2nd Amendement Archives

U.S Supreme Court Decisions Based on Feelings, NOT the Law

Welcome to America. The gun totin’ capital of the world.

Last week’s news: the Highland Park, Illinois Fourth of July Parade Massacre. 7 innocent souls murdered, and 39 others injured. To be clear, the word ‘injury,’ should not be confused with a ‘bruised knee.’ One of the shooting victims, an 8 year old child, sustained life threatening injuries; the bullet that tore through his small body severed his spine. He is now paralyzed from the waist down.

A Fourth of July Celebration is typically celebrated with friends, family, parades, hot dogs, ice cream and fireworks. NOT Military grade weapons used to fire upon human beings in tee shirts and shorts on a warm summer day who are merely spectators sitting on lawn chairs waiving U.S. flags and children blowing bubbles along the parade route.

I am disgusted. And how do you feel?

More importantly, do you wonder how the Supreme Court Conservative Justices feel? Oh, wait a gosh darn minute! They ruled it is totally okay to walk around the United States of America with a gun. Any gun.

What contrived constitutional excuse will they come up with to justify another mass shooting?

The Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution, are literally rolling over in their graves as to how the Justices have twisted the meaning of the Second Amendment’s ‘Right to Bear Arms.’

At this point, any law abiding citizen must wonder…Do the Justices even have feelings? Do they care about the catastrophic impact their rulings are having on today’s society? Oh yes they do!

Based on their recent rulings, the Justices feel:

1. A woman has no rights.

2. A woman has no rights, because these Justices took away the right for women to make personal decisions over HER own body.

3. The Justices feel human life is sacrosanct. Therefore, abortion is illegal.

4. The Justices feel that law abiding citizens can carry guns outside of the home, anywhere in the United States to protect themselves.

5. The Justices feel that human life of a gun owner is sacrosanct. Therefore, a law abiding citizen can carry a gun, and can use that gun to shoot and to kill another human being if that gun totin’ person feels threatened.

6. Do not quibble over the words ‘feel threatened;’ if a person feels threatened, that person can and will protect themselves. The Court essentially gave the green light to shoot to kill. Hey, I did not write that decision, the Conservative Justices handed that decision down last week.

I have a few questions for the Conservative Justices:

1. What is the definition of a Law Abiding Citizen as per the US Supreme Court today?

2. Who is afforded the rights of a Law Abiding Citizen? Any person?

3. Is a person who lawfully obtains a gun a Law Abiding Citizen?

4. Is a person who lawfully obtains a gun, and then intentionally shoots at other law abiding citizens watching a parade, a Law Abiding Citizen?

5. Is a fetus a Law Abiding Citizen?

6. Is a Woman a Law Abiding Citizen?

7. Is a Child a Law Abiding Citizen?

8. Is a ten year old girl who is raped considered by the Court to be a Law Abiding Citizen?

9. How does the Court define ‘Human Life’?

10. Are Justices, who went to Law School, not Medical School, qualified to determine when Human Life Begins?

11. What value do the Justices place on a Human Life?

12. Is the term ‘Human Life’ only applicable to a fetus?

13. Is the term ‘Human Life’ applicable to victims of gun violence?

14. Is the term ‘Human Life’ applicable to white, brown, purple human beings, women and girls?

15. Last week, a 10 year old rape victim was 6 weeks pregnant and was denied the right to an abortion. What value does the Court place on that victim’s human life?

16. The Justices are not Physicians, not Scientists. Nor are they Clergy, although the Conservative Justices on the Court seem to be preaching religion. They strive to espouse virtuous morals…yet is it moral to force a 10 year old child who is a rape victim to give birth to the evidence of the crime committed upon her?

17. Does the Court ascribe Rights to victims of gun violence?

18. Does the Court only ascribe Rights to Gun Owners?

19. Is the Right to Bear Arms greater than the rights of a victim of gun violence?

Hypothetical: What if a pregnant Woman who lives in Texas, a verified Law Abiding Citizen, walked into a Doctor’s office totin’ an AR 15, and demanded an abortion? She allegedly was protecting herself from the pregnancy, because she could die if she carried full term. Can this Woman assert her 2nd Amendment Right to Protect Her Own Body?

Reality: Why do gun owners have more control over their guns, than women have over their own bodies?

Microphone drop…

Today, the Supreme Court has officially lost its mind by ruling that the Second Amendment to the Constitution grant Americans the right to carry a gun in public. Anywhere, anytime.

Everyone Carry a Gun!

The Majority Opinion was penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote ‘that keeping firearms at home makes little sense.’ Yes, with this ruling, it makes more sense that someone walks into a subway station, a park, a place of worship, a supermarket, a nightclub, a music venue, with a gun. Words of wisdom from a person who should resign from the Court. Oh, but that is another story.

At issue of yesterday’s Supreme Court Ruling, was a New York State Law that was on the books for one hundred years. The Majority Opinion determined that “New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents -law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.” Again, this ruling deems it important for a law-abiding citizen to walk around with a gun, anywhere.

The Supreme Court IGNORES the Pulse of the Majority of Americans

The Supreme Court is completely out of touch with the pulse of Society. The only pulse the Court is focused on is that of a six-week fetus’ non-existent heart-beat, which again, is another story.

However, it is clear the Court does not have its priorities in order. Namely, the health, welfare and safety of the American People.

Quite the opposite is true. On the one hand, the Court interprets the U.S. Constitution with a warped view that flooding the streets with guns affords Americans the protections of the Second Amendment. Somehow, the Justices believe that carrying guns in public is equated with public safety.

I am sorry. I do not understand that logic. You do not have to be a genius to know that if an ordinary, reasonable thinking person is walking around with a gun, that person is more likely to use the gun. Regardless of the level of provocation. Life happens.

Do Guns Protect People?

Do guns really protect people? Look at what happened at Robb Elementary School, located in Uvalde, Texas. One gunman enters an elementary school and murdered defenseless children and teachers. Despite cries for help from Children who were being shot at, law enforcement officials stood outside the school armed with guns, body armor, and yet they did not use their weaponry to save human beings. Did they need more guns to do their job?

Did the Justices on the Supreme Court think about this case? So what if they already wrote their decision prior to Uvalde. The decision could have been ripped up or deleted. No big deal.

Law-abiding citizens need rules and laws to govern a society. The clock has been turned backwards in our society, and we are now living in the wild west of the 1800s.

It is a sad day when Justices, despite all of their education and intelligence, display no common sense.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: