Expanding The Second Amendment?
In the aftermath of the ruling by a federal court that the Second Amendment does in fact include an individual (as opposed to merely a collective) right to keep and bear arms and therefore that a District of Columbia law was unconstitutional, the reach of the Second Amendment was expanded again today by a Ninth Circuit ruling the “incorporates” the Second Amendment into the 14th Amendment, thus making it binding on the states as well as on federal territory like D.C.
Long the shibboleth of a certain brand of libertarian activists, individual gun ownership has largely retreated from the public mind as an important issue within conservatism. There seems little ground to question the Constitutional foundation — claims by liberals that the Second Amendment was only referring to National Guard units controlled by state governors was contradictory to the plain meaning of the Constitutional text as well as the statements regarding it by the Founders. In spite of this, however, most moderates and centrists found the whole issue a bit…dated. Eager quotations of Thomas Jefferson to the effect that individual gun ownership would facilitate a periodic violent insurrection against the government served mostly to make gun advocates appear a bit weird and scary and, more to the point, to obscure more relevant arguments about self-defense in high-crime areas.
Nonetheless, in spite of a long period of rhetorical ineptitude, the Ninth Circuit opinion represents a major victory for the pro-gun position. And while it is a bit weird to see conservatives cheering the notoriously flaky Ninth Circuit (the same circuit that struck down the Pledge of Allegiance until overturned by the Supreme Court in a case promoted by a blatant attention-seeker posing as a concerned father), if the case is upheld on appeal to the Supreme Court, it might well have the effect of overturning a broad range of gun restrictions nationwide.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
In weirder areas of the country, then. Even here in deep blue Connecticut (which is more deep blue because of party name than ideology), the individual interpretation is the one I learned, even in school. And my town was controlled by Democrats for years.
Well, first of all, the Second Amendment says nothing about “National Guard” units, as the National Guard did not exist yet. It’s reference to militias is a reference to the fact that each of the original thirteen states had a citizens militia, comprised of every able bodied man about a certain age. It was not a standing army, though, and there were no funds to maintain it as such. Therefore, in order to be operational in times of war or insurrection, those serving had to supply their own guns and ammo. Thus, to the founders, it made perfect sense that, if the states were to have adequately prepared citizens militias, then everyman had to be armed. But, more than this, the founders understood – from long experience with despots – that an armed populace was a deterrent to despotism, as well as crime and civil unrest.
Secondly, all this nonsense over what court said what is completely ignoring the central issue, which is that, if if the Second Amendment is ever to be restored to its original intent as a safeguard to our existing right to defend our lives from all aggressors, then the hundreds of laws that have violated the Second Amendment for seventy-five years must be, ultimately, repealed. There is no other course of action that makes any sense. To make new laws – even laws that appear to “lift restrictions” simply allows the infringement to continue unabated while giving it the color of law when, in fact, every law abridging the Second Amendment is illegitimate. Similarly, for courts to “strike down” certain laws or certain features of certain laws also allows the infringement to continue while adding further to that color of law. This has been going on for at least three or four generations, now, and the effect has been to create an ignorant and complacent populace who do not even understand what their rights are, let alone that their rights are being removed from them by stealth in order to, ultimately, enslave them.
In the end, if want your Second Amendment guarantee to exercise your existing right to self-defense, you must exercise that fundamental. Asking government for permission to have some of your liberties back only adds to their tacit authority to deny you your rights. Our rights are not granted to us by government. They are conditions of our existence as mortal human beings.
Ditto !! Gary ……… we all need to study our Constitution as the majority don’t know what they have in it.
@Gary Rea