Today the United States’ Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia, Et Al v. Heller that the people (i.e. individuals), not just the militia have a right to bear arms.
Liberals have been using strict constructionist arguments to try to ban guns, saying that the writers of the Constitution meant only for the militia to have guns, not John and Jane Doe. This was a rather strange argument, since liberals usually argue that the Constitution is a living document that can be freely interpreted. (Update: This is exactly the way the Daily Gazette argues today in its editorial, which was a big disappointment to me as I generally like the Gazette’s editorials.)
California Senator Dianne Feinstein was quoted after the 5-4 decision as saying that “the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.”
Almost all of the discussion around the right to bear arms had to do with a person’s right to defend themselves against criminals. However, the real reason why guns should not be banned is that people may need them to protect themselves against the government.
I believe that the right to bear arms was put into the Constitution because the founders of this country knew all too well that one cannot overthrow a despotic government without weapons.
While I am not, of course, saying that our government needs to be overthrown, nevertheless, I am saying that if the day ever came that it did–as was the case in 1775–it cannot be done without guns.
One of the first things that despotic governments do is to disarm its citizens.
The Declaration of Independence (see below) made it clear that Americans, even after the American Revolution, had the right to revolt if necessary. You cannot have a revolution without the means to carry it out.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
1 Comment
August 15, 2008 at 11:22 am
The Heller decision wasn’t as bad as it could have been but it was still a very very bad ruling. It basically validated all of the liberal anti-gun regulations that have been imposed so far. Sure it throws gun owners the small bone of ‘individual right’ to keep us happy too. But because of this ruling, all sorts of crazy gun laws can be written. Did you hear that Dick Heller himself was denied a weapons permit because in D.C. bottom loading handguns are considered machine guns? And that doesn’t violate this supreme court decision at all.
It’s very sad. Great article though. Keep it up.