One consequence of the Supreme Court decision is the identification of troublesome constitutional language for the gun control lobby. The battle has now turned, from one of which rights are granted constitutionally, to altering language in the constitution, thus removing those rights. The decision mentions,
"That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
The clear message to proponents of gun control is that they work to alter the constitution. This is the danger which the Framing Fathers forgot to include within the constitution, a protection on the removal of rights from the constitution.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
US Supreme Court Supports Individual Right and Militias
Today, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. For once, there is support from a branch of government for the proper subordination of all government to the terms of its foundation. Admittedly, I am surprised by this decision, for wise it is, even if the arguments of the justices err.
The condition of the times in which the Founding Fathers lived was one of clear tyranny, and it was the express purpose of the Constitution to provide remedy for tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms was enshrined so that the people, exclusive of any and all government, might form their own, collective militia, and so protect themselves from the tyranny of government. Without the recognition that each person holds an unalienable right to hold and use weaponry by which to protect themselves, militias would not exist. Indeed, all other use of weaponry is conscription, this to include the use of weaponry by employment of choice, such as that displayed by police organisations.
The American ideal is clearly, never again suffer a tyrant, and the only possible solution is that individuals have effective means to form a militia. If it is the government that forms the militia, it can be for only one purpose; the repression of the citizenry, as its armies deal with outside threats.
The wisdom of this court decision is the protection of that ideal.
The condition of the times in which the Founding Fathers lived was one of clear tyranny, and it was the express purpose of the Constitution to provide remedy for tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms was enshrined so that the people, exclusive of any and all government, might form their own, collective militia, and so protect themselves from the tyranny of government. Without the recognition that each person holds an unalienable right to hold and use weaponry by which to protect themselves, militias would not exist. Indeed, all other use of weaponry is conscription, this to include the use of weaponry by employment of choice, such as that displayed by police organisations.
The American ideal is clearly, never again suffer a tyrant, and the only possible solution is that individuals have effective means to form a militia. If it is the government that forms the militia, it can be for only one purpose; the repression of the citizenry, as its armies deal with outside threats.
The wisdom of this court decision is the protection of that ideal.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Statement of Purpose
It is the purpose of Orange Curtain to provoke the mind.
One may be reminded that one ought not broach money, religion, or politics in polite company. Our concern shall certainly be upon the latter, politics, though with some occasion discussion may center upon the former two.
Of current concern is the behavior of government regarding those who it has harmed. In reviewing various online sources, it would seem the wisdom of Lincoln bears repeat (more on this later). Surely, words such as his are hard to follow, and yet we shall write to suit.
One may be reminded that one ought not broach money, religion, or politics in polite company. Our concern shall certainly be upon the latter, politics, though with some occasion discussion may center upon the former two.
Of current concern is the behavior of government regarding those who it has harmed. In reviewing various online sources, it would seem the wisdom of Lincoln bears repeat (more on this later). Surely, words such as his are hard to follow, and yet we shall write to suit.
Jurisprudential Salt
American justice is a tyranny.
Consider the cases of Kevin Green (1980), Cindy Sommer (2007), or James Lee Woodard (1981), whose cases represent some of the finer examples of American jurisprudence; with trivial effort, we could list dozens of cases. The miscarriages of these cases is however not our concern; many more fine writers address this topic. Nor are we concerned with the injustices of the corresponding unjust incarcerations. Our concern is the immunity of those who bring about these injustices, the ethics of their act, and the imposition made upon the victim of injustice.
Apologies of the prosecutor, the police, and the judge are clearly worthless. As my father taught me, "If you were sorry, you wouldn't have done it in the first place," during those episodes of chastisement that did occur. Bonnie Dumanis is therefore quite clearly admitting that she is not sorry for having convicted and jailed Sommer, when she says, and this from her official public statement after release of Sommer, "In the high-profile prosecution of Cynthia Sommer for murder, the San Diego County District Attorney's Office made the right choices for the right reasons at every step in the process." This forceful, opening statement of Dumanis clearly declares the complete satisfaction of the San Diego County District Attorney with the prosecution and imprisonment of an innocent person. Not one word of regret.
Consider the cases of Kevin Green (1980), Cindy Sommer (2007), or James Lee Woodard (1981), whose cases represent some of the finer examples of American jurisprudence; with trivial effort, we could list dozens of cases. The miscarriages of these cases is however not our concern; many more fine writers address this topic. Nor are we concerned with the injustices of the corresponding unjust incarcerations. Our concern is the immunity of those who bring about these injustices, the ethics of their act, and the imposition made upon the victim of injustice.
Apologies of the prosecutor, the police, and the judge are clearly worthless. As my father taught me, "If you were sorry, you wouldn't have done it in the first place," during those episodes of chastisement that did occur. Bonnie Dumanis is therefore quite clearly admitting that she is not sorry for having convicted and jailed Sommer, when she says, and this from her official public statement after release of Sommer, "In the high-profile prosecution of Cynthia Sommer for murder, the San Diego County District Attorney's Office made the right choices for the right reasons at every step in the process." This forceful, opening statement of Dumanis clearly declares the complete satisfaction of the San Diego County District Attorney with the prosecution and imprisonment of an innocent person. Not one word of regret.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
So, this is blogging.
Welcome to my blog. Having never taken opportunity to write to a diary, this is going to be a new experience. To boot, this is a diary that others are supposed to read. Wow, what a concept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)