Skip to comments.Another Federal Court Undermines the Second Amendment
Posted on 02/12/2014 7:27:41 AM PST by Kaslin
Crime once again is on the rise in America. According to recent figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, crimes against property are up a staggering 12 percent from last year; violent crime even more -- 15 percent. Citizens in many of our countrys largest metropolitan areas increasingly are becoming victims of gun-toting criminals, even as liberal mayors, governors, and state legislators continue their efforts to undermine the Second Amendment rights of those very citizens.
One might think that the end of Americas two-decade long decline in crime might serve to justify the need to strengthen not weaken the ability of law-abiding citizens to arm themselves defensively in order to fight back against armed criminals. Not so; and even learned federal judges are not immune from succumbing to the childish notion that the best way to protect citizens is to disarm them. Take Third Circuit federal appeals court Judge Ruggero Aldisert.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Stupid should hurt.
Only a totalitarian leftist could argue with a straight face that it’s “common sense” to place defenseless law-abiding citizens at the mercy of armed criminals.
Simply make a law that says criminals cannot have guns.
in a situation where the second amendment is needed, it would be citizens exercising their rights against a criminal or an over zealous local, state or federal system.
would it make sense to allow criminals a say in whether or not people may have weapons to defend themselves?
then why should any govt type?
hence the phrase: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
“In other words, if a state legislature has passed a gun-control measure that has been on the books for a long time, the citizens of that state can be denied their right to keep and bear arms; and the government officials who have thus rendered the citizens defenseless, are immune from constitutional scrutiny.”
In other words, if a state legislature has passed a “segregation” measure that has been on the books for a long time, the citizens of that state can be denied their right to “freely associate” and the government officials who have thus rendered the citizens defenseless, are immune from constitutional scrutiny.
Looks kind of bad when you use this reasoning and change a few words. Looking into the future and seeing how evil can use their rulings does not seem to be a concern to Federal judges.
Gun Control Works