloomberg, for example, with all his billions, is on a continuous campaign to disarm America (notwithstanding the fact that he can’t seem to make up his political-presidential-campaign mind whether he’s a liberal, a conservative, or a nutcase — but I digress!). John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, TeddiKennidi, and thousands of others of their ilk, don?t like the idea that you have a gun.
Why? What in the name of heaven is wrong with the idea that you have a right to protect yourself against both the tyranny of the state and the tyranny of common crime?
Perhaps in the former we have an answer. Where there is an armed populace, there can be no dictate from an aristocratically controlled state. Think I?m wrong?
How many poor politicians do you know?
And, uh, how many ARROGANT politicians do you know?
A little food for thought, as you think about who should be YOUR next Mayor/Congressman/Senator/President.
Best,
Chuck
