for those who believe in right to bear arms, this is not time to relax

In light of the recent supreme ruling, people who believe that peaceable people have the God-given right to possess means - like firearms, for defending themselves against the aggressions of non-peaceable people - such as but not limited to a wayward government and or their controllers or agents or agencies therein, now is not the time to relax on this issue. It is my opinion that, although it potentially signifies valid reason for some such believers to have optimism, the recent ruling is likely to be a stepping stone ... merely another intermediate step en route to getting to where they want to be. While it is certainly debatable and therefore a definite matter of question for who/what "they" are in this context, and where it is they want to be on this issue, here are the handful of top reasons why, in my opinion, this recent ruling indicates a reason for such believers to hang on to their belief as though their life depended on it - figuratively and or literally as the case may be.

Heading the top of the list of reasons is the sentiment that has been generally passing around in the public since the news of this ruling came this past week. The essence of this sentiment has been "Supreme Court weighs in for the first time ever on the issue of gun control.....".

Next on the top list of reasons is the who's who of people and or the prominent agencies they are attached to who have been among the more infamous figures to be given forum by way of the media apparatus to voice their concerns against this recent supreme ruling. It goes without saying but will be said nonetheless, we the people face enemies on both sides of this issue. Try to keep this in mind.

Past these top few, the list fans out into other less distinct reasons in pretty short order, but if I were to summarize this in a general way, it would be that there has been a fair amount of apparent public outpouring - pro and con, in the immediate wake of this ruling, an outpouring that indicates that such believers are acting as though they won a major decision on this issue. I'm not necessarily saying a major issue has not been won. What I am saying is that anytime a hunk of humanity .... be it a well known "group" of various flavors....demographic...... constituency ..... slice of a polled sector , or the like, begins to think / feel / believe that they've won a major decision, they ultimately tend to relax, to let their guard down, and before long, they ultimately end up on the opposite end of win/loss column compared to where they thought / felt / believed they were.

On the notion of "it's about time", this sentiment is the one that concerns me most about this issue and it is for this reason that it is tops on my list. With no small thanks to the media apparatus, this sentiment has been ushered into the public domain for average Joes and Josies to bandy it about as though "gee, like, duh, what took them supreme dudes and dudettes so long?". In my opinion, the reason it took so long is the opposite of how it is this story is being portrayed now that the supremes have weighed in. In my mind, that they weighed in is the main risk involved here, one that may well be used as just an intermediate step on the way to some final destination. As such, this is the significant point to be aware of. If I wanted to attach a sound byte to this significant point, it would be one similar to the way the Star Trek program had been designed with a catchy intro "..... bravely going where no man has ever gone before.......". Put this into opposite view. In other words, the supremes just completed having gone some where that they were not in any way, shape or form legitimately authorized to cowardly go; here's why. As is often the situation with many parts of the Constitution, 1787, the second amendment as originally authored is plainly spoken. It is so plainly spoken that at least during the era of it's invention, a literal grade school student would have been able to easily grasp it's intended purpose & meaning without the necessity of deferring to a school of high priests, scribes, institution of bible interpreters or other elevated societies of people so as to interpret on their behalf. To me, this in and of itself is the plain, simple evidence of why, over the course of the past 230-plus years, such a school has heretofore never managed to assert their two cents on this issue; it was not necessary given that the issue was and has been clear enough ever since it was first penned as Amendment 2: 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. A great example of a relevant analogy here is the collective treatment that over the years came to be accorded to the 16th Chapter of the Book of Matthew, treatment collectively applied by all manner of so-called experts ... high priests .... scribes ... and institutions of societies elevated for just this very purpose; interpreting , which is to say, revising and, as the case may be, destroying the original meaning of verse[s] in order for the elevated to better position their agenda of instructing the common people what meanings that they are advised .... encouraged and or expected to adopt, whether they want to or not, for verse that was already plenty meaningful, and plainly so, all on it's own. In this light, it is likely that the reason it took an elevated society, such as represented by the supremes, over two centuries in maneuvering themselves into the position of rendering a ruling on the second amendment, is that it took them that long, step by intermediate step, to coax, wheedle and coerce the common man into believing that the simply spoken purpose of the Second Amendment is no longer so simple with respect to the federalized world it now must co-exist in.

