The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that the Second Amendment does not apply to Weapons of War. I beg to differ. Not only does the Second Amendment pertain to Weapons of War, but such Weapons are the main reason the Founding Fathers established this right. In our Founders day, the Musket was a Weapon of War. When the Founders fought the wars for Independence, the Musket was the primary Weapon in use. Our Founders established in their writings the importance of the armed citizen, and that the Militia, the other part of the Amendment, was nearly the whole people. In addition to these facts, the Founding Fathers and their Wives were brilliant people. Like most people today, our Founders knew that technology would advance. The Founders established no prohibition for future technology in regards to firearms. Clearly, they believed that one day tyrants could rise again. This was the single most important aspect of why the Founders established the Second Amendment. All of the other reasons, were side issues.
Since the Second Amendment covered the Founder’s Weapons of War, and given their apparent brilliance in writing the Constitution, in addition to their belief that ultimate authority was invested in “the people” than the only decision one could possibly reach as a modern day Judge, if not influenced by self ideology, is that the Second Amendment not only covers AR-15s and AK-47s, but that those weapons are first in line to be protected by the Second Amendment. Killers can always kill when they are facing unarmed victims, and most firearms can fill that diabolic need of the killer quickly, but this is not so for the armed citizen facing soldiers with semi-automatic weapons, for revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles are limited against such firepower. This is also not even about semi-automatic firearms or even the right to use a Stun gun for self defense. Instead, it is about the inalienable right to self defense, a right that should never be defined by any man or woman, but protected by the oaths of statesmen, who have pledged to uphold that right.
Progressive Judges are taking our rights and written law and throwing them in the trash heap. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals clearly had no authority in undermining the President’s lawful action against non-citizens, and even worse, was this decision by the Fourth Circuit undermining the Spirit of THE SUPREME COURT’S decision in Heller. No one, and I mean no one, can come to any other conclusion as to the protection of semi-automatic weapons if they are following the Constitution, our Founding Father’s writings, and the original intent of the Constitution based upon the activity taking place at the time. This ruling was progressive activism and nothing more.
It is truly amazing how these progressive judges can FIND modern rights every few years based on the Constitution, but continue to limit actual rights within that very Constitution. Remember, it was Barack Obama that called the Bill of Rights “negative rights”, I guess someone in the mainstream media should ask him to define that statement. (Yea right).