Americans will not tolerate debasement of the Second Amendment no matter what the Supreme Court thinks. Today the supremes stand behind the Second. Put another Marxist influenced president like the current ill-prepared-fellow in the White House, and the Supreme Court could shift left. Next would come? Charles C. W. Cooke explains why Justice Scalia drives progressives so mad, and why the second amendment applies to more advanced firearms than muskets, at National Review:
In Federalist 46, Madison laid out the insurrectionist theory himself, observing bluntly that the states should not fear the tyranny of a federal standing army because the superior state militias and well-armed public could defeat that army by force if, heaven forbid, it became necessary for them to do so.
New Hampshire’s constitution of 1776 put this understanding most explicitly of all:
[Art.] 10. Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Scalia’s suggestion that rocket launchers may well be legally protected sits on equally solid ground. The two most recent Second Amendment decisions — D.C. v. Heller, which confirmed the obvious truth that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right that is not contingent upon a militia, and McDonald v. Chicago, which incorporated that right to the states — did not address in much detail the question of which weapons may be legitimately banned, leaving the bulk of that work for another day. Progressives think they are being inordinately clever when they ask advocates of the right to bear arms, “So, can you have a nuclear missile?!” They are being no such thing. Like all informed people, Justice Scalia himself concedes that the right to bear arms is not infinite. For the weapon to be protected by the federal constitution, citizens must to be able to “keep” it and to “bear” it — and also to discriminate with it. This is why a handgun is quite obviously protected while a cruise or nuclear missile is quite obviously not. TheHeller decisions also included a poorly defined “common use” provision that has not yet been properly tested.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Oxford Grabs Top Spot in Latest World University Ratings - September 23, 2016
- Rasmussen: Isolationism Will Not Make the United States Safer and More Prosperous - September 22, 2016
- The Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell Delivers a Dire Warning! - September 22, 2016