You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Here’s the plain language added to the Wisconsin Constitution in 1998:

“The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, viagra viagra defense, buy viagra hunting, doctor recreation or any other lawful purpose.”

And yet the Wisconsin Supreme Court refuses to strike down any law in Wisconsin that completely bans carrying a fire arm.

So my question is what would the language have had to have been in order to keep the Justices from willfully ignoring it?

How could that sentence be made clearer or more forceful?

Maybe “bear arms in and out of their homes?”

Or “keep arms in their cars?”

Or “keep arms about their person at all times?”

Would even this language have been enough?

My guess? No. It would not have been enough.

The liberals in America will do whatever it takes to continue ensuring that law-abiding citizens are always defenseless when confronted by armed and agressive criminals.

If I had one single wish at this moment, I would use it to ensure that the only victims of armed robbery, rape and murder were people whose votes and philosophies so often deny the rest of us the right to defend ourselves in those same circumstances.

5 comments September 25th, 2007