RKBA BUMP!
Posted on 03/15/2007 8:44:56 AM PDT by RKV
Tragedy struck leftists all across America last week when a federal appeals court reviewing the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon by the District. The court's inexplicable ruling was based on a "radical" interpretation of the recently rediscovered 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:
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.
According to the Washington Post, which upon hearing of the decision had a small editorial seizure it called “A Dangerous Ruling,” the court’s plain reading of the Bill of Rights has given "a new and dangerous meaning to the 2nd Amendment." Apparently, when the Post reads the amendment according to the ancient and safe interpretation (which goes all the way back to the 1970s) all it sees is:
The Population of the nanny State, being composed of irresponsible rednecks, rejects, and retards, must not be allowed to have Arms.
"[T]his radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder," the Post continued, sagely foreseeing a day in the near future when the district might not be the safe gunfree enclave of sanity that it now is. One wonders if D.C. might someday even become the murder capital of the United States without its protective cloak of gun control disarming its law-abiding citizens.
The district's law-and-order mayor, Adrian Fenty, apparently outraged by the disappointing decision, stated afterwards, "I am personally deeply disappointed and quite frankly outraged by today's decision. Today's decision flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia." It's hard to argue with the mayor when one looks at the cold hard facts: today's murder rate is just 26% higher than it was when the gun ban was put in place in 1978, down from a peak of just 128% higher in 1991 before a nationwide decline in crime driven by demographics took hold. With results like that, I'm not sure D.C. can afford to have its gun violence "decreased" any further.
But its not just D.C. that is at risk from this radical discovery of the so-called "Bill of Rights" (if that’s even its real name), the mayor is also worried that the anarchy of Constitutional limits on government power could spread, commenting: "It has national implications with regard to gun control statutes across the country. It's the first time that a federal court has said that the 2nd Amendment restricts or prohibits gun control."
Of course, it's only the first time a federal source has said that the Constitution restricts gun control if you don't count the 2nd Amendment itself -- which is intended expressly to restrict or prohibit gun control. But then this may be the first time a Federal court has read that far into the Constitution -- it's so easy to get hung up trying to find "separation of church and state" in the 1st Amendment, after all.
A number of sources on the left held up for praise in the decision the one dissenting judge, Karen LeCraft Henderson, whose opinion that the gun ban was constitutionally permissible was based on at least two stellar deductions. The first was that since the District of Columbia is not a state (as in "necessary to the security of a free State…"), then the 2nd Amendment did not apply in that part of America. This is a wonderful precedent, not only for the District, but also for America's other territories such a Puerto Rico.
According to this same logic, Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26 (among others) do not apply in the District either, which means the District is free to a) deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, b) deny the vote to blacks, c) deny the vote to women, d) institute a poll tax, and e) deny the vote based on age. Clearly, Henderson deserves her new status as a liberal hero.
Henderson's second insight was that despite the right belonging to "the people" in the amendment, it actually belonged only to the militia as an organized military force. To believe this, you have to believe that the United States is the only nation on Earth that felt a need to guarantee its government, in writing, the right to have an army -- which is possible, I suppose, if Jefferson foresaw the attitude of the modern Democrat party towards the military.
The mystery of whether the amendment guarantees the people or the military the right to have weapons perplexed a number of commentators taken aback by the decision. Consider this verbal tailspin featured on MSNBC:
"Now, the issue is 27 words. That's the 2nd Amendment's section on the right to bear arms. I'm going to read the 27 words. They say '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.' Now, it's a long-standing legal question in America, and largely unresolved, although partisans on both sides will say it is resolved but a majority of scholars would say it isn't. What does that mean? Does that mean that militias have the right to possess guns or individuals?"
Wow. If only those comments could have been limited to 27 words.
The Washington Post was not afflicted with such uncertainty, however, stating that the amendment applied only to militias (suddenly so popular with the media) and that the ruling was part of an "unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rifle Association… to give individuals 2nd Amendment rights." And you thought that campaign was led by the Founding Fathers.
But what is the "militia"? It is not the army -- by contrast, it was seen as an antidote to having to keep a standing army. It was defined at the time of the Constitution’s writing roughly as "all able-bodied male citizens not in the regular military." (Theoretically it may thus be constitutionally permissible to deny guns to women, old men, cripples, and possibly fat people, but I have to admit I'm against this. These are precisely the groups of people that might need a gun most for self-defense, or possibly for procuring more food.) Viewed in this light, the liberal response to the ruling is, essentially, the right does not belong to the people, so much as it belongs to all civilians.
What the left does not get about the 2nd Amendment is that it is not about the National Guard, or sporting firearms or gun collections. It does not guarantee the government an army, nor does it guarantee civilians the right to hunt and shoot skeet. It's about the right of the people to maintain some portion of the ultimate power of government -- violence -- to themselves.
The Founding Fathers systematically democratized the powers of society through the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They democratized the power of law through the right to vote. They democratized the power of wealth through the right to private property (since repealed by environmentalists and courts). They democratized the power of ideas through the right to free speech (since repealed by McCain/Feingold). And they democratized the power of violence (or the capability to commit it) through the right to bear arms (since repealed by "gun control").
