The Supreme Court has held recently that gun ownership need not be required to have connection with a militia.

The Supreme Court also held something--in 1856 I believe--that was later totally rejected by the US in general.

The Supreme Court is, believe it or not, made up of mortal individuals who can make mistakes.    There is also a issue of strict constructionism vs a more evolving approach to the Constitution.

In this case it appears to anybody who studies the situation at the time of the Bill of Rights, that the 2nd Amendment did absolutely intend to tie right to bear arms to the obligation to participate in a militia.    The recent Supreme Court decison saying otherwise is dead wrong.

As I noted earlier in this thread, there were three issues meant to be dealt with by the 2nd Amendment:    fear of a British attack, probably from Canada;   fear of Indian attacks, and fear of a standing army.

Now which of these do you think still applies?





And, as "Mr. Dooley" stated earlier--I think at the turn of the 20th century--"th' Supreme Court follows th' election returns".


But in fact in the Internet Age, the general population can in fact have an influence it has not until now.   We may not have to wait for Obama or successsors to replace members of the Court as they shuffle off this mortal coil.

There is already a petition on Facebook to repeal the Second Amendment.

Even if this is unsuccessful--and let's not be defeatist about it--there can be other petitions about restricting ownership of pistols.


And don't hesitate to write actual letters--their rarity makes each one carry a punch.

We can in fact pressure our Senators and Congressmen to do something about this revolting situation.