There has been debate over whether the 2nd Amendment does or does not permit private ownership and possession of handguns Yes, I know, everyone on Free Republic thinks it does, and I agree. But not everyone in America thinks that; hence, the debate. However, the Supreme Court HAS stated that there is a personal right to private ownership of firearms under District of Columbia v. Heller and more recently that this provision is incorporated against the states under McDonald v. City of Chicago.
Now, here is the argument I like to use against liberals who think they know something of Constitutional Law in regard to these two cases. Assuming that the personal and individual right to bear arms does not exist under the 2nd Amendment, as they claim, then the recognition of that right in D.C. v. Heller is an example of Substantive Due Process, the creation of an individual right by the Court. And it’s incorporation against the States in McDonald is an extension of that.
Substative Due Process is the same legal theory that brought us Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia (right to marry) and Griswold v. Connecticut (right to privacy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage). So, as a liberal, if you don’t like the Court’s use of Substantive Due Process, you are arguing in effect that all of those cases are wrong, and should be overturned. Or, in the alternative, you are making a subjective assessment that there are rights you like and rights you don’t like, which is just another confession that Substantive Due Process is inherently flawed because of its subjectivity.
As a liberal, if you support a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, logically you have to support the rights to bear arms in D. C. v. Heller. Otherwise you are engaging in intellectual hypocrisy. I have not yet found a liberal who can adequately explain away this conundrum without admitting they are being subjective or selective without any logical basis for it.
I have found three things in life:
1) A liberal position always has an element of hypocrisy to it. You can always find an instance where they have used a logical premise and argument to pursue a policy directly contrary to what they are now advocating;
2) People, including liberals, do not like having their noses rubbed in their own hypocrisy. It’s the main reason why the Pharisees crucified Jesus.
3) Of all human failings, hypocrisy is the one I despise the most, and I enjoy than rubbing people’s noses in it.
In an age of activists judges, it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says. It matters what the Supreme Court says. The Court allowed slavery for 100 years, Jim Crow for another. The Court can not only ban private ownership of guns, they can ban speech supporting gun rights. There is no higher authority.
“3) Of all human failings, hypocrisy is the one I despise the most, and I enjoy than rubbing people’s noses in it.”
Yeah, me too. :>)