Changing the Subject

Well, the Supreme Court, by a slim margin of 5-4, earlier this year found that we, the people, have a right to bear arms. What I find surprising is that the four liberal justices somehow fail to find anything in the Constitution that guarantees that right.

Hm-m-m. Exact wording of the 2nd Amendent states "...the right of the people to bear arms shall not be abridged." Correct me if I am wrong (I'm not), but it sounds to me like the Constitution clearly states that the right of the people - you and me - to bear arms shall not be abridged.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Actually, there is evidence that the Framers made that choice - when they specifically worded the 2nd Amendment that clearly states "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be abridged." They did not again want citizens to be at the mercy of ANYONE - not even our own government. Apparently Justice Stevens has not read the Constitution. Either that, or like many liberals, has chosen to ignore it, or wants to give it new meanings that simply do not exist in reality.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

DUH! Justice Breyer is even dumber than Stevens. Seems to me that crime-ridden areas are EXACTLY the place where people need to be able to defend themselves. And there IS an "untouchable constitutional right" - it's called the 2nd Amendment. It states "the right of the people", not "the right of the people EXCEPT those who live in unsafe places where people are in greatest need of self-defense." Is this guy an idiot, or what? If an area is 100% safe, then guns are not necessary. Crime-ridden areas are exactly the place where people need to be able to defend themselves. How did such a dummy ever get appointed to be the judge of anything? I don't think he is qualified to judge a bikini contest - or a car show!

Why is it that liberals have so much difficulty when it comes to understanding clearly stated rights? What is so hard to fathom about "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be abridged"? Do they think the Constitution is actually a secret code that means the opposite of what it says?

Throughout the last 60 years it has been liberal justices who have found the term "separation of church and state" in the Constitution when, in fact, there is no mention of that in the document. And they found a constitutional right to deprive people the right to pray in school, in spite of the 1st amendment that clearly states that government may NOT interfere in the practice of religion. Yet the liberal justices did interfere, big time. In fact, liberal judges are actively trying to prevent the spread of Christianity.

And then those liberal justices found a new meaning to "eminent domain." While the Constitution states clearly that eminent domain can only occur if there is a need to have the land for PUBLIC USE, the liberal justices instead rewrote the Constitution to have it say PUBLIC BENEFIT. Apparently, these uneducated dunces believe that USE and BENEFIT mean the same thing. They do not. And they also believe they have the right to rewrite the Constitution. They do not.

And now the liberal justices would have rewritten the 2nd Amendment had it not been they were out-numbered by sane, intelligent conservative justices.

So, when you go to the polls in November, stop and think - in the next 4-8 years, chances are excellent that at least one justice will retire or pass away. The President will nominate a new justice, which Congress will approve. Before you cast your ballot, ask yourself if you want the Supreme Court to go back to being liberal, stripping us of even more rights.

If you do want our rights infringed, vote liberal. But if that is not what you want, then you need to cast your vote AGAINST liberal politicians. America cannot afford a Supreme Court that thinks it has the right to make the legislature irrelevant, and with it, the will of the people.

We, the People, are NOT irrelevant!