Quote of the Day
The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
Justice Antonin Scalia
U.S. Supreme Court
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia v. Heller
The essence of this quote was repeated in the Bruen decision. This is very important.
The gun grabbers get attention by claiming the sky is falling because “gun violence” is increasing and yet the states must “let” people get concealed carry licenses and carry guns in public. Never mind that the people with licenses to carry are not committing the violent crimes and the gun grabbers include the legal shootings of violence criminals in their statistics. They claim justification in banning the most common rifle in the country because, well, some sort of “reason”.
They claim there must be a balancing between the literal words of the Second Amendment and public safety hence they can impose whatever restriction eases the torment in their twisted and/or evil minds. But, as stated in Heller, and repeated in Bruen, the balancing was done at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment. The highest court in the land has now repeatedly stated, in essence, “There will be no more means-end balancing act to make an end run around the literal words of the Second Amendment.”
Our opponents apparently cannot comprehend this and/or think if they keep repeating themselves and whining the court will change its mind. Surely, they claim, another school shooting (in a “gun free zone”) will be sufficient justification to ban more guns and from more locations.
No, the court has spoken, there is no crime which can justify an infringement. Scary black rifles will not be legally removed from public access to ease your troubled mind. All that balancing was over long before you were born.
What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?