Posted on 12/12/2002 5:32:45 AM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
Not surprisingly, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit upheld the ban on semi-automatic weapons in California. Not surprisingly, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the opinion. So why even bother to comment about it?
Because every time Judge Reinhardt puts pen to paper, he aims to dismantle the very Constitution that gives him the power to put pen to paper.
In my book, "America's Thirty Years War," I presented a detailed analysis of Judge Reinhardt's incompatibility with the American model. The basis for the analysis was his speech before law students at George Washington University in our nation's capital.
With disarming sincerity, he described himself as a Liberal judge: "How can you tell a judge is a Liberal? Liberal judges believe in a generous or expansive interpretation of the Bill of Rights. We believe that the meaning of the Constitution was not frozen in 1789. That, as society develops and evolves, its understanding of constitutional principles also grows. We believe that the Founding Fathers used broad general principles to describe our rights...because they were determined not to erect, enact a narrow, rigid code that would bind and limit all future generations."
Translation: The law is what his political agenda calls for.
Fact: The Founding Fathers didn't use broad general principles. They wrote a Constitution of laws. In the first ten Amendments, they specified rights. Judge Reinhardt's description of rights, as reproduced in said book, reveals either that he has not the slightest idea of what rights are, or that he has taken it upon himself to redefine the concept of rights as well as the U.S. Constitution.
All this is of renewed importance because the Second Amendment is becoming the subject of broad debate. The matter of rights is paramount because many speak of a "collective right" - meaning that the bearing of arms must connect to a state militia - as opposed to an individual right.
Please write the following over your bed, desk, and dining table: "All rights under the U.S. Constitution are vested in individuals." There are no collective or group rights. But now we come to the heart of the matter. We are appalled by the increased wanton violence in our society. We wish for some remedy, or at least relief from the terrible scenes we see on television.
The reason we cannot look to a repeal of the Second Amendment, or even to a re-write of some sort, is simple. This Republic was born out of the conviction "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends (Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."
The first act of this new Republic was to abolish the existing government with the extensive use of arms.
Nations in their moment of need look across the waters to the fortunate Americans, wishing they had the arms to become masters of their fate.
Very little in the U.S. Constitution grows as directly out of the core statements of the Declaration of Independence as does the Second Amendment. Repeal it, subdue it, and you have undone what the people to whom we owe everything died for.
We have been very fortunate. As yet, our system works. Reinhardt can write all the opinions he wants. While others are overturned, Reinhardt's opinions are generally dismissed by the Supreme Court, not even dignified with an explanation.
But there could be a time when the Reinhardts of this world - and since the 1960s their numbers have grown steadily - would acquire physical power. Heaven forbid, but the citizenry may find itself with a government that moves the people "to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." As in 1776, that may be possible only with the use of firearms.
Yes, but why semi-automatic, so-called assault weapons? Perhaps no one needs them. Yet the history of smoking teaches us a bitter lesson. Where the enemies of freedom mean business, give them the tiniest opening, and they will rule the field in no time.
Make no mistake. Smoking was not about health. It was about taking our freedom. Gun control is not about protecting school children. It's about transforming this Republic into a country like all others, where only the government possesses weapons.
And once that happens, the judge's robe can turn into a military uniform at the drop of a hat.
As indeed it came to pass countless times in countries we call civilized.
(Balint Vazsonyi, concert pianist and senior fellow of the Potomac Foundation, can be contacted through bv@founding.org.)
This is the argument I always use when discussing the 2nd. If you're discussing it with a thinking individual and have a copy of the Bill of Rights handy, you can work to get them to understand that the 2nd has nothing to do with a collective right.....
The Founders did not intend the Constitution to be a frozen document either. But they also did NOT intend for Judges to be the ones who reinterpreted it in new and creative polical ways in their own biased efforts to "update" it.
They intended for it to be CHANGED when it needed changing. To that end they including a provision for AMENDING the constitution. It required state action, congressional action, voting, and debate. It required a super-majority to accomplish an amendment. If they couldn't get that super-majority, then that would mean that the change wasn't truly that urgent or necessary.
This idea of judicial activism doesn't like the requirement of voting to change the constitution. They risk losing that way. They want to do everything by fiat. Therefore, they have muddied the waters with their harping on "living documents" and "frozen documents."
They are liars. Worse, they are liars with an agenda.
Exactly. Those who attempt to change the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, by any other method should be promptly arrested for sedition, and put before a jury of their peers.
Those found guilty should either be deported or hanged from a tree.
They are liars. Worse, they are liars with an agenda.
They are "domestic enemies of the Constitution" whose goal is to overthrow the US Constitution. They are even a greater danger than Al-Queda and should be dealt with as such.
IMHO he is right on on this. They started little by little, and now look what happened.
First it was airplanes, then public buildings, until there is almost, a total ban.
A legal product, just like firearms.
Assault rifles, handguns, your favorite hunting rifle, my shotgun..... they want them all.
Next it will be beer and farting on your own lazy boy chair.
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.