The ‘Supreme Court’ has refused to hear another 2nd Amendment case. In reality, what they are doing is destroying the 2nd Amendment. They think they can keep their hands clean by allowing lower courts to destroy it and then just refusing to hear any appeals based on those lower rulings. In their perverted minds, this allows them to say they didn’t destroy the 2nd Amendment, but they have. Not to act is to act. But they have done something much worse; something their depraved narcissism prevents them from seeing. They have destroyed the Supreme Court in the process. The Supreme Court has one and only one purpose: to defend the Constitution, Once the Justices refuse to do so, they have nullified their entire purpose for being. But I want to make my case very clear, so let’s illustrate my argument by applying the Court’s tactic to cell phones and see if you still think I am being too extreme in my condemnation of the Supreme Court.
First, here is the story:
This latest refusal deals with a law that says gun owners must keep their weapons disassembled or in some way that prevents them from being used while in their homes. OK, now let’s apply this to your cell phone. What if they had passed a cell phone control law that says you had to de-activate your cell phone service every time you disconnect from a call or the internet? The argument is the State is protecting you from brain cancer — and especially your kids, who we all know will use your phone without permission when you are not looking. It also protects your child’s mental development. Too many video games have been shown to cause development problems so, again, this is to protect your children and other innocent people who may find and use your phone when you lat it down. So the law is for your protection and the protection of children and innocent bystanders. After all, we know cell phones are killing thousands every year from brain cancer and video games lead to mental problems and violence.
Now, you think this is an infringement on your rights, so you challenge the law in court. It gets to the State Supreme Court where the government argues that this law does not infringe on your rights. Making it so your phone is automatically disabled every time you disconnect from a call or the web and then forcing you log on to your computer and enter your password every time you want to use your phone is just ‘prudent’ protection against cell phone cancer and video game disorders. There is no infringement on your right to use your phone. You are still free to own and use it, you just have to take these reasonable precautions.
You still believe that your rights have been infringed, so you appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, but they refuse to hear you. This leaves the State law in place. So, it is now official: the cell phone control law stands and your rights are still intact because you can still own your phone. Please do not worry, the State will never pass a law telling you how many minutes you can use on your phone every day. After all, there is no connection between the amount of use and the risk of brain cancer or video game disorders. So this si the last time you will have to worry about restrictions on your cell phone. Also, we will never let the State come after your battery, or limit how long it can last. it isn’t like your battery harms the environment and should be switched to some sort of green solar power unit or anything like that. This is just an innocent law to protect children and innocent people from video game disorder. If you do not like it, you must hate children and video game addicts — you racist hater!
So, do you see why there is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court refusing to hear your case against this cell phone control law yet? Oh, and if you think this is a false analogy, think again.
“The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless.”
When a person places a restriction on your right to use or exercise your right, then tries to tell you that they have not infringed on your rights, they are lying! You may voluntarily agree to restrict the use of your rights, but no one has the authority or power to force such a restriction. This is very easy to understand — if you are intellectually honest.
If I tell you that you are not a slave, but you must do anything and everything I tell you to do or you will be thrown in jail, will you then accept my claim that you are not a slave? I have not claimed to own you. I have not said you would lose your life or free will, so you still have them. In fact, I can say I have done nothing to restrict your life or will. You can either do as I say or go to jail, but if you go to jail, that will not be my fault: it will be what you chose to do. So, either way, I have not restricted your life or free will in any way. they are still yours to exercise however you wish.
Do you see the flaw in that argument? Yes, you may not be owned, but your only choices are to do as I say or go to jail. No matter how loudly I scream otherwise, I have infringed on your free will. I am the tyrant in this case because I have infringed on your Natural Rights. Well, the same applies to our cell phone illustration. A right to own a cell phone implies the right to use it. If I cannot use it, then how can I be said to have a right to own it when its function is part of its essence? You see, it is the exact same: I am claiming that you still own the phone, but you cannot use it unless I say so, and then, you can only use it the way I tell you to use it. If you do not obey, I take the phone away. I am not telling you that you do not have a right to own the phone, or even to use it how and when you want. I am just saying that if you do not use the phone the way I tell you, it will be confiscated. If that happens, it will be your fault because you chose not to obey me. Do you see the lie?
Well, the same thing applies to guns and gun control. The 2nd Amendment is directly connected to your Natural Right of self-defense. When I infringe on your right to own a weapon and to keep it on your person — even in public — I am telling you that you have a right to self-defense, but only the defense I tell you to use. In this case, you are either going to let the crime happen to you and then call the police and hope they do justice, or I will put you in jail (provided you survive). If you claim this denies your right to self-defense, I will tell you it does not. You can either defend yourself the way I tell you to, or you can do it however you want, but I will put you in jail for it and that will be your choice. You decided not to obey me, so you are the one who chose to go to jail — not me. Now, before you object to this explanation, don’t — because this is exactly what the States and Federal Government have done in this country. This is the exact situation under which many of us live. They have perverted the law so that your only option is to submit to being a victim, then hoping the police will do something about it after the fact. In addition to this, the law has been perverted further still, such that the police have no longer have an obligation to protect your life or your property. So I ask you: do you still have the right to your own life?
All of this has happened because the Supreme Court has failed to hear cases that would allow them to set things right with the laws in this nation. Since the government was founded to uphold the law for the protection of life and property, and the Supreme Court’s role is to make sure the laws stay true to this mission, by refusing to hear the cases that would allow them to do their job, the Supreme Court has nullified its authority. It has abdicated its proper authority and declared itself a clear and present danger to the people of America. In other words, the Supreme Court is in a state of open warfare against the People of America.