The conservative Republican blogger comments on today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Second Amendment: "Barely [a]nswering a 217-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, 'it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.' They're still out of control--the courts, that is. The fact that the Second Amendment is even in question and that this decision declaring the DC law unconstitutional carried by so narrow a margin demonstrates that. And do conservatives and lovers of the not-living Constitution heart Mr. Justice Scalia or what?"
My response: Good ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hopefully, Chicago's restrictive gun policy is next on the chopping block. I am amazed at the number of liberal elites (like, say, D.C. leaders or Hollywood types who promote the issue) who oppose gun rights, but yet have armed bodyguards while everyone else is supposed to be defenseless. Thankfully, the National Rifle Association continues to be on the case on our behalf. Gun ownership is high in my extended family and one of my uncles is an NRA member, so relatives were watching this Supreme Court ruling. What is ironic is that gun ownership is often the lowest in black neighborhoods, where crime disproportionately takes place. So D.C.'s law-abiding black masses - the ones who haven't already fled the city, with its high crime rate - would have continued to be defenseless while a tiny thug minority (who will always acquire guns) ripped and roared in many communities. Meanwhile, black folks are supposed to wait for the police - i.e., government - to arrive to help us. Tyrone and Imani, do the police arrive in three minutes in your neighborhood? Probably not. I agree with my old-school uncle that black folks (and everyone else) have the right to defend our bodies and property.
JULIETTE OCHIENG COMMENTARY: So I Get To Keep My Gun
Posted by Shay Riley at 6/26/2008
Labels: Guns, U.S. Judiciary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
I agree, that amendment seems pretty clear to me.
The argument that it applied only to the "National Guard" was weak, in light of the fact that cities and states with rigid gun bans, make no exceptions for members of the National Guard, who are NOT allowed to "KEEP" arms, and only allowed to "BEAR" at the pleasure of the governor.
Your a likable person, Juliette Ochieng.
Post a Comment