::::::::
The case of D.C. vs. Heller, the Supreme Court's review of the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms, has received glaring attention from the press. One must wonder if Bush's cronies in the MSM have been signaled to megaphone the pros and cons of the issue to the public before the Supreme Court makes a decision, which is scheduled to be heard in March.
Telephone and street polling are likely being taken concommittantly -- soon we'll be told what we think. Poll results, I might add, are as easy to rig as a Diebold voting machine.
This case reeks of symbolism: the parallel between U.S. crime and international terrorism could not be more poignant. Gun control laws in D.C. and Chicago are fruitless as long as anyone can drive outside the city limits and purchase a pistol. Terrorism cannot be stopped as long as terrorists can easily drive, fly or walk through borders and purchase bomb-making materials off the shelf.
The "acheivement" of a gun control law, so long desired by many on the left, particularly metropolitans, unfortunately, could very well be a double-edged sword -- the removal of the ability of states and citizens to stand up to a U.S. military dictatorship. I've seen scant attention given this side of the argument.
It will certainly be interesting to see what Bush's Supreme Court decides. As fascism rears it's ugly head in Pakistan, and Lebanon likewise issues a state of emergency while still in shock over last year's air strikes by Israel, and U.S. civil liberties and rule of law are removed for the sake of domestic espionage under the ruse of counter-terrorism, this Democrat believes it's a bad time to try to take his gun.
It should also be added that regardless of what other states might enact regarding gun control, it is highly unlikely that Red States would follow the trend.