To finish off this item from the top of the list, it may help lend some further depth of meaning to this issue if a person can come to understand what the image, nature and purpose of a "well regulated militia" was viewed to be as of the standards for such two centuries ago. Back then, the image, nature and purpose of a militia was to provide the people with a means for protecting themselves from the most common types of their aggressors. In that era, the most common types of aggressors found to be attacking the common man were those that marched under and behind banners of crowns - kings and queens, and their somewhat modernized version - ship of state.

On the matter of the more prominent albeit dubious and shady (as the case may be) entities who have brought themselves to the fore of public attention since this recent supreme ruling, most notable among these have been various stuffed shirts and or skirts in Congress followed by some of the more infamous entities who tend to spend a lot of time and money lobbying stuffed shirts and skirts in and around the power points of USG ... .like the NRA, like the ADL, et. al, to name a few. Both are exemplary of agencies who have historically portrayed themselves as for the cause of common people while committing acts that generally expose themselves as ultimately being against interests of the common people. Here are a couple references that includes some deeper details on this situation.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_9711995?nclick_check=1

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/109238.html

As a for instance, Feinstein, D, California, was quoted in the first article referenced above. It is a real doozy at that. The same article contains another real nugget ... doozier ? .... from one State Senate President Prom Tem Perata (gotta love these people and their titles ;). "I understand the right to bear arms — the problem is in how it is expressed. My concern has always been the proliferation of guns," he said in a statement. Please read that statement a few times or more as necessary to let the wishy-washy nature of it really sink in. Consider replacing the key words - bear arms, with something equally appropriate, like be a compromised agent of the USG, like a congressperson; I understand the right to be a compromised congressperson - the problem is in how it is expressed. Please read the article full for more details. The gist of it is the "lament" factor that stands out as being conjured up out of this recent ruling sentiment. Societies of elevated people, such as the kind that serves up a Feinstein, would have us believe that it is perfectly fine & dandy to trample upon the founding laws of this country, often, repeatedly, and routinely, BUT if one should ever think of f undoing any of the trash that has been implemented, by generations of Congress, as though legitimate acts during the 230-plus years of politicking that has ensued in the wake of 1787 ...well, now, that is wrong, so taboo that it is to be viewed as downright lamentable! HA HA.

J-word disclaimer: since the second reference above touches on the J-word issue, this disclaimer has pretty much become an every-day necessity of modern day life in order to clarify that I do not in anyway mean or intend to make or portray the present control issue over guns as one that is controlled mainly by Js. There is mounting evidence in this world, and some of it has been authored into the forums right here, ongoing, the past many months, that indicates the average person on the street is not sufficiently qualified to use terms that involve the J word in any of it's many variations. As such, it then becomes a dicey situation to get involved in discussions that even loosely or remotely touch on issues related to the Js, and this may very well be the main reason why there is and has been so much disinformation surrounding this very separate issue of control; certain people want to tightly control and regulate who it is and isn't that is talking publicly in anyway, shape or form on issues that touch Js. Please note that the second article also includes a reference to a group of people, said to be pro-J, who are also pro guns, and as such they are promoting themselves as happy, generally, for the recent supreme ruling; At least one J group -- Js for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership -- praised the decision. Please bear this consideration in mind.

Even minus the recent supreme ruling, if you are somebody who believes that peaceable people are entitled to defend themselves against the attacks of non-peaceable aggressors of any and all sort - even the most common sort of state-sponsored aggressors, if you have firearms, hang on to them. Even if or when the state-sponsored aggressors should succeed in producing a modified ruling at some future date, one that endeavors to take away firearms from peaceable people, HANG ON TO YOUR FIREARMS! This may be among the last if not the last act of actual, bona fide freedom, as defined by legitimate law, that you ever commit.