Supreme Court? Supreme dunces more like it...

I have thought about all of the great arguments for why the Supreme Court couldn't give a blanket response to a narrow gun law that would lead to any vague interpretation that a monkey could come up with, and I've settled on this one response:

Suck it!

That's my response. Let me say it again.

Suck it!

You idiots!

Suck, suck, suck, suck, suck it!

I feel a little better.

Really, here it is. It should be simple. The law before the Supreme Court was directed at violent crime and home safety in the clearest way possible. It was a handgun ban and a required disassembly of the gun at home. Simple.

If you don't like the law and are all into "home protection", then the dissassembled gun requirement might be enough. But the court, in its infinite wisdom as described by the village idiot (Justice Scalia--Damn you, Reagan!!), struck it down with such varacity and with such vague platitudes that a monkey could argue that he has a right to owning an uzi in his lab cage.

For those not paying attention (and have ignored the news this past week), here is the 2nd Amendment in all its glory:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If you want to look at the whole Constitution (and why wouldn't you?), check it out here.

So, the 2nd Amendment includes these important concepts:

• "A well regulated militia" is essential to maintain the new freedom (1789).
• People have a right to keep arms.
• People have a right to bear arms.
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a component of the well regulated militia.
• The rights of the people to their arms "shall not be infringed".

Did I miss any?

Anyway, this is what I'm driving at. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" has nothing to do with 1) hunting, 2) 'sport', 3) protecting one's domicile, or 4) protecting one's person.

Second, even a broad interpretation of this right neglects the very principle of this amendment: BECAUSE we need "a well regulated militia", we must maintain the freedom of arms. The Supreme Court's decision protects the individual's right to keep their guns, but doesn't protect the national right to "a well regulated militia". The very reason for the 2nd Amendment is for national defense and future uprisings against an oppressive government. In fact, the notion of personal self-preservation is so much of an afterthought that it is not provided for in the amendment.

And this is the added insult of the whole thing. Justices Scalia and Thomas have both described their judicial philosophy as "strict constructionist", with the suggestion that they obey the words as written--ignoring their inherent properties. They also obey the words in their original context--which means they pick and choose what that means to their current environment. So back to the decision. The four right-wing justices [the term 'right-wing' doesn't seem to have the umph anymore to demonstrate how wacked out these guys are] that proclaim this philosophy have made an opinion that is neither implicit in the Constitution, but seems to run counter to both the nature of the amendment and its context. The one time these morons are supposed to live up to their crack-pot philosophies, they go all revisionist and make up new judicial precedent.

And people think presidential elections don't mean anything. The oldest of these four nimrods is in his 50's. Thanks Reagan, Bush I, and a double Bush II shot.

Look for widespread overturning of virtually any gun law that makes an ounce of sense.