Guns, Politics and Irresponsiblity Are a Dangerous Mix
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 supplied]
I had argued and believed that the initial phrase was a limitation on gun ownership as a "right", that there was nothing in the Amendment that related to a private individual's gun ownership; the right existed only in the context of a state militia. In District of Columbia v Heller, the Supreme Court that the Amendment did confer an individual right to "bear arms". (This wasn't the first time the Court ruled in a way with which I disagreed and it won't be the last.) The Court threw out a DC law, the strictest in the country, that prohibited ownership of handguns and, also, required that shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. The Court, divided 5-4, stressed that it was concerned about a citizen's right of self defense in his or her home. Judge Scalia: The Second Amendment "surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."
No one seriously objects to the concept that an individual may own or use a handgun for the purposes of self defense. There are those of us who feel that having a gun at home won't prevent a mugging on the street or a burglary of a home while the owner is away. There are those of us who feel uneasy in the midst of a population all carrying loaded pistols and prepared to settle traffic disputes or other affronts with deadly force.
While there may be rational arguments for handgun possession and for some measure of regulation, the ownership of automatic weapons are no more appropriate for self defense than a tank! The same could be said of a hunting rifle, however, and no one seeks to ban hunters from their pleasure.
But these are arguments for another day.
More important is the suggestion by some on the far Right that our duly elected president is as much a threat to the United States as was Hitler or Stalin! The newspapers were filled with people bearing signs that were as morally offensive as simply ignorant. The newspapers also printed pictures of political opponents of the Administration coming to town hall political events openly brandishing rifles and other weapons. These people were not concerned about self defense; they were making a political statement that armed force against a tyrannical government was acceptable and that this "Kenyan-born, socialist, enemy-of-everything-decent" was intent on destroying America.
Sharron Angle, Tea Party/GOP candidate for the Nevada seat held by Harry Reid:
"In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. ... I hope that's not where we're going. But, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies."
Ms Angle and the others who believe that individual ownership of weapons is necessary to protect them from the United States are really scary - as well as nutty. I would suggest that these folks would be no match against a platoon of military professionals. But that isn't the real reason these people are frightening.
They are forgetting that we have free elections, that Barack Obama was elected president on a platform that was more liberal and progressive than that of the previous administration and that we have another election coming up. If you disapprove of the present administration, by all means vote for someone else.
But for Lord's sake, put the gun away.
Published by Jim Stillman
Retired from Florida Department of Revenue after 25 years.and retired New York attorney. I am a liberal with regard to social responsibility and, likely, a Libertarian otherwise. View profile
- Savana Redding Strip Search is Unconstitutional, Supreme Court RulesIt took nearly six years of passing the case up through the court system for the Supreme Court of the United States to finally decide what most people saw from the very beginning as a severe infraction of a person's r...
California Prop 8 Decision Comes in from California Supreme CourtThe California Supreme Court finally released their Proposition 8 decision, and it entailed upholding a ban on new same sex marriages within the state. The Prop 9 news won't be...
Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton?Speculation abounds that Hillary Clinton might be selected as the next Supreme Court Justice- The Supreme Court and FederalismThis article looks at Federalism and the commerce clause in relation to the supreme court citing three major cases.
Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Late Term AbortionThe Supreme court ruling banning partial-birth abortions made on April 18, 2007.
- We Should Value Our Second Amendment: The Right to Bear Arms
- Why the Second Amendment is so Complicated
- Second Amendment Issues
- Gun Laws, the Second Amendment, and Murder in the Streets
- US Supreme Court Rules: Individuals Have a Right to Gun Ownership
- Supreme Court Attorney Adresses Hot Button Issue
- Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Confirms Retirement, Obama's Nominee?
9 Comments
Post a CommentYou don't need to be Sigmund Freud to recognize insanity when it hits you in the face. Tea should calm people down, not encourage violence or coercion.
Pete, an automatic or semi-automatic weapon may, or may not be legal, but that isn’t the issue I raised. Why, I wonder, why it’s so damned important to possess such a weapon? For what is to be used? I understand that hunters do not use an automatic gun nor is it a likely choice for self defense against a burglar or a home invasion. You write that this country was founded by “radical revolutionaries and it is still part of our culture, hence all of the guns in Americaâ€.
What concern me is that too many of our citizens claim that they are prepared to skip the electoral process and proceed to armed revolution! Weapons do not belong at political gatherings; they certainly do not belong where the president or any political figure is appearing.
As to your, “Those who don't like it are always free to leaveâ€, it goes both ways. If those who would rule by the gun find the system of free elections too burdensome, then they can go to a place where everyone is armed to the teeth.
There is no good reason law-abiding citizens shouldn't own automatic weapons. How often are legally owned automatics ever used in crime? Hardly ever. Hundreds of thousands of civilians own fully automatic weapons. There has never been any logical reason for banning them. Millions more own semi-automatic clones of the same firearms, yet knives and baseball bats are still more common in crime. The gun control freaks believe everything they see in fictional Arnold Schwarzenegger movies and give automatic weapons magical properties. Realistically they run out of ammo quicker and are less likely to hit their target, thus making them less deadly than a repeat fire weapon. The second amendment doesn't say anything about limiting civilian gun ownership to handguns, in fact it says quite the opposite. We are a country that was founded by radical revolutionaries and it is still part of our culture, hence all of the guns in America. Those who don't like it are always free to leave.
I agree, Jeff. I wrote about this a while ago: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/75513/conservatism_today_is_discredited_bankrupt.html?cat=37
The far right is bankrupt both morally and intellectually, and cannot win elections without stoking fear and hate. The gun issue represents that.
great writing. Thanks for sharing
Jim … I agree that the open carry of weapons can be construed as a threat or a dare, regardless of the original intent. Personally I see no positive action in hauling your AR15 to a political rally, especially when the rally is not one you politically support. Signs and posters send a much better message. I also disagree with the intimidation of voters at the polling place and the Feds refusal to prosecute those who do the intimidating and have gained entry to the polling place as a “party designated poll watcherâ€. This leaves me little confidence in my elected official’s intent to protect me in my own home. My weapon in my home will enable me to protect myself until such time as the police or other local or state authorities can rescue me. I do not consider the military a threat to my home. While I have a concealed weapons permit, I cannot, while sitting here keying this response, think of any reason to carry a weapon off of my property except to an appropriate range wh
Thank you. Great work.
I agree with your article 100%. Some states have even legalized carrying concealed weapons in bars. What bartender will dare asking a customer if he is packin'? Our world has gone mad!