Blood. Shooting. Out of Eyes.

I can't stomach some of the anti-second-amendment articles that came out today. Some of them, like this one, claim that conservatives are not being consistent when they talk about "legislating from the bench" and then applaud yesterday's DC vs Heller decision. This putz says:

The court's five most conservative members have demonstrated that for all of Justice Antonin Scalia's talk about "originalism" as a coherent constitutional doctrine, the judicial right regularly succumbs to the temptation to legislate from the bench. They fall in line behind whatever fashions political conservatism is promoting.

Conservative justices claim that they defer to local authority. Not in this case. They insist that political questions should be decided by elected officials. Not in this case. They argue that they pay careful attention to the precise words of the Constitution. Not in this case.

E.J. apparently isn't familiar with what "originalism" is all about. There were three branches of government set up to do specific things. One of them was Congress -- which was to legislate.

Another one was the courts, which were to interpret what the legislators meant and how it applies in certain cases.

And of course the Executive branch is supposed to enforce the courts' decisions.

The Supreme Court is the top federal court that often tests laws against the Constitution. The Bill of Rights -- an extension to the constitution that was added at the insistence of many states before they'd ratify it - consists of a list of things that government is not allowed to do.

The second one, #2 on the list, says

"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 right of the People.

Not the right of the militia. And what is a militia, anyway? Basically, it's a bunch of citizens. Traditionally, and this becomes clear when you read the history of the drafting of the second amendment -- it's not the military. It's the population. It's you and me. And whatever we can grab to fight with. This amendment says "you can't legislate away the right of the People to keep and bear arms". Now Congress could repeal this amendment, I suppose -- amendments can and have been repealed. There are specific rules about how that is to be done. None of the first 10, the Bill of Rights --- has, to this point. And laws that get passed anywhere have to stand up to the Constitution, which includes its amendments.

E.J. This is not inconsistent. This is the way it was set up. This is the definition of originalism. It's not a political question. It's a Constitutional question. The answer is pretty darned clear. It says right there in the Constitution that laws that infringe on the right of the People to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional. SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED!!!!!!!

I mean, what is so difficult to understand about that? You have to refuse to understand it in order to not understand it.

The People. The Right of The People. Same wording used in the first amendment.