Your President, on Heller.

While most of this is political posturing, mudslinging, and baby kissing, I do think it shows the importance of Heller when all three of our dear presidential candidates issue statements on the case within hours of its announcement. Also, as I feel this election is the biggest joke this country has faced in a long time, i thought you might like a laugh.

In no particular order:

John McCain:

“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbias ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense. “Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly. “This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr also weighed in on the Supreme Court decision:

The ruling “will go down as one of the Supreme Court’s most important rulings on behalf of liberty.” “Today’s decision marks a new era for gun rights in America … By protecting an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment ensures that all Americans are able to participate in sporting activities, hunt, and protect themselves and their families. “Where crime rates are high, a gun may be the only means for law-abiding citizens to safeguard themselves and their families … Lawful gun ownership deters an untold number of crimes every year."

And Obama, with slightly less cheer in his voice:

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

While i dont think any of this political giberish is worth me commenting on, i will say that the "Gun Show Loophole" Obama has brought up here, and which in fact all three of our lovely candidates has publicly supported closing, is not a loophole at all, but in fact the right of an individual to transfer a firearm. Period. Whether that transfer is to a wife or son, or to a fellow citizen who will get better use out of your old rifle than you do, the government has no right to forbid an individual to freely trade on an open market property which legally belongs to him. All commercial entities, and in fact any person who wishes to sell a gun, at a gun show or not, with the intent to profit is already required not only to phone in a background check, but is required to jump through a number of other hoops in the form of a federal firearms license. To suggest that we have not the right to the free transfer of property from one individual to another is akin to saying that we do not have ownership of that property, and that in fact it belongs to the state.


Well, enjoy.

Hard vote, isnt it? damned if you do... damnit.

Tempus Fugit