June 30, 2010

And the Philly Inquirer wonders why it's dying a slow death?

One need go no further than this ridiculous editorial about the recent Supreme Court gun ruling:

While the Supreme Court's conservative majority remains fixated on expanding the right to bear arms, millions of other Americans should be more worried about preserving their right to be free from handgun violence.

I'm curious -- where in the Constitution is there the "right to be free from handgun violence"? Would the Inquirer ever opine something like "While the Supreme Court's conservative majority remains fixated on expanding the right of freedom of speech, millions of other Americans should be more worried about preserving their right to be free from racial and other hurtful epithets"?

And how has the Court "expanded" a right that has existed since the Founding?

In his majority ruling, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. relied on the same tortured legal reasoning - that the Second Amendment assures individuals the right to arm, not merely state militias.

Yeah -- it's quite "tortured" to examine the entire text of the Second Amendment, not to mention myriad sources from the Founding that illuminate the Founders' actual intent about possessing a gun!


The court's position runs counter to decades of mainstream legal views on the Second Amendment. Yet that hasn't stopped Alito and his majority colleagues - Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas - from practicing this form of judicial activism.

Where are these "mainstream legal views" on the Second Amendment that would allow outright bans on guns except for use in a militia? WHERE DO MILITIAS EVEN EXIST ANYMORE? (I'd bet good money that there are at least as many "mainstream legal views" that favor allowing private gun ownership as against.) But, y'see, that's the essential problem -- the structure set up at the Founding doesn't exist anymore. The Founders did not want a standing army. Yet, we have this now. There exists no further need for the militias of the Founders' era. Therefore, how can "legal experts" opine that guns are only for "militias?" Do they actually mean the standing army? The National Guard? What?

What actually is needed is a reworking of the amendment, but as that is highly unlikely to happen, we're left to the SCOTUS to interpret what the Founders intended. And any honest legal historian (or mere historian) would have to conclude that that intention was an armed citizenry. One may scoff at the notion -- now -- that armed citizens would prevail little against a tyrannic government (the main intention of the Founders regarding an armed citizenry), but that was the intention. And, do we not want our courts to rule based on the text and actual intentions of our highest law (the Constitution)?

The fools at the Inquirer would never similarly opine on a SCOTUS ruling against, say, abortion, where there is absolutely NO written (or intended) evidence in the Constitution allowing such a procedure. That's because they do not think things through -- much like their conclusion:

While five justices may ignore the 60,000 people killed and wounded yearly by handguns, the rest of the nation's leaders must do everything within their power to stem the carnage.

What a riot. Notice that these geniuses will not provide one scintilla of evidence which demonstrates that handgun bans actually reduce crime and violence. But by writing the gasp-inducing paragraph that they do, they want you to believe that the High Court's decision will lead to [a lot] more gun deaths.

Mainstream media bias at its "finest."

Posted by Hube at June 30, 2010 12:27 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Where'd they get the 60K number from? I usually hear 30K thrown around, and about half of those are suicides.

I'm still disgusted that this went 5-4.

Posted by: mike w. at June 30, 2010 03:00 PM

> Where'd they get the 60K number from?

You don't want to know. Trust me, most of the other things from That Place wind up at the local Sewage Treatment Plant.

...Of course, maybe that's the papers' newly found purpose now that readership is declining. :oP

> I'm still disgusted that this went 5-4.

All the more reason we need an OTP right now, lest one of the 5 need to retire.

Posted by: O Bloody Hell at July 8, 2010 01:44 PM

Ah. I think the trick to the 60k number is the amalgam of "killed AND WOUNDED"...

Also, anyone who doubts what the FFs meant by the second amendment need only read Federalist #46. You would have to be an utter and complete moron -- or a lying PoS -- to not "understand" its meaning after reading that.

I also disagree with you on the value of an armed citizenry in modern times to resist the encroachment of an overweening government.

A modern army is not designed to resist the people in general (see their problems in Iraq and Afghanistan), and I do not accept the notion that our own Army would stand against a determined and well-justified general uprising. They would side, after some initial confusion, against the standing officials.

Posted by: O Bloody Hell at July 8, 2010 01:50 PM

Hube: Militias do still exist. WE, the people, are the militia. That's what the Founders intended -- an armed citizenry, able to protect itself against enemies domestic and foreign, including the bear in the woods, the prowler climbing through the window and an overreaching government. The fact that we've ceased being well-organized doesn't change the fact that the Founders knew that each of us was a soldier in a citizen army.

Posted by: Bookworm at July 8, 2010 09:07 PM

The fact that we've ceased being well-organized

But that just makes my point, Book. That's the precise wording of the amendment. If we, as conservatives, say "Yes, but ..." then we cease being textualists. Nevertheless, I don't dispute that we as citizens have the right to own a gun. There is too much written of the intentions of the Founders elsewhere (like in the Federalist Papers) to argue the contrary. The actual wording of the amendment -- and the now-archaic military structure desired by the Founders -- allows progressives to claim what they do -- that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective" right. That's why I said it might be wise to "rework" the amendment (unlikely) but in any case, if Obama gets to replace a conservative on the SCOTUS and the recent 5-4 decision becomes 5-4 the other way, you're going to see calls for a new amendment allowing a right to bear arms.

Posted by: Hube at July 8, 2010 10:18 PM