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.
There can’t be much doubt that liberal judges share some disdain for the Constitution. What else can explain Justice Breyer’s idiotic remarks about the Second Amendment on Fox News Sunday? The crux of Breyer’s argument is that James Madison didn’t really want the Second Amendment and only added it to help the Constitution get ratified. Ed Morrissey tries to make some sense of it all, but he falls short. It just doesn’t make any logical sense.
Finally, American Pundit points out the most obvious issue with Breyer’s argument; it doesn’t matter.
Who cares what Madison’s intent was? Who cares why the Second Amendment was added? Who cares what the motivation for its inclusion was? It’s there.
Is Breyer now saying that judges, including the Supreme Court, can ignore rights specifically guaranteed in the Constitution based upon the motivation for their inclusion? That judges can decide explicit rights don’t exist because they weren’t included in good faith? Wow.
To say that’s a dangerous precedent is probably the biggest understatement on this blog. That would mean a judge could decide you no longer have the right to free speech or freedom of the press because, hey, those rights were only included to appease one group needed for ratification.
I thought using international law and believing in a living constitution was bad. Now Supreme Court justices are misinterpreting original intent to bypass the Bill of Rights. Justice Breyer should be impeached and removed for this kind of crazy talk. What Justice Breyer is suggesting is a violation of his role as a Supreme Court justice. Supreme Court justices are required to take two oaths of office.
Oath 1:
“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
When I was researching this I was horrified because I thought that might be the only oath they have to take. I’m not exactly sure why the above oath is even necessary. A Supreme Court justice’s job is simple: interpret the written Constitution.
Oath 2:
“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Justice Breyer is neither supporting nor defending the Constitution. In fact, it seems Breyer is more of an Oath 1 type of guy. Breyer’s comment are in opposition to the Constitution. He has a right to say whatever he wants but his comments are in violation of the oath. The American people should have some kind of recourse to remove these renegade justices. Unfortunately, nothing will be done about it and Justice Breyer will continue to make it up as he goes along.
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.
Recent Comments