Crain's Greg Hinz talks about the double standard as far as reading the second amendment goes. I may agree that perhaps the justices might misread it and that the conservatives may like this decision while criticizing others decisions they don't agree with. I suppose there is a double standard, I mentioned that when the news broke on Thursday. There is a decision liberals like there will be a celebration if there is a decision they don't like there will be bellyaching. I suppose no one gets all that they really want from the Supreme Court whether or not you agree that the court either interprets the law or legislate from the bench.
Still while I can agree that citizens right to self-defense isn't explicable stated in the constitution, I would see the part about the right of the people to bear arms. That being said it mentions the militia first and then it mentions the right of the people. To me, it means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn't predicated on whether or not they're in an organized or unorganized militia.
It's just too bad that with the idea of safety in mind or indeed fear that this language would be cast aside to say that citizens can't be allowed to keep a gun. Like I said I would be concerned about a few fools who might get into a rage and start shooting or an individual who seems to have a great inability to keep a gun away from children. To me that's not a reason to keep otherwise responsible people from owning a gun.
And as for the court there will be double standards all the time, because the court doesn't always rule the way they think it should. We should probably have to accept that and move on and at that there is a way to negate that ruling if it becomes unpopular. Especially thru the legislative process.
20 hours ago