Washington DC's Gun Ban

I apologize for needing to talk about gun "laws" again. The tyrants keep making it necessary.

The rulers of Washington DC, like any hive of villains, think it is a good idea to keep honest people disarmed against their predations. As I have pointed out in the past, only crooked politicians and freelance criminals fear guns in the hands of ordinary people. No one who wishes to disarm you does it for your benefit, but for their own, so that they are empowered to do things to you that you would not permit them to do if you had the means to effectively defend yourself. "Gun control" is the act of predators taking preemptive steps to protect themselves. That is why it is called "victim disarmament".

Now a court, with an uncharacteristic act of self betrayal, has declared that the Washington DC "laws" against gun ownership are unconstitutional (that means "illegal" in case you missed that chapter in the civics book). It makes me wonder why the court did that. Of course the DC villains will appeal the ruling; they must; it is a matter of life and death to them. The court knew they would, too. I believe that they are thinking that in the long run, this ruling will help them get rid of that "pesky Second Amendment" once and for all. I don't know how yet.

Perhaps the Supreme Court will decide to look at the case. If they do, there are a couple of things that could happen. They could say that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but of course the gun ban doesn't violate that in any way since (...insert twisted justification of your choice here...). They could rule that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right and so only applies to "militias" controlled by the villains themselves. I don't think the Supremes will have the integrity to rule against the villains who want to keep DC helpless. As long as "judges" work for the government and are paid by the government, it is in their self interest to side with the government. (I propose that in cases where the government is involved, judges only get paid when they rule against government interests. But that is another issue.)

The entire concept of "collective rights" is absurd. A right is something that is held within an individual. Like a life. For poetic purposes, sometimes a culture is said to have a life, but to be killed off, it must be killed one individual at a time. A right is the same way. Just as with a life, a right must be individual to have any meaning at all.