One might be repelled by the thought of a person carrying a gun or see it as inviting or expressing an unnecessary provocation, but the fact remains that the 2nd Amendment, once again affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as 2008, categorically affirms the “…right to keep and bear arms” as being absolute. More importantly, this action by the Court, is yet another example of Political Bias being imposed on the Public through the Court System and yet another grotesque distortion of the U.S. Constitution.
First and foremost; the Bill of Rights are not laws, they are affirmations of one’s unalienable rights. Second, those laws, not specifically stated therein (the U.S. Constitution) are reserved to the States or the People themselves (the 10th Amendment). No Court, National, State or U.S. Jurisdiction, again affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and implicit in the Constitution itself, has the authority to alter or amend, unless by the consenting majority of States, the U.S. Constitution.
The 9th District Court of Appeals, in a most dismissive manner, once again expressed its contempt for the rule of law based purely on its own political bias. A timely demonstration of precisely why Trump has every right to be concerned about the political affiliations of one Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel and why you’d best hope to never find yourself depending on equal protection, in this country, under the law. Once again you’re a witness to a supreme demonstration of judicial dysfunction brought about by the political-vice indistinguishable from the systemic political fascism that defines this country’s government bureaucracies.
Think of it; no law exists, at least not yet, that entitles you to breathable air as you have, by the fact that you exist, absolute need of it and thus an inalienable right which is no different as the unalienable right for the very same reasons you possess to be able to protect and defend yourself. Would you not be opposed to someone attempting to ban your requiring breathable air?
Now then, to prove the point, no constitutional provision affirms ones right to kill/abort an in-utero child and yet no one seems to object to the Courts fabricating a decision allowing, since the Court affirmed its decision in 1973, over 58 MILLION terminations of a defenseless life. You’ll defend the right to take a defenseless life, but you’ll oppose the right of the living to defend their own. The depth of dysfunction in this Country is so uniformly off-track that we’re seemingly incapable of both identifying or opposing our own self-imposed tyranny. Oh my, are we in serious trouble!
Curtis C. Greco, Founder