Posted by
JayPeriod on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:26:18 PM
Today, the Supreme Court will hear the case against the gun ban in Washington, D.C. They have the chance today to turn around several years of bad decisions by making the right one today. They will decide if the Second Amendment really means that people have the right to keep and bear arms when it says that people have the right to keep and bear arms.
After decisions over the last few decades ruling that the Constitution includes rights to an abortion and rights to gay sex, among other things, they have a chance to rule on a right that is actually stated in the Constitution. We have seen them make rulings based on the "right to privacy," now they will make a ruling on an actual numerated right. Of course, it shouldn't even be one that should be heard, since it's actually mentioned. That should be common sense, but that seems to have left our society.
At the core of the argument is whether they founders actually intended for individuals to have the right, or if it was to be left to state militias. In fact, the beginning of the amendment specifically mentions that for the purpose of keeping a well armed militia, the need for keeping and bearing arms is important for the people. Yet, as you look at how they pictured the defense of our nation, there was no national military, but state militias made up of individuals who provided their own arms. This kept the need for taxes out of the equation. See, our Founding Fathers abhorred taxes more than guns, and viewed taxes as more evil than guns.
Yet, even with this mention of militias, our Founding Fathers would have never imagined a society where guns, and the right of people to protect themselves, would have existed. In reading letters and speeches from them, they saw the need of the people to be armed for several reasons. Of those reasons, protecting ourselves from an oppressive government was mentioned quite frequently. They saw in a government that disarmed its citizens a great danger.
We do not need to look far through history to see the dangers of disarming the people. In the mid-1930s, Adolf Hitler knew that he could never have taken power in Germany if the people were armed. For that reason, one of his first actions was to disarm the people and outlaw gun ownership. Then, as he stormed through the streets at night, arresting innocents, there was no one to stop him. Is that what we want in America as we start the 21st Century?
A review of history and the times of our nation's founding will show that in a nation of hunters, the main source of feeding one's family, why would they have thought individuals should not own guns? In fact, those types of guns were thought to be necessary for each individual. As for pistols, they did not come to the mainstream until the late 19th Century, although there were some black powder pistols in the colonial days. There was not attempt, though, by the early government to limit any of these.
As we come through history, it is only in the last 40 years that there is any indication that guns are brought into question. The further we go back in time, closer to the Founding Father's time, there is no attempt to limit this right, not even during the "wild west" days. If is has only come to question lately, I would have to question the question.
Hopefully, as the Court has "found" other rights, they will "find" the right to bear arms in the listed right to bear arms.