It’s not that Leftards don’t get the 2A—don’t understand it, can’t comprehend what it so clearly and unequivocally says, what it so clearly and unequivocally means. It’s that they DO understand all those things perfectly well, and the knowledge burns them like fire.

It couldn’t have been more perfect than Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas penning the definitive decision that the right to carry guns on one’s person for self-defense is inherent for all Americans.

First of all, Thomas has been after the court to take up more gun rights cases. He used his considerable influence with Chief Justice John Roberts to continue looking for gun rights cases to take. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen and the state of New York was the obvious choice. Remember, the state of New York, before Thursday’s decision as a “may issue” state, read the tea leaves and tailored its law after the federal courts were prevailed upon to take the case.

Second, Thomas is the one who assigns the decisions when the conservatives are in the majority due to his seniority on the court, according to former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy. Thomas assigned himself the task of writing for the majority opinion. This may explain why he chose Justice Samuel Alito to pen the other hot button decision of the court this session, the Dobbs abortion case.

Thomas left no doubt that there shouldn’t be a test to determine if one should be permitted to carry a gun. Concurring opinions by Justices Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett made clear that this doesn’t mean the right is unfettered, but that justices must apply strict scrutiny to any decision about it, as all civil rights cases must be considered.

Thomas wrote, “the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

New York and other “may issue” states require persons who want to carry a weapon to demonstrate a need with which the state agrees. And Thomas, noting that Heller had already decided this issue, blew that up for good, saying the two-step balancing test required by the state was “one step too many.” Indeed, the one test he endorsed was the historical “traditions of the American people…[which] demands our unqualified deference.” When was the last time you heard someone in the federal government say that?

Can’t recall hearing such a ringing endorsement of bedrock American principle since Ronald Reagan, maybe even longer. But how perfectly fitting that this full-throated affirmation of American rights and liberties should come from the greatest of all Supreme Court Justices, the brilliant and indispensable Clarence Thomas, may God bless and preserve him.

Alito stood up tall, proud, and righteous with some worthy remarks of his own.

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21. The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home.

And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

They don’t care about any of that, any more than they do about the Constitution, the sacred American birthright of individual liberty, or any other of the fundamental things that made us the blessed, extraordinary nation we once were. The only thing the Left knows is that they HATE guns; they fear them viscerally and irrationally, and the idea of any ordinary American citizen owning even one gives them the shivering fantods. Ace lays the whole thing out for us:

Alito also says this:

Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit. That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that.

I think that’s less snarky than simply accurate: lefties think guns are bad and so don’t care if any anti-gun law is actually effective in reducing crime. They think that any burden on gun ownership is a positive boon, whether it helps the crime rate or not, because guns are bad and gun ownership should be discouraged by any penalty or harassment the state can dream up.

The left is forever caught unprepared to answer the basic question, “But how does your proposed gun control law affect the crime that just happened, that you say you’re proposing this gun law to prevent?”

It’s because none of this is about stopping gun crime; it’s just about stopping guns.

Annnnnd bingo. Really, we can reduce it down still further: it isn’t about guns, specific gun-control legislation, school shootings, or crime. Ultimately, what it all comes down to is the same old thing it always does with shitlibs: CONTROL. The Left has no control to exercise over gun owners, who well know what they are, despise them for it, and will cheerfully go well out of their way to make sure Lefty doesn’t ever forget it.

Gun owners believe in an unalienable right to private ownership of firearms expressly bequeathed to them by the Founders, as delineated in the Constitution they wrote for the purpose. They fully intend to protect that right for themselves and their posterity, which is best done by the exercising of it. Gun owners do not give a fat rat’s ass for what Progressivists may think or feel about this.

The supreme indifference of gun owners for shitlib opinion as they happily go about taking fullest advantage of what it means to be a real American galls Leftists horribly, all the more so because they can easily see this for the upraised middle finger waved in their general direction it so truly is. Any day shitlib snouts are being rubbed into a stinking, steaming pantload of all-American FUCK YOU!™ is a good day for our battered but not quite beaten nation.

This would be one of those days.

Update! Just gotta include this:

Many, many happy returns to you, sir.

The Blueing of America update! The most encouraging thing I’ve seen in a long, long time.

Swiped from WRSA.

2

Error happened.