Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

The Supreme Courtjesters have handed down their ruling on The Second Amendment. Their ruling did not surprise me. Let's see if you are smarter than a "Supreme". I'm betting you are.

"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."

Or, as I have re-written it, by going to the dictionary for each and every word, to make it more clear:

"Because a very effective, armed, population is essential in order for America
to stay free and safe, the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any
type of weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot
be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"

This does not "grant" a right to own guns; it prohibits government from having any say whatsoever on the matter. The right to own and to carry personal weapons has existed as long as humans have been humans, and even before that if you count claws, fangs, and various chemical weaponry possessed by many animals. Which I do.

Just as the First Amendment protects five different rights, the Second Amendment protects two rights; the right to form a militia, and also the right to own and to carry weapons. That isn't difficult to understand. A lot of people who don't want to understand the "shall not be infringed" part tend to try to focus on the "well regulated Militia" part.

That opening statement, by mentioning a "militia", only explained one reason the founders thought it was necessary, but didn't limit its scope in any way. It would be like me saying "Gold coins being necessary for the purchase of a good meal, the right of the people to own and to spend gold coins shall not be infringed". It does not limit the owning of gold coins to only people who wish to eat "a good meal", but states one very compelling reason why people might need them and why no individual or government has the authority to stand in the way of owning and carrying them for any reason.

Another problem with the Supreme Court equivocation is that it seems they try very hard to misunderstand what "infringed" means. Let's use a different gold coin analogy. Suppose the recognition of your "right" is a gold coin. If someone shaves a little bit off the edge, they have infringed that coin. It may not even show up without a microscopic examination, but the damage is done. Those shavings can never be returned to their proper place, and each one steals a bit of value from the coin.

Now, the reason the ruling did not surprise me is that they did what they, as tools of the growing 21st Century global police state, had to do. Had they said there was no right to "keep and bear arms" they faced the possibility of an armed revolution. The "frog pot" is not quite warm enough here in America for them to get away with that move yet. However, had they been honest about the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, including the fact that it was intended to protect your right to own weapons of current military function and pattern, without asking permission of anyone, anywhere, and even admitting those weapons were supposed to be available, outside the authority and beyond the oversight of any part of government, to be used as a defense against an unresponsive or tyrannical government, they would have had to admit that every single gun control law in the world (yes, not just America) is completely wrong and evil and outside the authority of any government. That would not suit their agenda at all. So, they lied.