2ed Amendment Decision

I sorta - kinda got busy over the 4th of July weekend, and forgot to post that issue's column. So... here it is, somewhat out of sequence.
- - - -
From my viewpoint, the cheers presently coming from the conservative right is a fitting counterpoint to the weeping, wailing, tearing of hair, and gnashing of teeth going on within the ranks of the liberal left. The reason behind all these histrionics of course is the Supreme Courts June 26th decision upholding the Second Amendment Right to keep and bear Arms. In their first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history, the court ruled that American citizens do after all, have the right to own guns, striking down the District of Columbia’s long standing ban on privately owned handguns, and not incidentally putting at risk nearly all the anti-gun laws on the books. It’s my understanding that the NRA has already filed suite hither and yon, contesting a number of those laws. For the first time in many years, I’ll hoist a glass to the honorable justices over this one, and yet another to the NRA!

The city of DC's argument was that by denying citizens the right to own handguns, there were less guns available to be stolen by criminals. The long-debated question is whether such a gun law has any effect on violent crime. Apparently not, as since the ban was passed, more than 8400 people have been murdered within the boundaries of Americas capitol city!

The second amendment reads: "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." To most of us, on the conservative right and the moderate middle ground at least, those twenty-seven words simply indicate that the government, any government in this country, may not restrict the ownership or possesion of “arms”. The defination of ‘Arms’ ranges from rocks and clubs through knives, spears, swords, and firearms, all the way up to ICBM’s and probably nuclear weapons as well, as the left wing spokesmen have been so quick to point out. However, with current prices, even buying a new hunting rifle would put a severe strain on my monthly budget, much less an ICBM! So, just for the sake of argument, lets strike the wide assortment of WMD’s from the list of legal arms. Looking somewhat further down the list of potential weapons, we might want to consider things like combat aircraft and battleships, or perhaps tanks and artillary pieces. Here again, the sheer price of these things puts them out of the reach of most people, so we have another weapons category that really isn’t part of the question. Besides, I’d rather doubt that the Fish & Game people would smile kindly on my going elk hunting with a forty millimeter grenade launcher mounted in the back of my pick-up! I’m reasonably sure that there are a few weapons of this sort floating around, but for the life of me I don’t know why anybody would feel they need something like that. Within the realm of more probable weapons, we’ll find a collection of full and semi-automatic weapons (“assault rifles”, sub-machine guns, and the like) that most people could probably afford, and often already own, both legally and illegally, despite all the gun laws on the books, the liberal left hysteronics, and all the best efforts of the Brady Bunch. But despite the movies from Hollywood, and the gory news headlines, these types of weapons are very rarely used in the commission of a crime.

The mainstream media tells us that the basic issue for the court was whether the second amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is in some arcane way tied to service in a state militia. In my view this is only partially true. When our constitution was written (and based on English Common Law), all male members of our society were considered to be members of the militia, were expected to possess arms and to be proficient in their use. Those armed citizens were also expected to take up their arms in defense of the Republic whenever necessary. Thus, the second amendment specifically denied the government any right to limit or restrict the citizens access to arms of any sort. I’ll agree that for the most part that the situation found in the late 1700’s does not exist today, but neither does it change the fact that our constitution guarentees American citizens the right to keep and bear arms if they so desire! The only way that can be changed is by means of a constitutional amendment, agreed to by Congress and two thirds of the states (an agreement that might be somewhat difficult to obtain), not by a back room decision among a few individuals.

The real question facing the court however is the sancity of our constitution. Is it a “living document” that can be changed whenever some weeping willie decides to save us from ourselves, or is it to be the Law of the Land, set forth for all to see as was the ancient Roman Law “… that should be written down in order to prevent magistrates from applying the law in an arbitrary fashion…”, and certainly not easily discarded by anyone who decides they don’t like things the way they are? In the early days of our nation’s history, Europeans generally looked down on us because we had the strange idea that common sense, along with individual and civic responsibility, was a suitable replacement for the orders of high born royalty. Our constitution was written by men who firmly believed in those precepts, and for nearly 200 years our freedom loving nation prospered. Now however we have citizens who believe we can easily discard whatever portion of our constitutional law that they consider inconvienient. The Supreme Court has just demonstrated that constitutional law is not so easily tossed in the trashcan.

We’ll often hear a plaintive cry that “… it’s for the cheeeldren…” from the far left whenever they’re in a “ban the guns” mode. OK, I have nothing against safety, public or individual, and yes, I’d like my kids and grandkids to be reasonably safe as well. But I’m also realist enough to know that nothing is completely safe in this world. Far to many children have their young lives cut short each year, for many reasons. Chief among those is the simple failure of the family to teach our children of lifes hazards. It seems we want “the law” to take the responsibility of caring of the kids, because we’re just to busy (or to lazy) to do it ourselves! Failing that, the utopians among us apparently feel that lifes hazards can be banned by the stroke of a pen despite what our law says. Hey, reality check here! Like any other tool in mankinds history, firearms have a definate place in our lives, and our kids had better learn about their function and use, along with learning the personal responsibility that accompanies bearing arms.

The world is not a safe place despite all the vapid utopian dreams that seem to come from the liberal members of society. Just because we’d like to be safe doesn’t mean that nature is going to change it’s ways anytime soon, and I for one would think that our kids would be far better served if they learn that “safety” and “responsibility” does not happen just because we’d wish it so, and that an iron bound constitution “writ in stone” is the only way to guarentee their freedom!