The One Amendment That Guarantees All The Others

All the news that's shit to print:

The Court and the Second Amendment
NY Times: November 21, 2007

By agreeing yesterday to rule on whether provisions of the District of Columbia's stringent gun control law violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has inserted itself into a roiling public controversy with large ramifications for public safety. The court's move sowed hope and fear among supporters of reasonable gun control, and it ratcheted up the suspense surrounding the court’s current term.

The hope, which we share, is that the court will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution's text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns. The fear is that it will not.

At issue is a 2-to-1 ruling last March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found unconstitutional a law barring handguns in homes and requiring that shotguns and rifles be stored with trigger locks or disassembled. The ruling upheld a radical decision by a federal trial judge, who struck down the 31-year-old gun control law on spurious grounds that conform with the agenda of the anti-gun control lobby but cry out for rejection by the Supreme Court.

Much hinges on how the justices interpret the Second Amendment, which says: "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." [emphasis mine]

Here's how I interpret the Second Amendment: "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." Just like it says. It's right there, in the Bill of Rights, in black and white. As I've asked recently, what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear? Only in the bizarro world of Liberal America is it considered to be a "radical decision" when a federal judge actually reads the fucking document. Let us continue:

A lot has changed since the nation’s founding, when people kept muskets to be ready for militia service. What has not changed is the actual language of the Constitution. To get past the first limiting clauses of the Second Amendment to find an unalienable individual right to bear arms seems to require creative editing.

Only if you're a fucking retard. For the rest of us there is no "creative editing" required - it says what it says. And if you're unsure of what the founders meant when they said it, go to your library and dust off a copy of the Federalist Papers. Or just click here.

Why is it that elitist leftoids consider only certain parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be "living and breathing" (i.e., the parts they don't like which inconvenience their Master Plan) while other parts are set in stone and unassailable (such as the free speech clause of the First Amendment, which leftoids love because it gives them license to spew whatever nonsense they please)? Using the Times' own "logic" one could argue that a lot has changed since the nation's founding with regards to speech. For example, in this day of the Internet and instant global communications it is possible, say, for a treasonous group of anti-Americans posing as a "news" organization to instantly transmit state secrets to this country's enemies in time of war under the guise of journalism, in order to bring about the defeat of our troops fighting overseas. Perhaps this will prompt the New York Times editorial board to call for the Supreme Court to reexamine and "interpret" how the First Amendment, and it's so-called free speech clause, should be applied based on a more modern outlook. Yeah, right...

The "fear" of the New York Times and their ilk is of a well-armed populace. My fear is of a government that disarms its own law-abiding citizens. Based on recent history, I'd say that my fear is a bit more justified:

The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.

China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.

Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.

Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths.

Can the New York Times justify its fears by citing a single example of dictatorship and genocide in a nation which affirms its citizens' right to defend itself? I didn't think so.

Tomorrow in the Times: A study that shows firearms cause global warming.

Don't. Tread. On. Me.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 9:31 PM