Supremes to Decide if Second Amendment Means What It Says

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007

“In a decision that could affect gun control laws across the nation, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a gun,” reports ABC News.

Carry? Or possess?

“It has been 70 years since the high court has focused on the meaning of the words ‘right to keep and bear arms’ in the Second Amendment and the case is sure to ignite cultural battles across the country.”

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

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

“The Supreme Court agreed to step in because the issue has caused a deep split in the lower courts. While a majority of courts have said that the right to bear arms refers in connection to service in a state militia, two federal courts have said the amendment protects an individual’s right to keep a gun.”

A deep split? Apparently, members sitting in the lower courts have a difficult time reading plain English. The Second Amendment states unambiguously that the right to bears arms “shall not be infringed.”

But then there are people like District of Criminals mayor Adrian Fenty, who states: “Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die.”

In other words, Fenty thinks he can ban guns and he will not “stand by” the Second Amendment.

The District of Criminals has the highest crime rate in the country, surpassing Los Angeles and New York. Is this possible because guns are banned there and the criminals realize they can victimize anybody they want without consequence?

It seems Fenty is standing by while people die.

But then it is not the responsibility of the police to protect the people. It is the duty of the people to protect themselves.

We’ll see if the Supremes agree. Or if they will strip the Second Amendment to its bones.