The Common Sense Definition of the Second Amendment Reigns Supreme (Finally)

The recent decision by the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices only emphasizes the obvious, that the 2^nd Amendment refers to an INDIVIDUAL right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

The fact that four of the justices refuses to see that only goes to show that just because a person wears a black robe and has a law degree does not necessarily mean they’re intelligent or even have much common sense. Perhaps they, like many elected officials and public “servants” fear that if they go too far they may find themselves on the wrong end of a citizen’s firearm. A more foreboding thought is that they INTEND to eventually go too far, and impose laws and regulations that no free person would tolerate.

One has to be simple-minded and cowardly to deny that the Founders recognized the God-given right for INDIVIDUALS to be armed and that the right did not refer to a standing army. Standing armies, either military or civilian (as in civilian police agencies) are organizations that would be used to enforce the directives of a tyrannical government, and the type of organizations an armed citizenry would have to defend against.

In all the other places in the Bill of Rights where rights of the “people” are mentioned, it refers to an individual right. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, etc. was not referring to a collective right, nor was the right to free speech referring to the right of the government to put out their propaganda unopposed.

The Los Angeles Times published an editorial shortly after the ruling, claiming the Supreme Court “…opted for the interpretation less suited to a 20^th century America bedeviled by “gun” crime”. Apparently in some crime-ridden areas of this Country firearms are victimizing people without the need of a criminal hand to guide them.

The editorial also claims the court went against the “majority” and “traditional” (i.e. the wrong) interpretation of the amendment. The interpretation they’re referring to is only held by anti-gun, anti-self defense extremists.

Of course, the anti-gun eunuchs are claiming that because the law-abiding people of Washington D.C. (all two dozen of them) will now be allowed to arm and defend themselves gun violence will increase. Perhaps, but the only increase will be the violence done to criminals by their intended victims, which most people, other than liberals will see as a good thing.

It’s interesting to note that while the anti-gun zealots want to disarm law-abiding citizens, they always snivel and whine to no end when someone suggests we should actually punish criminals more severely.

But as Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.

Robot

831-869-9932

California: The Sodomite State

In a move that shows their utter contempt for the people of California, Common sense and nature (God) Itself, the California Supreme Court ruled that not allowing same sex couples to “marry” was “unconstitutional.

I’ve said it before and will doubtlessly say it again, a basic knowledge of anatomy will show the average person, queer or not that homosexuality is unnatural and perverted. Nope, as far as human sexual relations go tab “A” doesn’t (or shouldn’t) go into slot “A”.

I’ve often said that if homos are allowed to “marry” there will be no reason to keep people from engaging in polygamy or “marrying” animals. Of course the queer lobby scoffs at the obvious conclusion. That is, MOST of the sodomite lobby scoffs at that. There is one notable exception. Frank Kameny, a hero of the queer community wrote to a pro-family group that a person should be able to knock boots (hooves, paws whatever) with an animal if that’s what gets them off. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66060

Kameny was instrumental in getting the American Psychiatric Association into reclassifying homosexuality as “normal”.

In spite of the victory given to the degenerates by the California Supreme Court, there is a glimmer of hope for the State. Yesterday the California Marriage Protection Act qualified for the November ballot. The initiative needed just under 700,000 signatures and it received over a million. This is a proposed California Constitution Amendment that will state the obvious, that MARRIAGE is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Robot

831-869-9932

The Democratic Party’s True Color is Red

I mean Red as in Communism, Marxism and Leninism. I’ve always said there’s little to no difference between most liberals and Communists. The only difference being what they will admit to believing in public.

A Liberal for example, wants all the same things that a communist would want, but they will deny to the death that they are in fact, Communist. A communist on the other hand will freely admit what he is and will tell you he wants the government to collect and manage your private property.

Rep. Maxine Waters, Democrat from California showed her true colors during a House panel “investigating” the high cost of gasoline.

Waters told the panel and several oil company executives that if gas prices aren’t lowered the government should take over and run the companies. One of the executives pointed out that Venezuela, under Dictator Hugo Chavez (Who, along with Fidel Castro is a hero of the left) did the same thing. I’m sure Waters had Chavez and Fidel Castro in mind when she dusted off this old, faded idea.

While that is the feeling of most democrats and liberals, it’s surprising to actually hear one admit that in public. However, Waters is not one of the sharpest knives in the drawer.

It should also be remembered that Waters is a member of the House Progressive Caucus. The Progressive Caucus consists of the most Marxist-minded of the House Democrats.

(See the New American article on the Progressive Caucus: http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/905)

For years I’ve been listening to Liberals praising all things Communist. Their plans for society consist of having the government not only providing every needs of U.S. citizens, were they to have they way, we would also be providing handouts to the rest of the world. That is, more than we already are.

As I mentioned before one of the Left’s primary heroes is Fidel Castro. About a year ago or so I attended a discussion about Castro’s Cuba put on by the Pastors For “Peace’ and the local “peace” activist. During the lecture (rant) one of the speakers said there are no rich in Cuba. He ecstatically proclaimed “In Cuba you’re not allowed to be rich”

At a more recent event put on by the same Reds, the praise of Castro continued. Among the group was a businessman who has legal and illegal dealings with Cuba. He had the audacity to tell this group that most of the recent (presumably positive) reforms in Cuba would not have happened had Castro still been in power rather than his brother Raul.

This of course enraged some of the attendees of this Castro worship service. (Ironically, this meeting was held in a Church fellowship room.) There were outbursts from several of the worshippers who opposed hearing their god so “slighted”.

One woman claimed Cuba is the example the U.S. should follow in order for us to deal with global “warming” and water “shortages’, etc.

Were these Marxist fools simply confined to Carmel, Santa Cruz and Berkeley, the situation wouldn’t be so grave. Unfortunately, we have at least two of the same ilk running for president, and a third while though he calls himself a Republican, will not be much different.

We’re screwed.

Robot

831-869-9932