Friday, June 27, 2008

You say “militia” and I say “baloney.” About the Supreme Court decision encouraging murder, mayhem and civil disorder.


This week, in a fit of judicial activism, five members of the United States Supreme Court overthrew the Constitution of the United States.

At issue was the “meaning” of the Second Amendment that states:

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.
Note that this is the only – the only – item in the Bill of Rights that the framers of the constitution felt necessary to explain with any clause whatsoever. This one exceptional clause begins, “A well regulated Militia being necessary…”

The other items in the Bill of Rights don’t, for example, say that “discourse and free exercise of conscience among citizens being necessary to a free state…” before they prevented Congress from interfering with freedom of religion, speech, assembly or the press.

Why the difference?

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the Constitution-be-damned ruling, explains his twisted reasoning this way:
The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Let's grant that he's right about the history, so far as he goes. But that still means that the purpose of the law is to permit “well regulated” citizens’ militias, and not for you and I to keep a Glock under our pillows and another tucked in our waistbands for “self defense” as essentially unregulated individuals.

For that matter, if you follow what Scalia and his four concurring justices say, it doesn't give women the right to bear arms for any purpose whatsoever. Got that, Annie Oakley?

Imagine an armed
march on Washington

If we logically follow Scalia’s argument, you and I, as ordinary citizens, have the right under the constitution to form a militia, and in well-regulated order march on Washington with our arms and put down either a "politicized" army – and who decides whether the U.S. Army is "politicized" or not? – or a "select" militia, whatever that means. We could simply open fire on the United States Army. Fat chance that would be allowed to happen!

Besides, what would we march for? Maybe, in defense of the United States Constitution and in favor of civil order – because we are sickened by drive-by shootings, gunshot accidents and suicides, gang wars, robberies, murderously berserk students shooting up their fellow students on high school and college campuses and of the Supreme Court justices who by their rulings encourage this murder and mayhem.

Maybe our militia would march on Washington to demand that the five members who voted for this Constitution-killing decision be arrested, tried and hanged for playing fast and loose with constitutional law.

Armed insurrection
ain't constitutional


Except if we did that, that would be an armed called an insurrection, wouldn’t it? And how do you think the Supreme Court would rule if we were tried for this insurrection and appealed our absolutely certain convictions?

Well, here’s a hint: The U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t allow citizens – members of a well regulated militia or not, men or not – to bear arms in the U.S. Supreme Court.

3 comments:

«—U®Anu§—» said...

I don't mean to be contrary or contentious. There is an aspect of this discussion that gets left out—and I suppose today is the day you're the unlucky person who hears from me. I live in Edmond, Oklahoma, a suburb of Oklahoma City. Way out here in Browneye, Nowhere, we wondered how the high court would decide this one because however it decided, people would be dissatisfied.

And I don't mean to argue with you. I've always wondered what precisely the intent of the second amendment was in view of the fact its authors knew time would pass and things would change. At the time, colonists had been fighting with British soldiers off and on for almost 200 years over profiteering issues and the heinous crime of offending the crown. The idea of creating a complicated and expensive military industrial complex was unpopular. People knew all that would change. They also knew future generations would always face the threat of tyranny, which could call any and every individual into service, individually or collectively. That may be an outdated notion, or maybe it isn't.

I learned how to shoot when I was very young and had a gun for many years, then I sold it. A few years ago I armed myself again because I could see we were approaching a time when it might be common for armed gangs to go around kicking in doors to steal food. Having a gun doesn't necessarily protect you, but if you have a gun at least you have that much of a chance. All that is theoretical, and not the point I wanted to make.

The point I want to make is, while we don't have a great prevelance of drive-by shootings, we had the occasional instance of a guy walking into a public conveyance and opening fire. The bloodiest post office massacre in history happened in this town, done by my own mail carrier, a guy I almost complained about and was later glad I didn't. They had those in Texas, too, and Oklahoma and Texas passed handgun carry laws whereby a person could get a permit to carry a firearm. I don't have one. When those laws were passed, I thought they were silly and believed they would spawn old west-style street shootouts, which they didn't.

Since then, Texas and Oklahoma haven't had a mass shooting, not one, nor has any person with a carry permit been involved in a gratuitous shooting so far as I am aware. Such an instance is highly anticipated, but so far it hasn't happened. Those laws have a flawless record, and I believe they act as a powerful deterrent even for people with deeply rooted emotional problems who might perpetrate a mass shooting but don't because they know the chance they could get killed is greatly increased. That all comes as a big surprise to me, I admit it does—and it's just my opinion. I don't know it would be the same other places, but here it was seen as a solution to a worrisome problem which seems to have worked.

To me, the whole discussion of second amendment rights is irrelevant and frivilous when we face a greater threat from the new generation of military black ops weapons, the rapid growth of fascism and global economic collapse. Of course, I don't live in the New Orleans shipping district or somewhere else where gun violence happens often. I believe there are solutions to our problems that are more effective and encompassing, and have become a serious advocate for the declassification of zero point energy and scalar wave technologies. I consider their suppression the greatest crime in history. A world that offers abundance for all would change the landscape in a big way indeed.

jdthompson03 said...

so when are you amerikans going to use your right to assemble(with arms or without) and arrest the hate-filled murderous bush/cheney gang and most of the congress and certainly at least 5 of the scotus. you have that right you know. so go do something as in arrest them. if you don't arrest, trial and convict then you will live under the heal of the neocon masters. you must realize that sacrifice and hardship are part of freedom. people will go to jail and worse before bush goes to jail. have you the desire to live free or is what you got ok. it ain't gonna' git no better untill you do something real.

jdthompson03 said...

so when are you amerikans going to use your right to assemble(with arms or without) and arrest the hate-filled murderous bush/cheney gang and most of the congress and certainly at least 5 of the scotus. you have that right you know. so go do something as in arrest them. if you don't arrest, trial and convict then you will live under the heal of the neocon masters. you must realize that sacrifice and hardship are part of freedom. people will go to jail and worse before bush goes to jail. have you the desire to live free or is what you got ok. it ain't gonna' git no better untill you do something real.