In some parts of America, such as this scene from a favorite spot of Club Soda’s in south Texas, keeping and bearing arms is a practical necessity. This illustrates one of the problems with a centralized federal government restricting and regulating firearms. The Federal government is not and should not be in the business of forcing people in the sticks or in a particularly crappy urban area to give up their arms because someone in Berkeley feels icky about guns.
In the last installment of The Bill or Rights Countdown I quoted Alexander Hamilton (he’s the guy on the $10 bill) from his argument against a Bill or Rights in Federalist No. 84. His argument basically boiled down to this: “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
In the Constitution, there is no power given to the Federal government to either ban or regulate firearms. Because there is a Second Amendment, however, it opens up the subject for national debate, providing a means to restrict something which there is no power to restrict in the first place. Perhaps, as Hamilton wrote, “…it is evident that it [a Bill of Rights] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”
Those in favor of restricting or banning firearms usually point to the wording of the Second Amendment:
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.
Of course they tend to disregard the second part of the amendment, choosing instead to hone in on the first part about a “well regulated Militia.” It’s old fashioned, they say, and not pertinent to a modern society, and they have a point, to a point.
I read the amendment a bit differently. Admittedly, that may be due to a certain bias I have toward the right of a free people to freely bear arms, and arm bears, if they so choose. I read the amendment as saying that, first, each state has the right to maintain a militia (well regulated, I might add). Second, that the people, that is each individual American, has the right to “keep and bear arms.” Not only do they have that right, but it “shall not be infringed.” I don’t believe it could be any more clear than that.
In Federalist No. 46, James Madison wrote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
There’s that pesky militia again, but once again a sign of their times. Even so, Madison claims that there is an advantage to an armed citizenry. You might think it foolish in a nuclear age where a modern military can run roughshod over its citizens, but it will be a sign of our times if the government takes away the right to bear arms. It will signal a citizenship stripped of its independence and freedom.
These days, the right to keep and bear arms may be only a symbol, but it’s a powerful symbol. Being an arms keeper and bearer myself, it gives me a certain confidence that, if worse comes to worse, I can defend hearth and home.
I’m not talking about holing up and reliving Ruby Ridge because Obama’s a Cinderellaian, or any other such nonsense. I’m talking about being secure and independent. Again, it may only be an illusion, but I’m ultimately more confident in my liberty than Joe Bloke in Europe who’s been effectively neutered into a quiet acquiescence to dependence and state control.
Once more, I hail liberty and freedom, and all the risks that come with it, over the boring and padded world progressives would have us live in to save us from ourselves. I will eat, smoke, drink, drive and shoot whatever the hell I want, thank you very much. And, if some psycho decides he’s going to go on a killing spree, maybe he’d think twice if most people were armed to the teeth.
Well, that should be the real headline of today’s Supreme Court ruling on gun control. It is possible to debate whether or not it’s a good idea for every American to have a firearm. The same could be said about the Freedom of Speech. What puzzles me is that four justices on the Supreme Court and many liberals believe it’s the court’s place to limit a right given by the United States Constitution.
If liberals wish to remove the right they should repeal the second amendment. A repeal isn’t likely to happen, but it’s shocking that progressives seem so cavalier about the Bill of Rights when it suits them.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens, in his final day on the bench after more than 34 years, said that unlike the Washington case, Monday’s decision “could prove far more destructive – quite literally – to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”
It’s unclear which constitution Justice Stevens is referencing. I’ve often wondered if he had his own version. So I guess this ruling would be destructive to Stevens’ imaginary constitution. What these four Justices believe is that the ends justify the means. In other words, they’ve put their own ideology over the written law of the land. If there is no law, there is no truth. If there is no truth, there is only anarchy, which will be fantastic.
One of my big pet peeves is moronic chain letters. I think people are starting to catch on, but it’s still a problem. These days it’s not difficult to fact check an email via Snopes. Heck, just Google it. Ignorance really isn’t an excuse anymore. It’s just lazy.
This morning I received an email from John Smith. I knew there was a problem when I saw the email was an AOL account. My first internet experience was thanks to AOL. For $20 you could get 20 hours a month. I’m not sure that would last a week now. The fact is that was 1996. There’s a good chance if someone is still using AOL they might not be technologically inclined.
John Smith is worried that President Obama is going to take guns away. Obviously, he’s not the only one. That’s why an email like the one below is so “believable.”
Subject: WARNING….
While you were watching the oil spill, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN. This is one of the things Sheriff Mack has been telling people about. OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT.
That’s just the first three sentences of this fabricated story. Click here to read the entire email. A simple search yields this entry on Snopes. Shockingly, this rumor is false. There is no “legal” way around Constitutional amendments. Plus, the Secretary of State can’t ratify a treaty; that’s the job of Congress.
I don't think we have to worry about President Obama taking guns.
This type of political delusion ties back into my post about The Political Blame Game. There are plenty of areas to complain about the government. When people choose to believe stupid stuff like this and then forward to everyone they know via email they look like fools. It also weakens any arguments they may have against the subject being Urban Legended (I just coined a new word: “You’ve been Urban Legended, homey.”).
Recent Comments