EVEN THE VENUS DE MILO?

Recently I was delighted when a majority of the Supreme Court proved it could read and understand the Second Amendment.

It seems to me the U. S. Constitution is generally a very clear and simple document, and I believe it was composed with clarity an objective. As an example, consider that very amendment; "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear arms should not be infringed."”

The colonial army began as a militia with people’s bearing their personal arms, kept in their homes. It seems to me that a person would have to feign obtuseness to suppose that the Second amendment did NOT guarantee the right to keep firearms in one’s home. Surprisingly, however, the loftiest court in the land confirmed the obvious by the narrowest of margins, a single, tenuous vote! Thus, it must be that education at a high-class law school followed by years of judicial experience are, in some cases, sufficient for vitiating common sense.

At any rate, thank goodness, the Supreme Court, in toto, interpreted accurately what the Constitution tells us dummies. Naturally, the right is still abridged by numerous, other, unconstitutional laws, and perhaps some of these soon will be challenged and defeated.

In the post-decision news reporting, journalists concentrated on its implications in CITIES. I wish someone would explain to me why the impact of this ruling – as if criminals had hesitated to store guns in their homes until the Supreme Court had told them it was legal – should be different in Chicago, New York, and Washington, D.C. than it is, say, in Wheatland, Wyoming, Ipava, Illinois, and Canton, New York. All I can imagine is that law-breakers have a predilection for cities; what do you think?

Finally, I wonder about the appellation, “liberal.” After the definition that corresponds to liberal arts, my dictionary shows the following meanings, in order, for the adjective. 2. "Free in bestowing; bountiful, generous, open-hearted.” 3. “Free from restraints; free in speech or action.” 4. “Free from narrow prejudice; open-minded.” It is a great inconsistency, one might say an irony, that, liberal politicians and judges, far from acting in bountiful, restraint-free, open-minded ways, are eternally doing their damnedest to SHRINK OUR RIGHTS! This misnomer is about as far-fetched as a minority faction’s electing to designate itself “Bolsheviks” or a murderous terrorist’s claiming to adhere to a faith named “peace.”