I've heard many on the Left these last couple of days suggest that the recent Supreme Court decision overturning DC's gun ban somehow is proof that activist right-wing Judges are trying to stir up a culture of death and racial violence through such ruling; some have suggested further that ala Iraq this proves right-wingers want to put loaded handguns into the hands of possibly deranged, rebellious, or citizens who might not get "courage" to speak or act without one...like those who say gun violence would increase but for their bans often say; on the Right, some suggest somehow a right to bear arms in private life is hugely popular .

 

Well, I am a so-called right-winger of actual...not just social...Conservative personality; I have long ago owned handguns purchased in strict accordance with then Federal and State and Local laws, and since 1983 have had no employment which required such lawful possession (and rules for carrying) such guns, so I way back them sold them to licensed dealers and never replaced them with anything; I have all my life thought only military, police, regulated protective services, and to a small degree persons in wilderness apt to encounter poisonous snakes or rabid large animals even need ANY gun in today's modern societies; I have always believed that if the framers of the Bill Of Rights meant "persons" they would have said so, instead of "the People", in re ownership of guns for USA defense...sort of then intending unless you were in then large external frontier wilderness, you had to stow and not touch a gun unless a call came from the government; and I believe in the death penalty for citizens overstepping the purpose of self-defense anytime they take life for personal power or passion.

 

Perhaps the Supreme Court had in mind that last bit...BRAC is marching right along, there's no draft, Democrats swear all defenses will be de-funded, any right not reserved to an interested federal or State government is reserved to the People directly; maybe the Court had in mind something like then letting USA persons own actual firearms simple in case a government needs them to provide militia-like, Minute Man-like first response unto infinity should martial attack from abroad occur, at least until a government reconstituted more formal means of defense. It would seem logical, in such academic exercise, to keep AMMUNITION for anything the sole right of government to make and store until, if ever, it is needed...if unto infinity civil rebellion(s) occurred, one would NOT want to sort out who were and were not "loyalists" by seeing who does or doesn't shoot at each other.

 

But even the question of the "masses" keeping even guns unable to be used seems moot, in that so many people just never have been that interested in gun ownership, and even if they were, so many manufacturers and ammuniton makers have gone out of business, the issue seems as moot as if the Court had said "You have an absolute right to wear whalebone corsets".

 

More than see gun ownership rights as some racial or other divisive statement(s), many foreign powers view guns in the hands of civilian populations as suggestive the Masses may revolt any time they don't like this or that, which kind of suggests instability and unreliability of various layers of government...the USA and Tito's Yugoslavia have been amongst the very few nations, ever, to allow private possession of weapons without official military purpose, and Hamas and al-Qaeda types have weapons but in a "permanent revolution" sense certainly inspiring no confidence in them.

 

If like the European Union the USA were to use sweeping HR 1955 or similar powers to bring in those from Qaedan and other Islamic jihad fronts, on belief paying admitted bona fide terrorists and tolerating as many death blows as they STILL would then care to make, then like the European Union Parliament one would be faced with economic stasis (not based in other than credit or government ownerships) from which at any end of social strata terrorism could arise; funded like mainstream middle-class and otherwise idle, Atta types could recruit and fly without let or hindrance through the West and strike even China or Russia; this could cause another power to question why one needs an allegedly defensive missile shield if all they intend is a stagnant society enabling terrorists to grow and attack outside the West.

 

I know recently I've carped about a lot of my own experiences re moral relativity of Illinois officials and their orthodoxies, but all I mean by same is to illustrate that they support my perception Illinois officials are dedicated to an ongoing static society as within aforesaid; to be sure, it doesn't seem to have drawn much business or job opportunities to Illinois to have so many changing rules on everything once deals or decisions are rendered, or similar moral relativities the same as IF having permanent revolution by political will rather than overt violence...and the point of it all seems to be to pursue European Union Parliament-like social restructurings and alleged anti-terrorism tactics.

 

Some in Europe and USA politics have already made it hard on our troops, and the good Muslims and others in Iraq and elsewhere, to boldly proclaim they are glad Qaeda et al are getting to see faces of those who stop their attacks even on other Muslims, and to further offer unpatrolled, unfettered free mainstream lifestyles to any Muslim who so much as set an IED against a soldier and call themselves a jihadist...let's hope that the moot issue of handgun ownership doesn't mute how Democrats and a European Union Parliament are trying to get their hands on missile shields while growing terrorism in their own backyards, in the Mid East, and globally, without concern for their own citizens, immigrants, or foreign lands.

 

I continue to support George Walker Bush re the war on terrorism, and Conservatives for national offices.