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.
Thought you might enjoy this...
bump for later
spot on! I needed a good laugh. thanks
Outstanding. Bookmarked
I would have liked for the point about "all able bodied men...not in the regular military are in the militia" to have been carried further. In the State of Florida (and I am sure in others), all abled bodied residents are constitutionally in the militia. Therefore, by the logic of the desenting judge, any abled bodied Florida resident (who is either a US citizen or intends to become one) may own and carry whatever firearm the Adjuntant General deems necessary for the defense of Florida!
In another words, rather than upholding gun control laws, her desenting opinion actually overturns every firearm regulation in the nation!
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant! The headline is a classic. And that last paragraph ("liberals reduced to trying to persuade people that they are right") really drives the point home.
In addition to which, and simply stated, why should "the people" have a different meaning in Article Two than it has in any other article of the Bill of Rights?
This fundamental question was raised specifically, and logically and correctly addressed by the appeals court majority.
You have to love the liberal's reverse thinking. They see the Second Amendment as restricting their rights rather than giving them rights.
This:
[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. ]
has been so thoroughly buried by the left that almost nobody still understands it. Even the NRA has been put on such a defensive stance that it is rarely brave enough to wave this at banner height anymore.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent tyranny. Period. That means the common man was supposed to have the tools at his disposal to rise up in a new, violent revolution against the government if necessary. In the era of our founding, a rifle could make a man the equal of a professional soldier. Today, we are not even allowed fully automatic weapons, much less the 'arms' that could really create that equality of the power of violence.
How many Americans feel they have no power over the government ? That even if they vote, it won't make any difference ? The systematic dismantling of the Bill of Rights is why they feel that way, with one source of power after another quietly stripped away from the people. So quietly and gradually that most people today don't even realize they once had that power.
No, that's NOLA aka Nagin's "chocolate city."
British troops quartered in America prior to the Revolutionary War were well trained in the use of the firearms of the day. They had to be, as firing them in great volleys on a battlefield as you walked around in phalanx formations took a great deal of skill and training. They trained often under the watchful eyes of their commanders. They trained "regularly", then.
The British troops of the day were called "Regulars", exactly for this reason.
Well regulated did NOT mean, at that time, that numerous bureaucratic hoops had to be jumped through to own a weapon. This seems to be the attitude of the anti-gunners amongst us now, but there's no historical support for that theory.
Nor were these British troops here for hunting purposes, or to amass collections of "new world" firearms to take with them back to England after their tour of duty ended here. The 2nd amendment CLEARLY envisioned none of this claptrap. Those troops were here to be soldiers, and nothing more.
If the district's law-and-order mayor, Adrian Fenty, is so outraged and disappointed by the ruling then he can always move th Europe where he can be with like minded morons.
Over the Green Monster.
And I thought that at my age (21), Florida was just for vacationing! I could own a Barrett regardless of laws? Sign me up!
Bumped and bookmarked
Indeed; that mindset has rarely been displayed so openly. They truly do believe that they have the unquestionable right to force their beliefs on others, and they attempt to do precisely that at all levels of government.
It's no surprise that the true nature of the 2nd Amendment - a restraint placed upon goverment - would seem to them to be horrific indeed.
I concur.
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.