THE MURDER COURT

THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS THAT IS THE SUPREME COURT AND GUNS

Update: As it now stands on June 24, 2022 the supreme court (lower case letters used intentionally throughout) is forcing women to have babies – to even give birth to their rapist’s child – so that the babies can be shot dead when they reach elementary school.

***

Even if the second amendment (lower case letters used purposely throughout) means what the federalist society, QAnon, supreme court

whack jobs say it means the following would still be true:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable  Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That is of course from the United States Declaration of Independence which was introduced to the world on July 4, 1776.

The following would also be true:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That of course – and many people do not know this – is the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution which post-dates the Declaration of Independence by some 13 years as it became enshrined in 1789.

What the Ninth Amendment means is simple. There are rights that predated the Constitution and are still guaranteed by the Constitution even if they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

The conclusion is not too difficult: According to the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution American Citizens have the “unalienable Right” to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” that was guaranteed by the lofty Declaration of Independence.

The second amendment is not superior to the Ninth Amendment or the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the second amendment is the most sacred right. The second amendment does not trump – no pun intended – the Ninth Amendment or the “Right” to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Capitals in the original)

Being shot by a firearm is certainly a violation of the “Right” to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Capitals in the original)

See if you can wrap your redneck, QAnon, conspiracy theory minds around that one you small penis gun worshippers.

But the Second amendment does not mean anything close to the rewrite that the Murder Court known as the “supreme court” says it means.

***

Gun advocates are fond of claiming that gun ownership “is part of my rights.” When pressed many don’t know where these rights come from but most cite to the Second amendment of the United States Constitution. According to the gun advocates the Second amendment guarantees them “the right to bear arms” or the “the right to have guns” or something similar. Almost no gun advocates have even bothered to read the Second amendment that they cite to as the justification for all the killing of children and worshippers that happens in this country because of guns – weapons to be exact. High capacity rapid firing death machines. Well I am going to give them the opportunity to read the Second amendment. Here it is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That’s it. That’s the whole thing. Google it if you don’t believe me.

Weapon advocates are quick to seize on the following language:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But that is not all of the language. That is not even the most important language. What starts it all? Here is the most important language:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …

The above language – “A well regulated Militia …” – serves as the premise and the preface for what follows. In other words the reason that people have “the right … to keep and bear arms” is because “A well regulated Militia, [is] necessary to the security of a free State …” Here it all is again. Don’t just skip to the end. Read the whole thing.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to “keep and bear arms” is for “a well regulated Militia” so that the “Militia” can maintain “the security of a free state.” It’s not for crazy bastards who shoot people up and it’s also not for the heck of it.

Back when the Second amendment was written militias were common place. These militias were made up of citizens who volunteered. They would practice on off hours such as evenings and weekends. They were not provided with any weapons. They had to bring their own. Hence the right to “bear arms” for a “well regulated Militia.”

The militia was a line of defense against the British in the revolutionary war. Hence the language: “the security of a free State.” Remember back then the United States was a loosely connected series of States where most of the power resided – in the individualized states.

What is the equivalent of the Militia today? The National Guard is a perfect answer. The police and their equivalent – sheriff, highway patrol, FBI, etc. – if you stretch it. What are all of these people doing with weapons? Why are they all saying it’s their Constitutional right? For goodness sake read the Second amendment. The false portrayal of the Constitution and the phony connection between guns and patriotism is annoying.

But wait. Speaking of “false” and “phony” there is the deceased supreme court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia is the father of intellectual dishonesty. Scalia – and his intellectually and morally challenged brethren – has rewritten the Second amendment. He’s given the whack job, Russian infiltrated White Nationalists and NRA a Second amendment that simply says:

… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Instead of

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The man besides deleting the main part of the Second amendment written by our so called “founding fathers” also added a bunch of stuff to the Second amendment that was never there.

Let us talk about this for a little bit with the help of Professor Denis Brown who I will quote in places. As we have discussed for most of its history the Second amendment protected a collective right to gun ownership connected to service in the militia. Again this is clear from the text. And it was actually the law of the land for many years.

But in 2008, the Supreme Court found in District of Columbia v. Heller that the amendment instead supports an individual right to own a gun for any lawful purpose. This alleged right has nothing to do with military service held the Court.

In his opinion in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that we must understand the Constitution’s words exactly as the framers understood them, disconnected the right to keep and bear arms from the need for a well-regulated Militia; in part because he concluded that the phrase “bear arms” did not refer to military contexts in the founding era. By Scalia’s logic, the natural meaning of “bear arms” is simply to carry a weapon and has nothing to do with armies. He explained in his opinion:

Although [‘bear arms’] implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

Scalia was lying. He had a penchant for lying. That has been proven. As reported by Dennis Baron, a professor of English and linguistics at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Two new databases of English writing from the founding era confirm that “bear arms” is a military term. Non-military uses of “bear arms” are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.

A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military.

But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. Writing about the Second amendment in 1995, historian Garry Wills put it succinctly: “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.”

And in 1840, in an early right- ­to-bear-arms case, Tennessee Supreme Court Judge Nathan Green wrote:

A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

Then there’s this exchange during oral arguments in Heller. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said that “bear arms” meant to carry them outside the home. Justice David Souter asked him: “But wait a minute. You’re not saying that if somebody goes hunting deer he is bearing arms, or are you?”

