They Want to Take Your Freedom, Seriously

And they need masks because?

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 progressive idiocracy is starting to wear thin with this old veteran. Rev Paul seems to agree.

The wording of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution seems pretty clear to me. It establishes that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that the government is prohibited from infringing upon that right.

There has been a lot of ink spilled over this amendment. United States vs. Miller immediately springs to mind. This case arose over enforcement of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 which was enacted due to "public outrage" over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre (in which one group of criminals gunned down a second group of criminals).

That particular event (the "massacre") can be argued to have come about from the Federal Government banning the production, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages.

What do I conclude from all this? The NFA was really enacted in order to provide a stream of revenue for the Federal Government. (Want to know how government really works? Follow the money.) The NFA was enacted due to the government playing nanny based on the desires of a special interest group.

I'm starting to think that the phrases "the government wants" and "that's a bad idea" are synonymous.

The 2nd Amendment is what makes the rest of the Bill of Rights viable. If the people are disarmed, their freedoms are dependent on the whim of those in power. I think we all can cite numerous examples of how that works. (Right Mr. Hitler?)

While researching this post here's one piece of absolute government stupidity I came across regarding US v Miller (which initially had seen a lower court rule, correctly, that the NFA was unconstitutional):

The U.S Government appealed the decision and on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

• The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.

• The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.

• The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.

• The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization. - Wikipedia

My own reading of this piece of the government's argument is that they were completely full of bovine excrement. On each and every one of those four points.

But, you say, the Supreme Court ruled...

Yes, bear in mind that they also blew the Dred Scott Decision:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an African American slave who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request. For only the second time in its history the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court should be above it all and rule strictly on the way the Constitution is written. The men who wrote that document were very smart. Many of those who try to interpret the language of the Constitution are most assuredly not.

The Supremes are human, they make mistakes. They often bend to the political winds.

I fear for my country.