Censorship

You have no right to read this.

The First Amendment gives me the right to write it, but doesn't necessarily give you the right to read it. While the right to free speech certainly infers a corresponding right to hear what is being spoken or written, the First Amendment doesn't explicitly grant such a right to read anything you want. So theoretically, it could be argued that no such right exists.

The key word being "theoretically". As a practical matter, the freedom to read whatever we choose is such an intrinsic part of the US or British national character as to make legal theory superfluous. People would rise in outrage if government ever attempted to proscribe what they read. Theory and reality are often two different things.

Add in that my ability to write or say what I want will allow ideas to get out, even if there are attempts to censor them.

Now, I just moderated some comments about my Mitt Romney piece which may have come from some Mormons (Mormons and Jews tend to proselytise in a similar manner). They are happy to see people accepting their beliefs and defending them as well. I will defend their ability to practise their beliefs even if I have some personal qualms about their faith as an ardent believer that the war of independence and the US Constitution are a disaster and not divinely inspired.

The American War for Independence was satanic in my opinion, but I don't see Mormons as satanic. Their beliefs are not satanic. I would like to think that the Mormons believe in the Spirit of the Constitution and what it means than what this country has become. But I also think most of the founding fathers (and mothers) would probably think this country was a disaster as well if they were able to see what it has become.

On the other hand, as I have said before, I don't see any reason to give the RKBA crowd more of a soapbox to push their opinions upon us. They flood the internet with repeated lies. Repeating these lies will not make it the truth. And the RKBA position on guns is detrimental to society. which is made especially clear after waking to yet another mass shooting in Illinois.

As a lawyer, my job is to state what the law IS, not what I would like it to be. And, until the Supreme Court states otherwise, the Second Amendment protects only the militias which are organised under Article I, Section 8.

I have to update this to say that Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), is a piece of political hackery which he should be ashamed of if he truly believes what he professes to believe. So, I remain unconvinced of the validity of this decision as legal precedent.

So I see no reason why District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) should not be overturned and replaced with something which makes proper legal sense or why Washington, DC's locally enacted law should have been judicially repealed. Isn't that judicial activism anyway?

Not to mention tyranny.

I am glad to see that I have readers and I am glad to support people's right of conscience if it doesn't hurt anyone. Quite frankly. I have absolutely no problem with any of Mormonism's beliefs. As I said before, I think that they are absolutely dead wrong about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution being devinely inspired. Along with finding retroactive baptism a bit odd, which I am sure my dead Jewish relations who are retroactively baptised do as well.

But, My Mormon relations tell me that my Jewish relations who are retroactively are free to accept or reject Mormonism as they please. Not to mention that the Mormons have helped me in my genealogical pursuits. I have also donated genealogical material to the Mormons who will protect it. So, I have absolutely no problem with Mormons and their beliefs since they are not forcing them upon me.

The Mormons aren't the Branch Davidians, yet I see some of the religious right defend the Branch Davidians even though the BDs were engaged in illegal activities. This is because they were a "Church".

The Mormons are law abiding and not prone to force their beliefs on others, which is what the First Amendment right is about.

And, I really don't care if anyone reads this blog, but it is my right to write it. This is the real first freedom which protects all other freedoms. The Second Amendment's significance is so lost in history and polemic that it is meaningless.

But, it does feel good if my writings make a difference.

RKBA comments

The RKBA crowd takes over the discussion of the Second Amendment whenever possible. Their arguments are like weeds in a garden which are allowed to take over. Weeds of ignorance and illogic.

There have been RKBA people who wish to comment on this blog, but I don't allow it. I will not post their comments.

The Bill of Rights only protects you from government interference, not private. I am not a governmental body in this blog, so I can censor to my heart's content.

You have more than enough fora to post your bullshit. I don't really want to hear your opinions. Nor do I need to allow them to be published more than they are. So, I am under no obligation to post your nonsense.

As for my discussions of Heller. No, they are not a red herring. The precedent in Sandidge v. U. S., 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1987) which was the law in The District of Columbia and followed the "Collective Right" interpretation. The Parker court admitted that it ignored the precedent of Sandidge.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment are the words "self-defence" written. And, until you can show me they are written there, which you cannot, the Second Amendment does not apply to self-defence. It does apply to membership in a militia organised under Article I, Section 8 and only in those circumstances.

Heller has no right to own a gun on his own property any more than I can have a meth lab on mine or sex with a child if the firearm is illegal, which they are under DC law. Private property does not allow for sovereignty to commit illegal acts.

Is that clear enough for you Mr. RKBA moron? Please do not come here with your fallacies and poor arguments.