In its first major ruling since the so-called Heller “decision,” in which the Supreme Court said that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms “within reasonable limitations” (with what is “reasonable” left to the government’s interpretation), the court ruled seven to two in favor of continuing to block access to firearms by so-called “domestic abusers,” a ruling that, according to this article from an anti-gun source, was applauded by the anti-gun crowd.

The Supreme Court’s decision, on Tuesday, basically overturns a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the so-called Lautenberg amendment, which would have supposedly “greatly expanded” the ability of people convicted for or arrested for “domestic abuse” to own a gun. The Supreme Court is, basically, saying that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Lautenberg isn’t stringent enough.

The original Clinton administration law that criminalized gun ownership by anyone even arrested for a domestic abuse complaint removed the possibility of these people arming themselves against a fascistic government and, that, of course, is its real intent. By chipping away, little by little, at who may own a gun, the government disarms the population by legislative fiat, saving the trouble and expense of sending armed thugs out to collect guns.

This Supreme Court decision makes it quite clear that the court’s intent in the Heller decsision was to open the door to further regulation of gun ownership, not to “protect” gun owners from confiscation, as so many have stupidly believed the court intended. Government never relinquishes its power willingly and the two main powers it guards most jealously are the power of the purse and the power of the sword (powers that it didn’t have a monopoly on under the original constitution, which was the Articles of Confederation). With the ability to control the economy and our ability to defend ourselves, the government can do with us as it pleases.

The Second Amendment is quite clear. It does not specify who may be armed and who shall not be and any attempt by the government to tell us otherwise is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

The Constitution is clear, also. It says that we have a right and a duty to throw off and replace an oppressive government. How much more oppressive does the government have to be when it is deliberately gaurding its power over us by denying the Constitution is the law of the land? The government’s legal limitations are what the Constitution describes. The Constitution does not grant rights to the people; it acknowledges and protects our existing rights, including the right to defend our lives and property against a despotic government. That the government has, for over 75 years, sought to limit our Constitutionally protected ability to protect ourselves from its incursions into our lives says, quite clearly what its true intentions are.