Category Archives: gun owners

>REACT: The Supreme Court was right (part 2)

>

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 infringe.”
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution


The words look simple enough, but for liberals and conservatvies they might as well be writtin Chinese and German and read by Ugandans.

For liberals, the words “well regulated Militia” jump out like a neon sign. To them, this means the Second Amendment only provides for an organized military force under the authority of the state – the National Guard. Of course. Liberals naturally see government as the essential source of almost any civic services.

Conservaitves tend to focus on the statement, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This means that no law is constitutional that would prevent an individual from owning a gun. Period. I see no articulated exceptions. The right to “keep and bear” shall not even be “infringed” much less taken away.

We have to understand that the Second Amendment was written when personal weapons were almost the full range of armament. I know. There were a few cannons around, but that was it. We did not have bazookas … hand grenades … rocket launchers … fighter jets … and atomic bombs. The new technology, and all the perils personal possession today presents, led to a broad public acceptance of some level of regulation. This is the slippery slope that the right and left wingers slide down in a form of free fall. The words “…shal not be infinged” seems to mean no regulation. Then, how do we rationalize regulations?

Even as a society that revers the Constitution, we are not about to allow our neighbor, sane or not, to store platoon level munitions in his basement. Although growing up, one of my neighbors did have an authentic gatling gun in his yard as a decoration.

Apart from some regulations, the Second Amendment cleary allows ownership, personal possession. We are entitled by Constitutional right to “keep” arms, as in our home, and “bear” them in open display. So, no regulation can deny us ownership. We can regulate in the absense of specific prohibitions, but we cannot use “regulation” as a vehicle to prevent us from keeping and bearing arms.

We know, with great certainty, that the founder’s did not provide for a militia as an alternative to personal gun ownership. It would take a fool, and a great distortion of history, to argue that the founder’s language even implied the creation of the militia as an opportunity to disarm the general public. They considered the gun as much a tool as a weapon. Hunting was not a sport but a from of shopping in the days before Sam’s Club. Guns were an integral part of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” envisioned by the men of Williamsburg.

The liberal position loses out, I believe, because they do not recognize both rights preserved in the Second Amendment. Conseratives see the right to maintian a state standing militia as being separate from the right to personally “keep and bear arms.” Liberals say the militia language trumps the personal right, but nothing in the Amendment seems to support that theory.

Those who argue that the Second Amendment does not confer the right of individual self protection have not studied that founder’s commentaries on this subject.

“No free man shall ever be debarred for the use of arms.”


“Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.”

Thomas Jefferson (pictured with his gun)


They viewed the gun as an essential tool of self protection in a nation were danger lurked in every corner – whether conflicts with native Americans, attacks by wild animals, family feuds and the ever-present criminal class. There is no doubt that the “original intent’ was for every citizen to be able to own and openly carry guns. They did even consider regulations, such as registration, background checks, trigger locks and owner-only hand grips. They belived in an unfettered right to own, wear and use a gun at will. Sure, we have fettered that a bit with regulation, but the fundamental right remains

Contrary to some criticism, the Court did not create new law, but strictly adhered to more limited definition of the terms and the ancient explanations of the signers of the Constitution. Critics cite the 1932 decision as conferring unlimited regulatory rights over guns, including banning and confisction. The current Court can only be accused of “judicial activism” IF you accept the 1932 decision as constitutionally correct. In a sense, the Court is correcting that past error.

It is perfectly legitimate to argue that times have so changed that the Second Amendment must be amended, itself, or abolished. In the past, we changed the Constituion to allow for the income tax (BIG mistake). We changed the Constitution to prohibit the sale of demon run (BIG mistake), and then we passed another amendment to reinstate the individual right to liquor up on Friday night at the local pub (corrected BIG mistake). But, until such time as we the people change the Second Amendment, it stands — and the Court honored its obligation to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Advertisements

>REACT: The Supremes … with Guns and Robes.

