A Terrific Observation

A Terrific Observation

Thirdpower over at Days of Our Trailers has a really good zinger of a comeback line I invite you to go read, but the thread from which that came has another comment I liked even better. It's a statement of reality, one that makes people like GEErnst over at Potowmack.org dampen his Depends:

I am a gun owner from Belgium. Last summer I had to fire a warning shot to repel a gang of drug-addicts who had assaulted and wounded me. The whole story spans several weeks and is rather complicated (because of inept police and courts). Briefly put, cops stole my guns with the excuse that I shot one round into the air. Eradicate gun control in America so it can be destroyed elsewhere as well. America's diplomatic, cultural and military influence has liberated many countries. Abolish gun control and jail the gun-grabbers for complicity in all the crimes they facilitated.

Marik, I know America is on the verge of civil war because I read Guns&Ammo every month from 1994 to 1999. This danger probably prompted the Supreme Court to acknowledge the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. You might be at war now had they ruled the opposite. Fully recover your gun rights, peacefully if possible. Then your example will inspire other countries to do the same.

If you don't inspire other nations to give up gun control, they will degenerate into full-fledged dictatorships with war as the only option to regain freedom. You Americans might have to once again die to fight these foreign wars. The only safe way to prevent this is to destroy gun control in your land so that others will imitate you. - Ben

Can we get this guy a visa? I'll sponsor him.

UPDATE, 7/5: GEErnst, in a fit of PSH (and apparently unable to use hyperlinks properly) indirectly links to this post in his July 5 update. He's so concerned over the outcome of D.C. v. Heller he neglects to, you know, actually discuss the SUPREME COURT DECISION. Instead he concentrates on Silberman's Parker decision and Kleinfeld's dissent in the 9th Circuit's Silveira denial to re-hear en banc. Firehand does a very good job of deconstructing GEErnst in his 4th of July post on the topic. I think his analysis goes double now that GEErnst has come out of hiding.

For the two of you (I don't expect more) who click over here from Potowmack.org, here's the deal:

The Supreme Court - all nine Justices - declared the right to arms to be an individual right. The five-Justice majority declared, in no uncertain terms, that it is a right to arms unconnected to militia service and it is a right to arms "of the kind in common use," among which are handguns. GEErnst states "The gun rights crowd is getting worried. This isn't what they thought and hoped for." On the contrary. It's really more than I had hoped for, though I had hoped for a 6-3 decision. Now we get to fight in the courts over incorporation, and then over just what is or isn't "common use." And a lot more. For a long time.

But we've settled once and for all whether the right protected is "collective" and predicated on membership in a militia or not, and that is making GEErnst dampen his Depends.

Yes, GEErnst, you're right:"The right of armed self-defense includes the right of armed self-defense against the government itself." Try to get your mind around that concept. It's explicitly stated in the founding philosophical document of our nation - the Declaration of Independence - which we celebrated the signing of all day yesterday.

I look forward to your further updates. I want to watch you "bleed on me" some more!