Right to Bear Arms

Right To Bear Arms.

I promised a couple of weeks ago to say nothing more about the shenanigans flowing around the American election landscape in what may be call election fever. But a couple of things impel me to make a few comments here.  Actually I was about to say something quite complimentary about Chief Justice John Roberts when something else happened to make me hesitate. And the third thing was going to be a word to the electorate, the voters of America. In the premises, I will say all these three things, however, although I do not expect them to make a piece of difference.  Firstly I was going to say that Chief Justice Roberts has shown himself to me in any event, as an able and impartial Jurist.  For I happen to know that it was his legal brains that advised and helped the George W. Bush team through the legal maize brought about in Florida in 2000, and helped him to defeat Al Gore.  Mr. Roberts was appointed Chief Justice by George W Bush.  But it was the same Justice Roberts that saved President Obama and Obamacare.  I saw no more about that. Secondly Justice Roberts made some comments recently about the Senate and the way they use politics to determine who gets and who does not get appointed to the Supreme Court, which as a matter of commonsense clearly points to the negation of pure and impartial justice, by the highest and final Court in the land.  If the American electorate were thinking people they would ask themselves why the appointment of a justice to the Supreme Court has to be by political jangling, and why wait to see who wins the election.  According to partisan thinking, the court should do without a key member for a whole year, as the country waits to see who the next President is? The voters if they were smart should have something to say about that!  It has been well said, “It is the ultimate sovereignty of public opinion which is the keystone to the constitutional arch.” But who holds that key to that arch today? The third thing concerns something the Supreme Court said recently that bothers me greatly.  Since it was an apparently unanimous decision I have to conclude that Justice Roberts was part of that very poor decision. It had to do with second amendment rights to carry, or in the words of the statute to bear arms.  By no stretch of the wildest imagination can any sensible person say that the wording and the language could possibly mean what the judges have consistently said it means, especially since the right to bear arms is absolutely tied to the militia or military.  But what is most alarming is what they said in a recent case.  Quoting as closely as possible it read:  The statute says “arms,” not firearms, and a firearm can be anything that makes the person feel secure.” So that a knife, a hand grenade, a time bomb, any killing device is within the ambit of the statute.  Well I say, God Bless America indeed.  

www.chaberbook.com