Supreme Court Roundup

The Supreme Court has found a place in the spotlight lately. I'm fond of the decision regarding gun ownership in Chicago, but the Kagan hearings have a great "goat rodeo" feel. Let's talk guns for a few minutes. It is a shame that the group that is responsible for enforcing Constitutional law could only manage a 5-4 decision supporting the 2nd amendment. Even better is the reasoning for the decision, besides being a scintillating 26 page bathroom read. Of all things, it turns out that the Freedman's rights affirmed in writing after the Civil War specifically mentioned their right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from individuals desiring to propagate slavery by force. Based on the demographic of Illinois, this should play well with the voters. Of course the government of the great state of Illinois, is already looking for ways to make the cost prohibitive and restrict their citizenry to single-shot muskets and revolvers. Didn't our forefathers create the second amendment to prevent our government from out-gunning us in a dispute? Balance of powers does not just cover the three branches of government, but also our human rights as individual members of this democratic republic. Our founding fathers charged us with eternal vigilance in protecting this noble enterprise of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Instead, the vast and varied people of the United States of America have chosen to pursue their rugged individualism right into the entitlement hand out line, trading their personal freedoms and those of their neighbors for tax breaks, free insurance and vengeance against the corporations that pay their wages. Thanks to our Judiciary for managing to find 5 people that can read some portion of the Constitution and subsequent guidance regarding how to use it. The people of Chicago are eager to purchase their carbines and snubnose .38s.