Supreme court 2nd Amendment hearing looking good so far.

[newman]

Washington - - A majority of US Supreme Court justices appear poised to embrace an individual rights view of the Second Amendment.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p25s07-usju.html

2008
Bull........ on Parade
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in "Law" of the Land
10:35 AM
Just a quick note:

If you’re not listening to the oral arguments in D.C. vs Heller, you should. It’s funny as all Hell.

Currently (it’s on C-SPAN right now) some knuckledragging imbecile name of Walter Dellinger, arguing for D.C., is clowning around, contradicting himself while Scalia and Roberts are making him stammer, babble and fumble like a three-year-old caught with his hand in the cookie jar. “But if you’re saying that the 2nd Amendment only pertains to the militia and that the militia are the people, then how can you say that it DOESN’T pertain to the people?”

It’s comedy gold, we tell you.

Oh G-d… Now the toddler that D.C. has chosen to represent them is arguing that reading the 2nd Amendment the way it’s written would limit the State’s “right” to regulate. Obviously he’s never read the Constitution OR the Founders’ reasons for writing the Bill of Rights in the first place. Even Kennedy and Souter, SOUTER, are wondering if he’s entirely sane now.

And he closes out by stating that “Congress was created to protect the government” as an argument in favor of outlawing the right to keep and bear arms. So obviously he’s concerned that those unwashed peons might end up armed well enough to resist tyranny. Gee, clownshoe, having the people armed well enough to resist tyranny was pretty much the reason that we’re not swearing allegiance to the Queen today, wasn’t it? But thanks for being honest. You’re really just troubled that an armed citizenry are hard to rule in a totalitarian fashion, since the wannabe tyrants might get hurt.

ROFLMAO!

http://www.nicedoggie.net/2008/?p=476