View Full Version : Guns and Bitter,the illogical nature of liberalism

06-27-2008, 11:32 AM
There can be no individual right to bear arms because it is not “explicitly mentioned” in the Constitution.

The concept of “consent of the governed” is lost on liberals, but it is the only principle that saves us from tyranny

Please tell me where the right to abortion is “explicitly mentioned” in the Constitution And while you are at it Please tell me where the separation of church and state appears in the Constitution ?

Earlier this year, Barack Obama displayed his elitism by commenting that “bitter” Americans cling to their guns and God.

Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution:
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. -
.........."Quite clear in my mind!"

Justice John Paul Stevens incredulously declared that “a new constitutional right” was created and Stephen Breyer wrote that the majority opinion was “wrong.”


Liberals believe that rights emanate from the government while conservatives hold that the individual has inherent rights.

Following the adoption of the federal constitution, the Bill of Rights was added to restrain the new government from infringing on the rights of individuals.

The First Amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to speak, write, worship and assemble without government interference, but liberals argue that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right to bear arms.

That contradiction was evident to a majority of the Justices and now the issue is settled law.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.

"Justice John Paul Stevens incredulously declared that “a new constitutional right” was created and Stephen Breyer wrote that the majority opinion was “wrong.”"


Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family,' would fail constitutional muster."

After the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, it is the elitists who are bitter.

Liberal politicians and pundits whined about their defeat. A Washington Post editorial typified the gnashing of teeth, referring to the ruling as “misguided” and “deeply disappointing.” Such a reaction is not surprising. However, what is more enlightening is this tidbit:

“Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, concluded that the amendment guarantees a right to bear arms for private use, such as self-defense, although nowhere is that explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.”

The argument here is not about guns per se, it is about the origin of rights. The liberal worldview invests ultimate power in government while conservatives cling to the supremacy of the individual.