The High Ground

looking to the RightGun control and abortion are really similar issues.  They are both issues of individual freedom.  Abortion lacks the direct Constitutional support of gun control and gun control lack the strong religious force opposing it that abortion enjoys.  Republicans have long held the high ground on the issue of gun control and they still do.  The strictest gun control is found in big cities where keeping guns from ordinary honest citizens has helps empower vicious gangs.  Even the Democrats acknowledge that we will never keep guns out of the hands of real criminals so, what are we arguing about?

Gun control remains one of the few areas where Republicans act like true conservatives.  Here, there is more than talk.  Most Republican politicians have been very supportive of the Second Amendment and the concept that people have a legitimate right to protect themselves.

 

Not Intended For Individuals

osama - happy and freeAnti gun Democrats sound much like anti-abortion Republicans when they argue against our right to have guns.  They argue that there is no right and that we should think of the safety and rights of mythical third parties.  That argument rests on the nonexistent right to feel safe (knowing that your neighbor doesn't own a gun).  Of course, even if you had such a right, how could feel safe knowing that every gang member in town has a gun, but your honest and caring neighbor doesn't

A favorite anti-gun argument is that the Second Amendment says, "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."  Which it does, but their argument is that "A well regulated militia" excludes private citizens according to most Democrats.  Well, if one reads the arguments leading up the final language in the Bill of Rights, it is clear that private citizens were exactly what was meant by militia.  There was of the time, the stated assumption that it was every man's responsibility to protect his family and himself from villains and highwaymen.

Do you think that has changed?  Ask any police chief or sheriff if they will be there to protect you if you are attacked on the street or in your home.  The basically universal answer is, "No, that's not our job."  and they are correct.  They will also correctly go on to say that even if it was their job, there is no practical way that could done.  It is a rare case when police stop a crime in progress.

The BIG Court

Sample ImageNow you have heard my opinion.  What about the court? 

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm.
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only case in recent that deals with the issue directly.  A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

Even though that is the Court's finding, federal law is allowed to supersede state law (therefore states' rights) when a state passes a law less restrictive than federal law.  Does that mean a state cannot have a well regulated militia that includes individuals ownership of arms?

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely refuses to hear almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by Democrats to be the most important modern gun control case.

 

The Bottom Line

Sample ImageIf the Constitution doesn't really provide a right to bear arms, it should.  If it doesn't, it violates its own presumption of freedom and everyone should fight to change that.

It is your responsibility to protect yourself!  Harsh, eh?  Yep, harsh and prickly as the thorns of a rose.  It is your responsibility.  Given your responsibility, how can anyone in a free society deny you the right to protect yourself.  Let's not waste time on stupid arguments about you hurting yourself or someone else or someone taking a gun away from you.  That's all your responsibility too.  If you don't learn how to use the gun and when to use the gun, you don't deserve it, but you do have a right to it.  Like a woman's right to abortion or everyone's right to free speech, if you don't stand up for it, you won't have it for long.  There are plenty of anti-freedom anti-Constitution anti-American zealots who don't want you to have your freedoms just because they don't agree.  Republicans have remained on true conservative ground here and it is the high ground.

 

Return to Main Page