RE: The Court: Prohibition on Guns in the Post Office Is Unconstitutional –“Fed

RE: The Court: Prohibition on Guns in the Post Office Is Unconstitutional
–“Federal law first barred guns in government buildings in 1964 and post offices in 1972. These precedents are apparently not old enough to be considered a part of America tradition of historical tradition of firearm regulation. No historical practice dating back to the 1700s justified the ban, she said.”–

The judge is correct. The post office is a place of work. The court is a place of conflict resolution where the court seeks resolution and settlement and some people are highly dissatisfied with the court’s attempt at resolution and settlement. And as such seek to use violence to contradict the court, the coury, and it’s processes. As such the court is condition different from all other conditions other than war.

In the broader context the court sees itself as correcting the mistakes of the positive law era where the court overstepped it’s responsilities.

As such the court continues to restore originalism (words are a system of weights and measures at the time of the writing, not open to putting the thumb on the scales to alter the meaning of words) and as such all extensions of the law must pass the concurrency of the people by the concurrency of the legislature to prevent circumvention of the people by the circumvention of the legislature. That’s the court’s objective. To return decisions to the people rather than legislate from the bench – which violates the entirety for the purpose of the system of government.

In europe, under continental law, the people are not soverign, the state is. In the states, by design, the people are sovereign, not the state. The only limit upon the people is what we would call the natural law as undersetood at the time and represented by blackstone.

If you are overly convinced that your interpretation of human nature is correct then you may interpret the court’s defense of the right to bear arms as folly. If you have the opposite interpretation of human nature, then you consider the court’s position wise and correct.

As far as I know, the left is wrong about human nature almost universally, and actively engages in denial and science denial as a core tenet of it’s political position. The right consists of at least three factions, and only one of those factions, the religious, engages in science denial. The (cognitively feminine) left tends to deny the nature of man, and the (cognitively masculine) right tends to deny the nature of the universe. Unfortunately, the left causes more damage than the right.

Cheers