Yes We Can..Bear Arms.

And neither am I.  While I have to admit I'm pleased it buys us a little more time, you are absolutely right.  As soon as one of the judges who's actually read the constitution dies or retires (such as Thomas, etc) Barack Hussein Osama will just throw in the most hippie scum bag on earth and we're completely screwed.  I hate to say it but I don't even have the faith that McCain would put in a strong enough conservative to hold the court from destroying the constitution.  Besides, there's a history of good judges getting 'removed' when they block the will of evil on this continent.  Some of you know what I'm saying.

Anyhow, after reading some of the decision something that is even more disturbing is the fact that even the majority decision while trying to stay politically correct was clear to point out this ruling doesn't negate all gun restrictions, and referred only to the specific ruling about keeping a firearm in your home.  I had hoped for more the Scallia, Thomas, etc.  The whole point of judges not running for election is so they would have the strength to do what is right and not worry about being 'politically correct.'  It would appear that even they concerned with their 'image', 'legacy', and other nonesense.  The bullying of the mainstream press it would seem triumphs even with consitutional conservatives on the bench.

Sad..... very sad......

I forgot one last point.  From the KSL article;

"In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Nowhere to be found??? Are you kidding?  Has he even read the second ammendment?  Ok, sorry, I'm just a high school graduate here, not an elite University brainwashed moron but let's look at the 2nd ammendment.  

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So, no evidence?  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  Hmmm.. I think that's EXACTLY what the founders wanted to do Mr. Stevens.  They wanted to prevent the government from taking away this right from the people.  Why do you think it is the SECOND ammendment to the constituion in the BILL OF RIGHTS which are rights by US Citizenship granted by GOD at birth.  That's how they described the bill of rights.

The one right (the right to say whatever you want/free press, etc) guranteed in the first ammendment (one as a kid I never thought the liberals would challenge) is also of course under attack.  Our dear friend McCain helped pass legislation violating that one, and now of course the 'fairness' doctrine is back to try and silence Rush, Hannity and others who dare disagree or critisize the communists attempting to destroy this nation.  And how are they accompishing this, with a vote on the floor?  No, of course not.  They are doing it by preventing a vote on the floor, burying it.  Will the press call Congress out on it's blatant disregard for how the goverment was designed to operate?  Of course not, they want their monopoly back.

Begining of the end folks...... Hope we're all getting ready.

Exactly!  As the 'must read' article above states, he used the words "In my view."  I think we need to start impeachment hearings RIGHT NOW for any Supreme Court justice who has used that phrase in his official opinion.  That and using international law in their opinion's to justify their activism.  It's insane.  Your job is to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION.  Not "In my view, the framers got it wrong so screw you all."

Honestly, it shocks me that we the people have let this country degrade this far.

Ye haw! Jesters dead... or at least until we have a communistic, nutwing congress and president who will push to override this ruling.