>The left wing progressives continue to talk like the represent America, or at least that America is coming round to their way of thinking. It has been their trait and fault for a long time. If you had judged the mood of the nation by the statements of liberal politicians, pundits, press and radio personalities, their could not have been a Ronald Reagan, a Newt Gingrich or a Chief Justice Roberts. The so-called progressive Air America would be more than a narrow cast radio network compared to the highly popular conservative talk shows.

This has not been a good week for true believers on the left. Realty has upset their fantasies — again. First and foremost, the Supreme Court threw out a 32-year ban on guns in the District of Columbia – and threw every other local gun ban into the shadow of judicial doubt. They have finally settled the question: Do private citizens have a constitutional right to own guns – albeit with reasonable restriction? For the first time, the high court has affirmed the definition of “well regulated militia” to include the right to personally possess weaponry.

Liberals say “militia” means a government run military, such as the National Guard. The Supreme Court, however, believes that a “militia” can be a locally organized, grassroots outfit which has to rely on their own arms because there is no central procurement authority. In other words, liberals believe that even a “militia” must be a service of government. (No surprise there.) Conservatives, the nation’s founders and the current Supreme Court believe that a “militia’ can be formed even in opposition to the government. (Even by nuns with guns.) The inalienable right to rise up against a tyrannical government requires access to the means. Thus, the right to bear arms. In other words, you do not need the approval of government to form a “militia,” as defined in the Constitution — even a well regulated one.

The liberal gabbers are whining that the new ruling breaks the precedence establish by the 1932 ruling establishing the right to regulate guns, with banning one of the assumptive options. They indignantly argue that precedents are not to be overturned. If that is the case, however, slavery would be legal, 18-year-olds would not be voting, the nation would still be dry and the Dred Scott decision would stand.

In another decision, the liberal members or the Supreme court carried the day by striking down the death penalty for child rapists. Currently, the death penalty is reserved for cases of murder. No death, no death penalty. The justices, at least five of them, were not of a mind expand the traditional death penalty coverage to non-lethal crimes.

The very liberal Barack Obama, however, disagrees with the Court, and favors the expansion of capital punishment to cover child rapists. Obama and John McCain agree on this one. That is because the Court looks at the law and other academic stuff, and the politicians look at public opinion. There is no doubt that the public would support even the most “cruel and unusual” punishments for pedophile rapists. Laws and the Supreme Court are the guardians against unbridled majority rule – the tyranny of the majority, as they say.

On the death penalty issue, Air America is hitting turbulence. They are resorting to parsing and double talk to bridge the conflict between their pleasure with the decision and their unwritten rule to never criticize Obama. I kind of enjoy the verbal squirming.

What is striking terror in the bleeding heart club is the fact that the next president could fill at least three vacancies in his first term – and all three are senior liberals. Should it play out that way, a President Obama could only preserve the ideological balance with three liberal choices. A President McCain, however, could tilt the court further to the conservative strict constructionist viewpoint even with moderate appointments – and he has pledged to follow the Roberts/Alito model. Uh, we’ll see.

The conservatives currently not only have the advantage of majority, but even Air America’s court expert noted that the conservative justices were young and energetic, while some of the older liberal jurists are hardly able to stay conscious through public proceedings.

Three more appointments on the right would create a generational conservative court. It could easily be 25 years before such a “Roberts Court” would give way to a successor.

>OP ED: A bitter political harvest for Obama

>Seems to me that the public debate over Barack Obama’s “bitter” remarks misses the point. Even Hillary has failed to articulate why the remark is so damaging from the perspective of the average small town American.

The question is not whether a segment of the public is “bitter.” Perhaps they are, and have every reason to be. Higher gas prices. Loss of jobs. Housing foreclosures.

What makes Obama’s remarks so offensive is his elitist view that only bitterness can explain their devotion to religion, their concern about the impact of illegal immigration, and the belief in the right to bear arms.

Inherent in his comment is a belief that people would not disagree with his personal “enlightened” view on these matters had their thinking not been distorted by visceral bitterness. Obama basically mocks the core beliefs of millions of Americans.

Someone should enlighten the senator that these people believed in God, the law and self-defense long before gas prices rose, jobs were lost and houses foreclosed.