David

Karki

Read David's bio and previous columns here

June 30, 2008

Second Amendment Upheld, But Why Did It Need to Be In the First Place?

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling upholding the clear meaning of the Second Amendment – a ruling it should never have been necessary to issue at all. In D.C. v. Heller, the Court struck down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban, correctly determining that the District is still in fact part of America and therefore subject to the Constitution's guarantee that individuals can keep and bear arms.

That it even got to this point, much less that four black-robed idiots still can't comprehend plain English – or, more likely, perfectly well can but simply don't want and thus refuse to – is absurd. The language used by the founders and the historical context that makes its intent clear is irrefutable, except to liberals intent on controlling all of us who can see that an armed citizenry makes such a goal all but unreachable.

Perhaps you think I'm going too far with that last line, but if anyone is going too far it's the liberal politicians who could scarcely have read the whole majority opinion before racing to the nearest TV cameras to almost proudly announce their intent to, for all intents and purposes, defy it. More on that in a moment – first, a quick synopsis of the issue.

The Second Amendment reads as follows: “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.”

Liberals have tried to sell the lie that this means only that National Guard members and police officers can keep weapons. Nothing could be further from the truth. In colonial times, the militia was the general citizenry itself. More specifically, it was every able-bodied adult male capable of responsibly and effectively wielding a weapon. The colonists knew all too well how quickly forces had to be assembled to repel British incursions and what would happen if they didn't. And that principle hasn't changed in the 230 or so years since.

Notice also that the language of the amendment postulates a pre-existing right of individuals to bear arms. It does not come from government, and such government has no authority to infringe upon it. The founding documents are in their entirety based on this principle of unalienable rights and liberty endowed to each individual by our Creator, which government exists to secure and guarantee – not trample and destroy. Government has no prerogative to take away what it never gave in the first place.

We seem to have forgotten, and would do well to remember, this fact. And that, as the Declaration states, when government becomes destructive of those ends it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it.

That is the true purpose of the Second Amendment, and the most important security to which it refers. Certainly not hunting, and not even personal self-defense (though that is a perfectly legitimate justification in its own right), but the repulsion of collective force, whether that be an external enemy trying to invade the nation or an internal one seeking to impose its dictatorial will upon the citizenry.

Which brings me back to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The latter insisted that the ruling still allowed for gun regulation in D.C. (which Congress oversees), while the former two vowed to fight any challenge to his city's now-overturned ban, and that semi-automatic weapons were still illegal, respectively. I'm not sure if I should be more glad these two were at least honest about their utter contempt for the rule of law, or scared that they feel perfectly free to ignore any ruling or law they don't like and go on as if it had never been issued.

Daley in particular has all but crowned himself dictator of Chicago with this stunt, and has committed an impeachable offense. If he will not follow this law, why should we believe he'll hew to any restriction on his power? The reasonable conclusion must be that he won't. And thus should be removed from office before he gets any more out of control than he already has.

Not that I expect the Democratic machine that controls everything there to care or act. (And one of their own in Barack Obama is a presidential candidate, who'd certainly nominate justices who'd overturn this. Somehow, I don't see liberals paying their usual great homage to stare decisis on that case.)

So I'll ask again – who is going too far? Liberal politicians who would confiscate our ability to resist their control  and make no effort to hide how far above the law they place themselves, or law-abiding citizens simply desiring to ensure they retain the means by which they forever stay a free people? Which entity is truly the extreme one?

The Second Amendment makes that answer clear, to all who are willing to read it as it was – and still is – written.

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DKK128. Request permission to publish here.