The conservative wing of the Supreme Court prevailed in the D.C. gun ban case. In yet another of those 5-4 rulings that prove swing voter Justice Anthony Kennedy is the most powerful man in the country, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment says what it says, that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Liberals were predictably outraged. In their view, when the Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it means that right SHOULD be infringed in any way liberals want. Hey, no worries, that's a mistake any blind ideologue could make. The reason liberals believe something so illogical is because they could care less about what the U.S. Constitution says. They just want what they want, and if the Constitution gets in the way, they will twist and/or discard it. How else can you explain liberals belief in a Constitutional right to, say, abortion, of which the Constitution speaks nary a word, and then their belief that there is no individual right to bear arms, which is explicitly stated in the Bill Of Rights ? Go figure.

The crowd who wishes to grab guns from law-abiding American citizens uses a selective reading of the Second Amendment in an attempt to usurp this basic civil right. The full amendment reads as follows:

"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".

The gun grabbers focus on the "well regulated Militia" part, and try to ignore the "shall not be infringed" part. I have a question for the grabbers. If you take away the guns from We The People, how are we going to form that militia ? We can't. There would just be a bunch of guys standing around, maybe armed with broomsticks, shovels, and steak knives, virtually helpless against whatever enemy we needed to fight. Therefore, the "shall not be infringed" part is of utmost importance. Only a liberal could miss something so obvious.

"Wait just one minute !' shout the grabbers, "We have the government to do our fighting for us".

Yes, but what if it's the government we need to fight against ??? Surely liberals, who have been calling Bush a fascist criminal dictator for 7 1/2 years now, can see how our government might get out of control, no ?

Another grabber argument is that guns can't be used for self defense, only for use in that militia (even though the militia itself would be for SELF DEFENSE. I doubt we'd use the militia for bake sales). This is another bogus argument. The law recognizes self defense as valid, and the law recognizes the right to bear arms as valid. So, how can using arms in self defense NOT be valid ? It's nonsensical.

Liberals are making all kinds of wild predictions about blood running in the streets due to the D.C. gun ban ruling. They ignore the fact the violent crime in D.C. went UP after the gun ban, or that violent crime tends to decrease in places where gun laws are less restrictive. I heard one guy on MSNBC make the ridiculous claim that this ruling would bring about a return to the days of the Wild West. That was pretty nutty, but the guy did unwittingly prove that gun ownership is a traditional right in this country, because everybody had a gun back in the Wild West, and they weren't only used for militias either. Nevermind the fact that the Wild West was far LESS violent than D.C. under the gun ban today.

The liberal media is almost unanimously referring to the the D.C. gun ban decision as "the first time the Supreme Court has ever ruled in favor of an individual's right to bear arms". This is profoundly dishonest, since individuals have owned guns from the days of the Founders forward, for the entire history of the country. If you had tried to take away the guns of our Founding Fathers, you'd most likely have gotten yourself shot, no pun intended.

My advice to the gun grabbers is this - Stop trying to tell people the Second Amendment doesn't say what it says, and doesn't mean what it means. That's silly. If you really want to disarm the citizenry, you have to amend the Constitution to remove the right to bear arms. I think that would be a pretty bad idea, but that's what you should try to do. Or, you can stack the Supreme Court with more Justices like the four liberals in the D.C. gun ban case, who could care less what the Constitution says or what it's intent was.

P.S. - ALL the rights enumerated in the Bill Of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights of the people. Don't let some gun grabbing liberal try to buffalo you into thinking the Second Amendment is somehow different.

P.P.S - I'm NOT a gun fan, a member of the NRA, or anything like that. It's just that the facts are the facts.

Barack Obama supports a citizen's right to bear arms, as stated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Sort of. Sometimes. Except when he doesn't, which is usually. Got it ? Me neither. I'll try to sort it out.

On the campaign trail in rural Iowa in 2007, Obama said the following: (link)

"I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families."

About three sentences later in the same speech, Obama said this:

"So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities…"

See what I mean ? Obama say he supports the right to bear arms for people in rural areas, but then turns around and says guns should be banned in urban areas. I recall no such distinction in the Constitution. In addition, who needs to protect their families the most, low crime rate rural america, or high crime rate urban america ? The question is rhetorical, because the answer is self-evident.

Here's more of Obama's nuanced position on guns, as reported by Bob Owens:

In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”

By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama’s strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.

In 1999, Obama proposed to make it a felony for the gun owner if a firearm stolen from his residence and used in a crime was not “securely stored” — effectively negating the homeowner’s right to self-defense.

For someone who claims to support the Second Amendment, Obama sure doesn't support the Second Amendment. Did you get a load of the part where Obama wants you to be charged with a felony if someone breaks into your house and steals your gun, and then uses it to commit a crime ? What kind of Orwellian police state garbage is that ? If your gun is "securely stored", it won't be much use to defend your family in case of an emergency. By the time you unlocked and loaded the weapon ("securely stored" means the bullets are stored in a separate place), you and your entire family could be dead. So much for self-defense.

The gun issue is also one of those where Obama has weakly voted "present" in the past. In 1999, he voted "present" on Illinois legislation that would have required teens 15 and older to be tried as adults for firing weapons on or near school grounds. There's leadership for you.

Obama has voiced support for the Washington D.C. ban on handguns, which is a direct contradiction of his alleged support of the Second Amendment. He also voted against protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and invariably votes on the side of gun control. He's against concealed carry laws. The National Rifle Association gives Obama a grade of 'F' on supporting the Second Amendment. You can find some of Obama's voting record on guns here.

In 1996, on an Illinois voter group’s questionaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate seat, Obama responded that he supported bans on the sale, possession, and manufacture of guns. Obama denied ever having taken such a stance, and denied even having filled out the questionaire, until handwriting analysis determined it was Obama's handwriting on some notes that were written in the margins of the questionaire. (Link). Oops, you're busted Barack. I can't wait for the "I misspoke" or "I misremembered" excuse that will surely come if the media every bothers to mention this, which they probably won't.

This issue appears to me to be Obama attempting to have it both ways, like a good little double-talking politician. You can't say you support the right to bear arms and then vote against it at every turn. The Second Amendment doesn't mean Iowa can have guns, but Illinois and D.C. can't. It appears Obama really supports the standard liberal doctrine on guns (ban them), like he does on every other issue, but he doesn't want to come out and say so, because it will cost him votes in the general election. Instead, he's trying to tell everybody what they want to hear, in order to get as many votes as possible. If this is what Obama calls "change you can believe in", then, sorry Barack, but I don't believe you.

Too bad the media is too busy getting a tingle up their leg to notice stuff like this.