The Other Side of the Coin
On the occasion of the landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in "DC v. Heller" I am most happy that my colleague, Ed Lulie of The Tentacle, chose to make this subject his own in this analysis.
He and I share the same opinion, that a major point has been obfuscated by major media about the ramifications of the upholding of the lower court ruling. My original post on this, to give you an overview is Sidearms Showdown in DC (simply click the words at left to review).
[the following column appeared in this link on The Tentacle: June 27th, 2008 http://www.thetentacle.com/ShowArticle.cfm?mydocid=2661]
The Other Side of the Coin
Edward Lulie III
To the dismay of the major media the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has overturned the Washington D.C. handgun ban and found that the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms meant an “individual’s” right.
Two things come to mind. First to wonder why was it even close? There really never was a serious argument that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to individuals. It did, it does and even if the court’s makeup shifts and they then declare that it doesn’t, well even then it will still mean what it says.
The decision caused immediate panic and fear for some urban liberals who were blogging that D.C. would now be a free fire zone, and that bloodshed and chaos would reign supreme; seems to me that D.C. has already been like that for years.
Now law abiding citizens will have the ability to protect themselves, but only after the D.C. government has made them miserable with burdensome regulations and laws designed to ignore Thursday’s ruling.
D.C. officials have already been speaking publicly and saying that residents will only be allowed to have one handgun. There will be more dismay later when many of these regulations and rules will be thrown out as well. Watch and see.
Secondly I was just stunned by the general lack of historical knowledge. The right to self defense was part of the common law; it was assumed and taken for granted. The right to bear arms was never about people protecting themselves from intruders or hunting.
It has always been about the right of revolution that when a government became too onerous and burdensome that citizens should always have the ability to overthrow it. That isn’t a popular theme these days.
The left is despondent over this ruling. Yet in reality little will change. The vast majority of gun owners will continue to be responsible, and will not engage in violence.
Criminals will continue to ignore our laws just as they always have.
Some small number of mentally disturbed or insane individuals will continue to misuse firearms and murder innocent people, sometimes killing dozens. That horror is a sad part of the price we pay for the freedom that we have.
Ninety-Nine percent of gun owners would never dream of raising their weapons against the government; but most would not hesitate to come to its support.
The Second Amendment is an insurance policy that the founding fathers have given us. That, in the event that tyranny and despotic forces would gain power, the people would have the tools to overthrow such rule and restore freedom.
We don’t teach that in school. It is not a popular idea. We do not like to think that our government could ever become something so horrible that citizens would ever think of being willing to die to overthrow it.
Our founding fathers understood this because they experienced it themselves firsthand. They lived through the war to free themselves.
That was why the 2nd Amendment was created. Not to let citizens have the right to self protection in their homes, but to have the right of self protection against tyrannical government.
The first amendment allowed citizens to be free to speak out against government; the 2nd amendment was there in case that didn’t have the desired effect. It was never about having the right to hunt deer or protect oneself in your own home.
I wonder how often in the days ahead any one will mention the right to revolution?
Will the media actually try to learn some history so that they might understand?
Or will they spend their efforts by blasting the ruling as radical, extreme and dangerous.
Any bets?
He and I share the same opinion, that a major point has been obfuscated by major media about the ramifications of the upholding of the lower court ruling. My original post on this, to give you an overview is Sidearms Showdown in DC (simply click the words at left to review).
[the following column appeared in this link on The Tentacle: June 27th, 2008 http://www.thetentacle.com/ShowArticle.cfm?mydocid=2661]
The Other Side of the Coin
Edward Lulie III
To the dismay of the major media the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has overturned the Washington D.C. handgun ban and found that the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms meant an “individual’s” right.
Two things come to mind. First to wonder why was it even close? There really never was a serious argument that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to individuals. It did, it does and even if the court’s makeup shifts and they then declare that it doesn’t, well even then it will still mean what it says.
The decision caused immediate panic and fear for some urban liberals who were blogging that D.C. would now be a free fire zone, and that bloodshed and chaos would reign supreme; seems to me that D.C. has already been like that for years.
Now law abiding citizens will have the ability to protect themselves, but only after the D.C. government has made them miserable with burdensome regulations and laws designed to ignore Thursday’s ruling.
D.C. officials have already been speaking publicly and saying that residents will only be allowed to have one handgun. There will be more dismay later when many of these regulations and rules will be thrown out as well. Watch and see.
Secondly I was just stunned by the general lack of historical knowledge. The right to self defense was part of the common law; it was assumed and taken for granted. The right to bear arms was never about people protecting themselves from intruders or hunting.
It has always been about the right of revolution that when a government became too onerous and burdensome that citizens should always have the ability to overthrow it. That isn’t a popular theme these days.
The left is despondent over this ruling. Yet in reality little will change. The vast majority of gun owners will continue to be responsible, and will not engage in violence.
Criminals will continue to ignore our laws just as they always have.
Some small number of mentally disturbed or insane individuals will continue to misuse firearms and murder innocent people, sometimes killing dozens. That horror is a sad part of the price we pay for the freedom that we have.
Ninety-Nine percent of gun owners would never dream of raising their weapons against the government; but most would not hesitate to come to its support.
The Second Amendment is an insurance policy that the founding fathers have given us. That, in the event that tyranny and despotic forces would gain power, the people would have the tools to overthrow such rule and restore freedom.
We don’t teach that in school. It is not a popular idea. We do not like to think that our government could ever become something so horrible that citizens would ever think of being willing to die to overthrow it.
Our founding fathers understood this because they experienced it themselves firsthand. They lived through the war to free themselves.
That was why the 2nd Amendment was created. Not to let citizens have the right to self protection in their homes, but to have the right of self protection against tyrannical government.
The first amendment allowed citizens to be free to speak out against government; the 2nd amendment was there in case that didn’t have the desired effect. It was never about having the right to hunt deer or protect oneself in your own home.
I wonder how often in the days ahead any one will mention the right to revolution?
Will the media actually try to learn some history so that they might understand?
Or will they spend their efforts by blasting the ruling as radical, extreme and dangerous.
Any bets?
posted by Steven R Berryman @ 12:20 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home