Actor James Woods, who is an outspoken conservative in Hollywood, took an opportunity to absolutely destroy New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul after she slammed the Supreme Court decision to slap down restrictions on concealed carry firearms in her state.
It totally baffles my mind that someone in a position of political power here in the United States could actually be upset by the court doing its job to uphold the Constitution and all the rights it protects for Americans. I mean, that’s the whole reason the court exists, right?
There are no longer real Democrats in our day and age. We are dealing with Marxists. If you consider yourself to be a JFK Democrat, you may want to sit down because I have some news for you. You’re actually a Republican.
That’s how radical the left has become in our time.
“In the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, SCOTUS ruled that New York’s 1911 law that conditioned the right to a concealed carry permit on ‘good moral character’ and ‘proper cause’ was unconstitutional,” The Daily Wire reported.
Hochul was none too happy about the decision, creating a rather seething response, saying, “It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons.”
Woods then fired back at Hochul on Thursday evening in a tweet that said, “She can have eight armed guards. You? On your own…”
She can have eight armed guards. You? On your own… pic.twitter.com/wHYQnzzs6R
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) June 24, 2022
*Sniff, Sniff*
Do you guys smell that?
Someone just got their biscuits burned.
“The Wall Street Journal asserted that Thursday’s decision was the widest expansion of gun rights in more than a decade, adding that gun laws in at least eight other states and the District of Columbia may be affected by the decision,” the report continued.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Justice Clarence Thomas went on to write in the ruling. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” he said in conclusion.
When the founding fathers drafted the Bill of Rights and included it in the Constitution, they considered the right to bear arms of the utmost importance. Not for hunting. Not even for self-protection, though that is certainly a huge part of why the Second Amendment is so critical.
The purpose of it was to ensure we had the means at our disposal to fight against a tyrannical government and preserve our freedom for future generations. Not just against foreign enemies that might invade, but predominantly against our own.
Any ruling that places the government back within its constitutional boundaries, whether at the state or federal levels, is a good thing to celebrate.
This story syndicated with permission from michael, Author at Trending Politics
"*" indicates required fields