Clement replied, “I would say that and so would Madison and so would Jefferson.”

But Souter wasn’t convinced. Souter shot back: “In the 18th century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms? I mean, is that the way they talk?”

Clement finally conceded that no, that was not the way they talked: “Well, I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.”

Souter did not need to point out the obvious: “Bear arms” appears in its unmodified form in the Second amendment.

Barron also notes the following about Scalia's opinion:

Still, the Supreme Court based its interpretation of the Second amendment on more than an incorrect definition of “bear arms.” According to Scalia, the framers “undoubtedly thought” the amendment protected the universal right of self-defense, even though nowhere does the Constitution mention self-defense. It doesn’t mention hunting, either.

A dissenting opinions best summarize Scalia’s decision. Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".

So this man … this Scalia … who professes to give us the original meaning of the Constitution fed us nothing more than lies. He decided the fate of thousands of children not based upon the law, but upon the politics and money of the right wing. He used deceits to justify his decision and made a mockery out of the Constitution and the Court.

Scalia was reportedly found dead in bed with a pillow shoved partially down his throat. Perhaps this fraud of a perverse man was killed in some sort of sadomasochistic romp. Whatever the case … Scalia – the prince of Catholicism – is burning in hell. The Court; the NRA; and all the gun nuts have dipped their hands deeply into the blood of children.

Then just weeks after the mass shooting in a Buffalo grocery story and the massacre of children in a Texas elementary school – another child massacre – the supreme court gave us this latest atrocity: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Et Al. v. Bruen, Superintendent Of New York State Police, et al., which relied heavily on the above discussed Heller. The decision was written by Clarence “the clown” Thomas who is the husband of a woman that helped plan and stage the coup of January 6, 2021 and the coup activities that preceded it and are still ongoing and so on.

The supreme court struck down a New York state law requiring applicants for a license to carry a gun outside of their homes to have a “proper cause” to do so. Thomas and five other alleged conservative justices (small case “j” used purposely) held that the law violated the Second amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

New York’s law was considered “restrictive” when compared to the laws of other states. It prevented people – including bad people and nut jobs – from carrying concealed weapons. What is a concealed weapon? A concealed weapon is a handgun that is hidden on the person who is carrying it. Other people do not know that the nut job is armed.

I have an unalienable Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness which means I have an unalienable Right to know when someone is armed with a firearm so that I can avoid them and Live and pursue Happiness and have Liberty. Life is basic Liberty. The Murder Court cannot comprehend that.

Having prosecuted gun crimes in New York City I can tell you that the law which made it a crime to carry a concealed firearm without a license was responsible for making New York the safest big city in the nation according to FBI crime statistics. While the pandemic crime rate in New York City grew by a huge percentage the same is true of the rest of the country. However the Trumpists point to rising crime statistics in New York City as evidence of the failure of a liberal city or the failure of democrats. They even say it shows that restrictive gun laws do not work. But it’s all lies just like the lie that Donald Trump won the election. To put it in perspective New York City’s homicide rate in 2021 was still less than a fifth of what it was in 1990. FBI data points out that New York City is still far safer than most of small town America.

Well thanks to the so called Conservatives – really the federalist society QAnon whack job right – that is all about to change drastically. Rivers of blood will soon flow through the streets and alleyways of New York City and other places. Blood will also flow in the churches, stores and, yes, in the schools and playgrounds. The majority of those that will die will be children. Murder Court you have the blood of children on your hands.

Places like Alabama and Mississippi don’t have New York’s abortion laws. New York should not be forced to have their gun laws. Lunatic fringe redneck states should leave places like New York alone. And we will leave you alone. It will be our pleasure.

And it is about time that we stop listening to our federal courts – especially the supreme court. Like we urged children to “just say no” to drugs, enlightened State Governors and Legislators should “just say no” to the nut jobs that occupy the supreme court.

As I go to publication of this piece America celebrated another July Fourth Independence Day. It was celebrated in the finest American tradition: An American citizen gunned down other American citizens at an Independence Day parade Highland Park, Illinois. The tattooed faced miscreant fired some ninety rounds from a high capacity, rapid firing AR-15 style assault rifle. He fired those ninety high velocity rounds right into the crowd of parade goers killing seven and wounding scores. 

It was over in mere seconds.

A two year old child wandered the streets asking “when will mommy and daddy be back.” They will not be back. They are dead. Their heads faces and bodies were pulverized by high velocity rounds. Like all shooting victims the victims in Highland Park simply had no rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Their rights were trumped by the second amendment.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul act like a mother and a Governor: Refuse to obey the supreme court – the Murder Court. Save the children. You passed another round of gun legislation but it does not go far enough. And it will be struck down anyway. So pass a law that requires a gun purchaser to be proficient enough to hit a bull’s eye at 100 yards. When that gets struck down, immediately pass another law that requires a gun purchaser to be able to run a four minute mile. And when that gets struck down by the Murder Court pass another ridiculous law etc., and so on. Keep the guns off the streets. 

If you are not going to fight the Murder Court directly be as intellectually dishonest as they are.

Oh my I am sounding like an insurrectionist. How radical. So what.