"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Monday, July 30, 2012

Justice Scalia's Warning About Gun Control

Will Malven

 Justice Antonin Scalia made some disconcerting remarks on Fox News Sunday by suggesting the possibility that the Supreme Court could be open to further restrictions on gun ownership--in spite of Second Amendment protections.

Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate

Published July 30, 2012

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation, adding to what has become a slow-boiling debate on the issue since the Colorado movie theater massacre earlier this month.

Scalia, one of the high court’s most conservative justices, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the majority opinion in the landmark 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller stated the extent of gun ownership “will have to be decided in future cases.”

“We’ll see,” he said.
My interpretation of Justice Scalia's words runs more closely along the line of him sending a subtle message to all gun owners and the NRA, that we might be seeing more disappointing rulings from the newly established activist Chief Justice, John Roberts. One can only imagine what the thinking process would be like in a man who feels no compunction at rewriting already established law to magically invent the right of the federal government to require citizens to buy a product from a private business or face fines and/or imprisonment.

Could a man capable of such a breathtaking activist mentality possible restrain himself from finding common ground with those ignorant and misinformed unfortunate fools who believe that any gun legislation will lessen the level of violent crime in America--fools who believe on faith their preposterous assertions, even in the face of factual proof to the contrary. Why Justice Roberts might see it as his obligation to us peons to restrict our access to firearms--for our own good, mind you.

The pro-gun forces had better pay close attention to this warning from Justice Scalia--it may be nothing more than him referring to restrictions of larger weapons, like mortars, rocket-launchers, cannon, and the like, as most in the firearms voting bloc seem to believe--but it may contain a more cautionary warning.

The Constitution and the Amendments to it are quite explicit in their absolute prohibition against government violating certain inherent--God given--rights. Those rights, our Founding Fathers believed were so intuitive and derived from common sense and were as much a part of a man as is his hand. They did not believe them to be severable in any way, so they did as much as they could to assure that future generations retained those rights.

The one thing against which they could not build a bulwark was the irresponsibility of voters and their elected officials, nor the contempt, by Justices of the Supreme Court, for the very document they are sworn to uphold and protect. It is impossible to protect against all the evils of man, especially the evils he does to himself. When voters begin believing their own wishful thinking rather than reality, they put themselves into a position to be deceived by every panderer and snake-oil salesman that comes along--witness the 2008 election.

There is no reasonable or legitimate argument that the intent of our Founding Fathers in writing and approving the 2nd Amendment was so that honorable men could defend themselves, first and foremost from government oppression and only subsequently to that, for home defense or hunting. As well, there is no reasonable or legitimate argument that (to use one of my favorite expressions from Hamilton in the Federalist Papers) a "colorable pretext" exists in the Constitution for the government to regulate firearms, beyond the false pretext against which Alexander Hamilton warned us in Federalist No. 84.
"I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to power which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is not power to do?"

What exactly did our Founding Fathers think? Here are a few quotes from the men (except for Jefferson, who was in France at the time) who wrote the Constitution. [Special thanks to guncite.com for these quotations]
"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;"            ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."           ---James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."           ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."           ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
          ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. [Cox was one of the delegates for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788].

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually . . . [common sense gun laws, anyone?] . . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...           ---George Mason--Delegate for Virginia to the Constitutional Convention

Over and over again, the message from both Federalists and anti-Federalists was the same--is the same--the Second Amendment is not, nor was it ever about protecting John F. Kerry's right to "get me uh huntin' license," it is and always has been about keeping power in the hands of the people and NOT in the hands of government officials.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is and always has been to ensure that the American people will always have the final say in how they are governed. It was to ensure that the American people would always remain capable of resorting to armed rebellion, if necessary, to right the ship of state.

Anyone who denies that simple fact is ignorant--either as the result of their DNA, or willfully so. The writings of our Founding Fathers are filled with repeated warnings and admonitions against allowing the state to disarm its citizens--and history is replete with examples of other nations in which the people failed to heed that warning.

It is not rebellion to call for protecting the ability of the people to resort to it. It is not terrorism to advocate for the Constitution nor to cite the writings of our Founding Fathers. And it is the wishes and intent of our Founding Fathers that the American people be armed with the modern equivalent of today's frontline firearms so that, should the need ever arise, the people could rise up against an unjust government.

It is that fact that most frightens the left and the Democrat Party.  They don't want to live in a nation in which the people have ultimate power over their government, they would much prefer to live in a nation in which the government ran and controlled everything--except them.

In a liberal's mind, they are superior to the masses and feel an obligation to protect those unfortunate souls--primarily from themselves.  It never occurs to a liberal that people are fully capable of running their own lives.  The very concept of an armed, enlightened populace scares the willies out of them.

Under militia regulations, artillery was to be provided by the state, but modern weapons and ammo were expected to be in the hands of all citizens capable of bearing them. So Scalia isn't far off base in his analysis--assuming he was only discussing the regulation of large destructive arms.

Those of us who believe in our Constitution and our rights there under now have a waiting game. We get to see if our rights as free citizens will continue, or if they will follow many of our other rights, down the sewer of history.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

1 comment:

  1. How informative post it is..!! I am really so excited to get this post article. That's the post which I was looking forward to know. Thanks and keep it up....