The four great powers of man: law, money, thought and violence were thus divided among the people and not reserved exclusively to the connected, the rich, the approved, and the enlisted. That's the basis of our Republic. That's America. And that is, apparently, a total surprise to liberals.
But the deeper reason behind the hysteria over the decision is that for decades the left has been able to make the Constitution into whatever it wanted. The actual words did not matter. When words -- even just 27 words -- mean exactly what they say, then the power to dictate law from a "living" Constitution disappears and liberals are reduced to trying to persuade people that they are right -- a daunting task. When a court can decide that the 2nd Amendment must be respected, the left is on a slippery slope indeed. Who knows what amendment might be rediscovered next? Personally, I vote for the 10th. Regardless, if the trend is allowed to continue, it will be a disaster for the dictatorial left. Thus, I predict the decision will be appealed.
They understand the wording and the amendment clearly.
They just don't like it, so they try to babblespeak it out of existence. That's all.
Thank you! Many folks seem to believe that the libs (and some others) "just don't understand" what the 2nd means". I have long maintained that they understand exactly what it means, and that it scares the bajezus out of them. So, they obfuscate and deny and misinterpret. But... they know. Deep in their hearts, they know. They know it stands in their way, and they want it gone. Using whatever methods, they want it gone.
You don't really think that people who mysteriously found a right to kill unborn children in a document which nowhere mentions such an act actually have a problem reading a rather plain, unfettered right in that same document, do you?
It never ceases to amaze me how these folks can invent "rights" out of whole cloth - such as the "right" to murder unborn children, or the "right" to government-sponsored (read: someone else is paying for it) health care, yet they will fight with all they have to deny a clearly pre-existant right (one that even "exists" in (non-human) animals and even some plants): the right to defend oneself using whatever means are necessary and at ones disposal. Try cornering a raccoon, or doing battle with poison ivy if you don't agree that they have their own forms of self defense, and that they don't require anyone's permission to employ said means.
No. They understand it perfectly. They just want to take away the right declared in the second amendment.
Agreed. And, as I postulated above, it scares the living daylights out of them. Which is a good thing.
The may succeed in their quest to "take away their guns", but as long as we have a brain left, we still remain the most dangerous animal on the planet. The absolute worst thing you can do it to corner someone who has nothing left to lose...
Excellent.
I agree with everything you said.
The Left simply wants to invert reality, and has been largely successful in the last 40 years at doing so.
Good read. Thoughtful, well written and concise.
Glad you liked it. I thought so too. He really covers the bases well.
Wish the libs would rediscover the 13th amendment and finally let blacks leave the "protection" of their plantation.
IMHO, that's why we can't afford protest, third party votes for POTUS. Pubbies can be bad news. Imagine what a dem will give you. It's not a pretty picture.
I believe your reasoning is correct, but IMHO, the hard left controls the dems. Just listen to Hillary, Obama and Edwards. Like someone with obsessive/compulsive disorder, they seem bound and determined to overplay their hand, from declaring defeat in Iraq to the renewed McCarthy Assault Weapons Ban Bill. I won't be surprised if it gets to SCOTUS. Say your prayers, please?
Let me start out by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote. I was merely attempting to illustrate what seems to me to be some peoples' tendency to both deny my rights, and at the same time invent "rights" for themselves which either require something from me without my consent, or which seem inconsistant with upholding the rights of others. I'll amplify on the two examples I presented:
I have a difficult time acknowledging a "right" to have an abortion as a a simple matter of convenience. Why do we allow one person to claim the "right" to visit death on another (in this case, and unborn human being) in one case, where the unborn has not wronged anyone, yet require an expensive trial, with numerous appeals and costly incarceration in cases where one adult human has very clearly demonstrated his or her contempt for the rights of another (such as in the case of a murder), and indeed has violated another's right to life. Seems inconsistent to me. At the very least, it would seem more consistent to insist on the same kind of trial to end an unborn life as is called for in the case of, for instance, a murderer.
In the other example, while it might be the neighborly thing to do to help provide for the infirm or less fortunate, I fail to see how anyone has a "right" to government-sponsored health care, which ends up meaning that the health care is paid for (in part) by money (taxes) that are taken from me under threat of force by the government to be distributed to those that believe they somehow have a "right" to it.
I meant these as examples of cases where I have heard or read about "rights" being asserted that seem dubious to me, yet my (seemingly clear) right to defend myself, my loved ones and my property is denied and misinterpreted by these very same folks.
Just seems incongruous to me.
I hope that clarified my thoughts on the matter. In no way do I dispute that there are rights that are both a) not enumerated, and b) retained by the people. I believe that the government was (in part) constituted to uphold and defend our rights, enumerated or not, not to dole them out and limit them at the whim of the bureaucrats. I also agree that a limited government is what we were supposed to have, and exactly what we do not have.
I Love ~ keep the left on the run!
BTTT
All 3 judges were Reagan/Bush/Bush appointees, by the way... including the dissenting justice.
IMHO, that's why we can't afford protest, third party votes for POTUS. Pubbies can be bad news.
I don't trust pols. I just play the odds and write checks almost only to the NRA.
Thanks - I have another 15 years left in the militia. My wife'll be a bit surprised that she's in it...maybe it is time to rent R. Lee Ermey for a while and get her in shape...of course, I'll never say that to her, for then the Great State of Texas will be short one militia member :>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.