Republican Justices > Democratic Justices

http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/showarticle.php?articleid=51261
Wow, the left is pretty fucking hilarious.  Lol@retards who manage to read this: 

"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."

-and then come to the conclusion that people in america don't have a constitutional right to own guns...  Good thing John Kerry lost in 04, or else we'd have had to put up with his shitty judicial appointees.  Republicans are FAR from perfect, but their judicial appointees are definately a step-up from the democrats and theirs.

I contribute with a non-American (ie communist) law student's perspective.

"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."

Seriously, what idiot wrote this?

No, I'm not criticizing the actual mening, but rather the language. First of all: why is there even an attempt at a syllogism? Why not just write "Let there be guns" - since when does a legislator have to explain himself?

Secondly: why is there an implication that the right already exists? Isn't this paragraph what creates the right? "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms [...] shall not be infringed" - any rational individual would assume that there is already a right to keep and bear arms stated somewhere else and that this is merely a clarification.

And in the middle of all this we have an attempt at science: apparently a well regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free state". I'd like a copy of that study.

The author gets an F.