Friday, June 27, 2008

One man's liberty

"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."
It's pretty clear--the Founders wanted militias to crimp government tyranny but it's kinda hard to gather one if the government is safeguarding all the guns when revolt time comes.

Yes, liberals will say Thursday's ruling actually hinged on the type of arm rather than the right to bear it, although everyone knows it was really about the right itself. Had the SCOTUS come down supporting the ban it would have been a giant step towards more banning, just as this ruling will do the reverse. Not surprisingly, ABC put it thusly:
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.
Emphasis added. Jefferson's head would explode reading that populist drivel. While ABC might think of militias as quaint anachronisms the framers would hardly agree, pointing out that the concept of a militia was meant to instill fear and respect into the minds of our elected officials and would-be robbers. That's the point so many of the pointy heads miss. And not just about men. The ladies deserve every right to protect themselves, especially in this sick age in which we live.

Will this now open the door for personal ownership of tanks, rockets, or RPGs? Well, it seems some already have them! Besides, we pay the police, FBI and other federal agents to enforce laws and when weapons are used inappropriately people should go to jail. And there's nothing wrong with restrictions in public places due to safety concerns, which was mentioned in the ruling.

But this was really more about preserving a citizen's fundamental right to protect their home and family without undue restriction (and yes, if the crooks have handguns and the homeowner is fumbling with a long rifle it's unfair).

So hip hooray for liberty on this one. Surely those protectors of the Constitution who believe Bush has systematically destroyed our privacy and personal freedoms by going after head-chopping terrorists must be agog with glee over this ruling, clinking glasses and high-fiving and such. Right?

No comments: