Supreme Court rules that D.C. gun ban is UnConstitutional!!!!
With the United States Supreme Court having weighed in on the Second Amendment; that being "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", I think it vital that we as Americans not only fight to preserve this right but we too are reminded that there exists no such thing as collective rights (something opponents of the Second Amendment argue against). It is only the individual who has rights. Because, let us be reminded that any collective or group, be it large or small, is comprised of nothing more than individuals; each and every one having their rights as such. Any collective right not extending to each and every individual only leads the collective to hold exclusive power over the individual. Be it known, that such a practice runs counter to what it means to live in a free society. The framers knew this and it is for this very reason they preserved Life as the first of our unalienable rights defined in our nation’s Declaration of Independence. Our life; it is solely ours to keep, to own, to preserve, and to protect at all costs. And, while I may never choose to look to a gun to protect my life or my property, while celebrating our nation's Independence, I am again reminded that I too will never cease in preserving this right for my fellow countrymen.
6 comments:
Looks like I have some reading (the decistion) to do. At least I get to do it with a smile.
Well, it certainly wasn't an overwhelming endorsement. With a 5-4 vote, I shudder to think this may come up again should the SCOTUS garner a liberal majority (Kennedy worries me enough).
Sanity seems to have prevailed this time, thank goodness.
I agree with the SCOTUS decision, the right to bear arms appears pretty solid. As for "Well, it certainly wasn't an overwhelming endorsement." the Amendment is cloudy with it's mention of a
well-regulated militia, as well as what we may term 'arms'..thus the constitutional scholar will be picking nits. Further, there is the confusion about regulating the
arsenal say, of a convicted felon,
lunatic or artillary affecionado.
The militia thing is even more confusing, as many fine gunowners
in my experience never served nor
have any intention of serving in the military. T'would be simpler had the 2nd simply stated "the right of the individual to own a small arms weapon shall not be infringed." Period.
bb-Idaho- with regards to "militia" as the intent is concerned - you need to look at what context this term is used. When this was drafted = WE THE PEOPLE were the militia. WE THE PEOPLE were called upon to bring out our guns and defend ourselves during the revolutionary war. The militia aided the established military - farmers, butchers, shop-owners, etc. This amendment is very clear - we reserve the right to own firearms in case a militia is needed again. The fact we have a well equipped military means nothing in terms of this amendment.
This constitution also affords us the right to bear arms and form a militia to rise up against our own government should they overwhelmingly attempt to usurp our rights - therefore - we have the right to own those guns to protect ourselves from the government as well.
What's more, insinuating that the second Amendment only extends to a collective group (i.e., militia) ignores a few very crucial points (one of which I've outlined in this post which is that there are no such thing as collective rights).
Secondly, take a look at all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The extend to each and every individual. As such, it is wholly irresponsible to think the 2nd Amendment does not apply equally.
But lastly, the framers knew that the greatest threat to our Freedom and our Liberty would come from within. They put forth many checks and balances to prevent this as much as possible. If only a "well regulated militia" were allowed to own guns, who would decide who could join this militia? And, if thsoe in the militia were the only ones allowed to own guns, then those individuals without them would be left at the mercy of a collective group who would then have power and dominion over those unarmed.
Post a Comment