“Who’s there?”
“Just your friendly blue-helmet.”
“Just your friendly blue-helmet, who?”
“Just your friendly blue-helmet wearing guy coming to collect your firearms, world citizen.”
BANG! BANG-BANG! BANG-BANG!
“Didn’t they tell you UN cocksuckers that I don’t give at the office either?”
——————–
In related news, here are some lawyers who could use the same treatment.
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” applies to all people or only to “a well regulated militia.” The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.
Jeremy Hobbs, director of Oxfam International, called the vote “a historic step,” saying only five governments supported the concept of an arms trade treaty in 2003.
“Now governments must follow through and achieve a strong, effective treaty,” Hobbs said. “Every day that they delay is another day when thousands of lives are wrecked by
armed violence.”Sorry, I think he meant non-oppressive-world-government-violence. Besides, why wouldn’t we trust the UN to protect us?
The way I see it, the de-facto postition of the government HAS to be an individual-possession interpretation, simply because the government refuses to allow and encourage militia training except in the National Guard and Reserve, which, “de-facto” are part of the standing army, not the militia.
This case will be good for us either way, as I see it, because the only way the confiscation of firearms could result from it would be if the SCOTUS ruled on the Second being a group interpretation of the R2KBA, then ruled the Militia Acts unconstitutional.
The Militia Acts need updating, in thins like age of militia members and weaponry, but they are still valid with EITHER interpretation, and as has been discussed here before, the Second was meant to promote the possession of MILITARY weapons, which the current view of it frowns upon.
I, for one, hope that the gun-grabbers try to speed this kind of oppresive bullshit up!
It gives me an easier method of delineating exactly who, and who is not, on my side.
The slow boiling water is their best method for the confiscation that they have been having a wet dream over, and if they turn up the heat quickly enough, we WILL be seeing some action. So bring it on, I say.
Why not? It’s not like their gonna win this thing.
Pingback: Random Nuclear Strikes » Satisfying Discussions