Some opinions about an important 2nd Amendment case in the US Supreme Court

I don't have a gun. I'm an European and I even live in a state which wouldn't allow to freely keep and bear arms or to form a militia, so I have only my word - that's my only defense against that what seems to be happening.

I took the hour and a half (because I find the case be really very important for the Americans and the future of freedom) and I was listening thoroughly the whole disputation in the Supreme Court in the case DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER.

I guess I have an important note:
They disputed all the words in the 2nd Amendment and many aspects and possible meanings of the words from elsewhere - machine guns, handguns, armor piercing bullets (and various laws and regulations, sometimes apparently irrelevant in the sense when one have to decide the case according to the US Constitution - as the superior law - the US Supreme Court IMHO have no right to contradict in its judgments, nor duty to follow any precedents or laws - except the US Constitution they've the judges taken the oath to defend - as a whole), but they have "forgotten" the main one word - as it would be a big taboo - they absolutely avoided the word free - its meaning in the 2nd Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")

To explain what I mean, I'll try to describe how I understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in the context of the US Constitutional law by my own words (I'll borrow some):

Because there is a constant danger a state, its government, could develop into a tyranny - rendering the state and its constituents unfree - the people's right to keep and bear the arms generally (not just to form the militia) should not be infringed - because the people can defend the freedom only if they are constantly armed and continuously form a real threat of a real power against possible tyrants (foreign or domestic) - to take them down - if needed even by using the armed force - in case the tyrants would infringe, abridge or dissolve their unalienable rights and freedoms, pursuing invariably the same Object evincing a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.(I'm borrowing this from the 6th sentence of the Declaration of Independence)

That's IMHO why it is written in the Bill of Rights not in a law about arms - it's the right to posses the effective means to defend the "free State" (which is constituted by its people, having a government which should derive its just powers from the consent of the governed - the people), not a right to posses the gun for an undefined reason - it is not just about the right to form a militia, it is about the purpose of the militia AND the very purpose of having a right to keep and bear the arms - to have the effective means to defend (a state's) freedom - it is IMHO the true purpose of the right established in the 2nd Amendment. That's the meaning of the 2nd Amendment - as I understand it - and from my point of view certainly exactly this purpose was the true original meaning in whole the context of the history of the formation and foundation of USA - to form a free state and the effective means to defend its freedom - and thus the very main reason why the 2nd Amendment was proposed and ratified.

Many aspects - even very subsidiary were disputed in the Supreme Court at the hearing - but one can't find a clear word about this 2nd Amendment's key word "free" in the Supreme Court disputation. So I think IMHO your Supreme Court fully avoided the main question about the true general purpose of the 2nd Amendment in the whole context of the US Constitutional law and its history - to secure the "security of a free State" - for which a fulfillment the uninfringeable right to keep and bear the arms was established - and thus I think the Court didn't qualified the merit of the case - to be able to decide the case in a just manner and according the true meaning of the Constitution and the instruments of its just and effective defense.

I repeat, I'm a poor European, not an American, I'm not directly involved. But last more than 10 years - when thoroughly studying the nature of the totalitarianism and terrorism (it's what I'm post graduated with - in field of psychology thereof) - trying to use my brain to help to find the truth and to defend the freedom - I've also studied the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence and their meaning. - Because the freedom in US I find being a key of the freedom in the whole the world. And I find the US Constitution being something of the very best what was in the history of mankind founded and invented to prevent the governments become the despocies.

I don't want to push anything, or to make prophecies., I just let myself to be inspired by the wisdom. It's not about me - you should decide. But because I'm afraid - that if the case would be decided "for you" against Mr. Heller (as it looks from the disputation - because of not even mentioning the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment, its key word and the basic merit of the respective case), it would be one of the last straws, an outrageous precedent, in the train of the abuses and usurpations to strip you from the fundamental rights and freedoms, moreover to strip you from the real power to effectively defend them and yourself - I feel the duty to speak this my opinions out even it might seem preposterous and vain.

Please think about it. And if you find my point right, if you understand what I mean, if you feel the danger as I do, please spread the word - possibly send it to a US Supreme Court judge of your choice, or to Mr. Alan Gura who speaks on behalf of Mr. Heller (it would look weird if a foreigner would appeal the US Supreme Court case) - because here IMHO it is about the very defense of the Freedom (I don't find a better parable: about the defense of its spirit as well as its "immunity system" - some people in D.C. want to take down - as an AIDS or like does in the body) - it's about one of the very basic rights explicitly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as unalienable, the other two - the Life and the pursuit of Happiness - are indefensible without. I don't want to be a pathetic, but I've strong feeling, that it is now going about the Freedom, Life and Happiness of us all - doesn't matter whether the Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians or Australians.
You are the last big Nation formed on the face of the Earth, the most progressive one - at least in the prudence with which the foundations of your Constitution were written and pushed through in the painstaking process of the ratification by the founding fathers, appealing the Supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions. Please don't let this great legacy be destroyed.

You got it! The right to keep & bear arms is a necessary check

and balance against one's gov't, to always remain a free people.

All governments have the potential to become tyrannical! (One of the main things Hitler did was to institute gun control.)

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

The right to the freedom is unalienable

According to the Declaration of Independence the right to the freedom is unalienable. In scope of the Bill of Rights the 2nd Amendment means IMO, that it provides the explicite unimfringeable right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of necessity to secure the free State and such a right is unalienable because it is the exercise of the said right to freedom - which means nor the US Congress nor the US Supreme Court nor the US President have any right to abridge the right to keep and bear the arms, because the right to freedom would be then effectively alienated.
All governments, either elected or not, could alienate the basic rights of the people and act against the consent of the people (we see throughout the all history even the most recent one) - it is the unchangeable principle of power of the elites and its nature - if it happens just transiently (always justified by something), then it is usualy sufferable even it is a evil, but if a decisive political faction repeatedly tries to introduce a law or judication which would do so in a legal sense - one could consider it intended be untransient and intentional, evincing a design, then the right and duty expressed in the 6th sentence of the Declaration of Independence ("But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future securityshould be fulfilled - its natural too.
The difference between the wolf and sheep is, that the wolf has the fangs and can always kill the sheep and not vice versa. And either the "homo homini lupus" ("man [is a] wolf to man") is true or not, it is not good for the people to be the sheeps if there apparently are wolves among them. Its better to be the people and fulfill the duty, when the wolves - which normaly just maintain the sanity of the nature - become undiscernable from the sheeps and form a beast putting too many fences in the meadows pretending it maintains the security of the herds.

More about the meaning of the US Constitution from the point of view of a poor European here:



The relevant part starts at 04:20.