Monday, June 28, 2010

Double Supreme Court Victory

Today is a glorious day in the annals of gun-toting atheism.

Today, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, Illinois, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Second Amendment to the Constitution not only applies to the Federal Government, but also to the States and local governments.

The effect of this court ruling is undeniably far-reaching. For one, it strikes down Chicago's unconstitutional handgun ban. But it also establishes a legal precedent that invalidates pretty much any State or municipal gun ban across the country. The result is simple: the Supreme Court now officially interprets that every sane, law-abiding US citizen has a right to own a firearm, as no State has the authority to abridge the rights of US citizens. Skeptics can be reassured that the mentally ill and felons are still unable to legally acquire and own firearms. Moreover, laws that establish qualification requirements for the acquisition of firearms and restrict carrying into sensitive places (such as government buildings and schools) are still in effect. So do not expect the United States to revert to the days of the wild west, as reasonable regulations are still valid.

Read the US Supreme Court opinion (warning, it's 214 pages long):


The second victory was in the case of Hastings Christian Fellowship v. Martinez (warning: this is 85 pages long) in which the Supreme Court ruled that schools had every right to deny recognition and funding to student groups that discriminate in their memberships. The case was brought about when the Christian Legal Society at Hastings College of Law sued the school after being denied funding, on grounds that as a religious group, they had the right to exclude non-Christians from membership, and that the school should go ahead and fund their discriminatory little group anyway. Well today the Supreme Court disagreed. Not that any right-minded atheist would ever want to join such a group anyway, but the decision flies right into their faces.


I am most certainly a visionary. The Supreme Court agrees with me!

Perhaps I should go to Law School with hopes of one day becoming a Supreme Court Justice, because apparently, that is where I belong.

In the meanwhile, the United States marches slowly but surely towards gun-toting atheism, and it's a beautiful thing.

4 comments:

  1. "His Lordship the Gun-Toting Lawyer Atheist" That's gotta a nice ring to it?

    Late, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  2. Both of these decisions are very foolish. How is it conservatives are all for state's rights and local control of the decisions that affect our lives... unless it's something they love like guns?

    And you must not be familiar with the case before the Supreme Court if you're quick to applaud it. It wasn't like some Christians were oppressing gay people, they were just preventing gay activists from joining their group and disrupting it. You're telling me you like the idea of any atheist group being forced to admit Christians, who will then loudly object to everything being said and monopolize floor time with pointless drivel?

    It's not really about doing what's right, it's just about guns and atheism, huh? What's your goal, getting half the population to be atheist and armed? I wonder what's next...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Guns are protection, really? When I think protection, I think locks, fences, dogs, even land mines. Guns are not defense, and they certainly are not chiefly used in that capacity. They're more accidents waiting to happen than they are a useful form of protection, and both of those combined will not equal the main function they serve: collecting dust (or sitting in a case which collects dust). How many deaths are worth feeling like you have a bigger penis? The rhetorical you, not necessarily you specifically...

    If a college atheist group ever got together? Seriously? They do all the time, and a facebook search yields thousands of such groups. This is because people are social creatures who will use anything as an excuse to gather, consume, and insult people who aren't in that group. Atheists are certainly no exception, especially the religious atheists. You're even using a religious argument, here: an axiom posited by an Atheist celebrity. I don't think Richard Dawkins knows the first thing about atheism or religion. The guy sells millions of books to people he has convinced cannot be preached to... he's literally started a band-wagon of people who don't jump on band-wagons. That is the perfect paradox for starting a religion.

    Atheists probably do bicker in their meetings (not that I would know), like church administrators arguing over ridiculous details (which I have seen) or nerds arguing over which captain of the Enterprise was best (Picard!)...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Guns are protection, really?

    Well they can be if they are used in that function. They are used everyday by police officers and military personnel precisely because they are effective self-defense tools. Cops don't carry them to kill criminals; they carry them to protect lives. If they weren't effective, cops would dispense with them.

    They're more accidents waiting to happen than they are a useful form of protection

    In the hands of idiotic individuals untrained in their safe handling, yes, I agree. I'm not opposed to mandatory training, age requirements, mental health assessments, criminal background checks, ownership of safes and trigger locks, etc. ;all that makes sense and it does not infringe on my rights.

    Besides, I am more scared of my chainsaw than any gun...

    And just the other night my neighbor shot a wolverine that was trying to eat his cat. Tell that to that poor kitty.

    How many deaths are worth feeling like you have a bigger penis?

    So you assume that I am male...

    And FYI, drug dealers killing other drug dealers during drug deals is not really something that keeps me awake at night. Law abiding citizens don't go around shooting each other as often as the Brady Bunch may suggest.

    The rhetorical you, not necessarily you specifically...

    Oh, ok.

    You're even using a religious argument, here: an axiom posited by an Atheist celebrity.

    Oh come on... I'm not quoting it because of who he is, I am quoting it because of what it says and I agree with the statement. Atheists are mostly independent free-thinkers and it's difficult to get them to work together. Cats are solitary animals, and it's difficult to herd them.

    (Picard!)

    no no no no no no no no no no
    KIRK!

    ReplyDelete