I have heard a lot of miserable lefties lamenting the fact that the Supreme Court has discovered the right to bear arms, where it has been hiding in plain sight for the last 221 years. But this OpEd by Dan Thomasson takes the cake:
WASHINGTON -- I often wonder if Antonin Scalia might not be more comfortable in another century, past not future, one not touched by the miseries and dangers of urbanization. I certainly think we would be if he were.
Maybe most fittingly he would do well in the 18th century where a firearm larger than a one-shot pistol and a long rifle could not be imagined, especially by those who were drafting a plan for the rest of us to live by forever and where citizen soldiers in local militias were the national defense.
Were Scalia sent back in time to the 18th century, it wouldn't take any imagination at all to see cannons and howitzers that were much larger than pistols and rifles. All he would have to do would be to open his eyes and have a look at the weapons used by the King's redcoats who were killing the patriots who founded this country.
Perhaps better yet if the good justice were somehow transported backwards in reality and just not in philosophy, he might somehow understand what brought about the Second Amendment of the Constitution and what went into the thinking that created it. Being privy to the future, then he could tell the framers about the development of destructive armament that would be available 200 years later and warn about the dangers this would pose for the 80 percent of modern Americans who live in metropolitan sprawl. Made aware of the potential horrors they might have written clearer language or dumped the idea altogether.
Yeah, Scalia could tell the framers about the high urban crime rate and how idiots like Thomasson want to disarm law-abiding people. And how the left have conveniently re-interpreted the 2nd amendment to try to make it some type of vague 'collective right', while the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights concern individual rights.
And then the framers could tell Scalia about how they fought a war to obtain individual rights for common people. About how American soil is stained with the blood of patriots who fought and died so that we would have the means to defend ourselves against criminals or against a despotic government. And then Scalia could tell them about craven cowards like Thomasson who want to throw our rights away.
But it is my hope that Scalia would keep those facts to himself. If the founding fathers and the patriots who died in the American Revolution knew what losers like Thomasson were up to, they might not think it worth the trouble.
But since that is impossible, Scalia and his philosophical teammates had to roll their own when it comes to ruling on the right to bear arms. As everyone knows by now they did so by ignoring the carnage outside their cloistered chambers and by labeling as irrelevant that clause of the amendment that mentions the necessity of maintaining militias. This left them free to conclude that what George Washington and company really meant was that everyone, except criminals and certifiable crazies, can own almost any kind of legitimately bought weapon of mass destruction. The right to own automatic weapons still may be in dispute although the experts tell us converting a semi-automatic to one that is fully so is quite easy.
Yeah, Dan, Scalia and his crew 'rolled their own' by going against your leftwing lunacy that ignores the Founder's stated intent that the second amendment confers an individual right, and that the reference to militias is included because back in the 18th century all able-bodied men were members of the militia. And no, Scalia is not ignoring the carnage. They are doing this specifically because of the carnage.
In the District of Columbia whose strict law was the basis for this horrendous ruling, one can now shoot oneself without having to face a gun charge at least if one's aim is bad. That is just to mention the fact that a huge number of gun deaths are suicides and very few from protecting hearth and home from some intruder, who in many instances uses the victim's own weapon on the victim, adding insult to injury.
If someone wants to commit suicide, some stupid gun law will not prevent them from doing it. Then Dan repeats the well-worn myth of the intruder using the victim's weapon on the victim, something that rarely if ever happens.
The ruling, of course, is not surprising. Those trying to bring some sanity to the national love affair with guns had anticipated a negative result, but probably not one of this magnitude. For what the court did, albeit narrowly, was to decide for good or until the panel's philosophical make up is changed to come down on the side of individual rights not collective rights. Most disturbing was Scalia's reasoning that residents of this city -- and before long probably every other city -- can now hold off a bandit with a gun in one hand while dialing the police with another.
Handguns were invented specifically for the purpose of being operated with one hand. This leaves the other hand free to do something else, such as hold the reins of a horse or dial the police. And there are many law-abiding people who have held intruders at gunpoint until the police arrived.
Now the badly outgunned majority of Americans who are opposed to the wholesale traffic of nine millimeter pistols to AK-47s will have their work cut out for them, trying to stave off the gun lobby's assaults so that some semblance of control remains. The ruling suddenly vaulted the Supreme Court into a leading issue in the presidential campaign with supporters of presumptive Democrat nominee Barack Obama warning that if the Republican John McCain wins, the next appointments would give conservatives control for decades since the likely retirees are on the liberal side.
Yeah, they were badly outgunned. Because in many places they were not allowed to own a gun or were required to keep it in inoperable condition. For some reason, those nice criminals that lefties like to coddle didn't obey the laws, and kept on using guns.
But now law-abiding people will have a right that should have been theirs all along. They will no longer be outgunned. If a criminal brings a nine millimeter, they can fire back with a .357 or .44 magnum. Or if an intruder brings an AK-47, they can fire back with a .30-06. In spite of what idiots like Dan think, almost all deer rifles are more powerful than those awful 'assault rifles' that lefties are so afraid of.