Monday, June 28, 2010
It's a great day for the second amendment today as the Supreme Court ruled against the high crime city of Chicago's handgun ban. The handgun ban is of course part of why Chicago has such high crime in the first place.
Criminals don't follow the law, that's why they are criminals. When you ban guns from law abiding citizens with blatantly unconstitutional laws the only people left with the guns are the criminals.
Never forget what happened during Hurricane Katrina when the Bush administration forcefully, (and unconstitutionally), took handguns from legal owners: looting, raping, crime. The criminals had the advantage since they knew the guns were gone.
There's a huge problem with today's ruling though and I haven't seen anyone talking about it yet. The decision was 5 - 4!! That's no reason to be happy. This should have been an easy 9 vote victory as the second amendment is clear, short, and uncomplicated.
Amendment 2 of the U.S. Constitution, (ratified effective on December 15, 1791):
"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."
There are currently serious regulations on people with gun licenses. There are extensive background checks etc. Therefore, current law already upholds the "well regulated Militia" end of the amendment.
It's the criminals who aren't well regulated so it's also the criminals causing the problems with guns. However, what political ideology tends to be softer on crime?....Liberals.
Their belief in excuses of circumstance and rehab they hope will work leads to child rapist getting lean sentences and therefore repeating the offense. My state, Massachusetts, for example is very restrictive with gun control and makes it hard to get a gun, yet it's also a state where the Liberals won't pass Jessica's Law because they deem it unfair to child sex offenders. That's the kind of insanity you get when you get too Liberal. That was the kind of stance the 4 liberal justices on the Supreme Court tend to take and they showed it again today.
It's funny, states are challenging the health care law with the base of the 10th amendment regarding states rights as the Constitution grants no such power to the federal government.
Amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution - (also ratified on December 15, 1791):
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This administration and the left laugh at the fact that states are challenging the health care law with this. At the same time the right to bear arms is under assault by the left all the time even though it is clearly "delegated to the United States by the Constitution".
While Elena Kagan will be confirmed regardless of what she says since the Democrats have enough of a majority to confirm her anyway. Now it gets dangerous.
Obama is one replacement away from flipping the court to the left decisively. The court is just another politically partisan group. The fact that 4 of the 9 Justices couldn't rule on the side of the Constitution in such a clear and easy case is dangerous at at time when we have a president who himself has called the U.S. Constitution "a charter of negative liberties".
Negative liberties!! What's negative about this:
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
Liberty - Meaning: the state of being free from the control or power of another
Anybody want to explain what's negative about that?
1: : the quality or state of being free:
a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges: the power of choice
2 a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege
b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3: : an action going beyond normal limits: asa: a breach of etiquette or propriety
You see, the Constitution isn't a charter of negative freedoms, it's a charter of positive freedoms. The right to bear arms isn't a negative freedom meant to enable criminals to kill. It's a positive freedom meant to enable law abiding free people to have a defense against criminals.
It's a freedom that must be protected as well as all of the Constitution's positive, (not negative), liberties. If you don't like it then there's a process to amend it legally. That is how many positive changes have been made over time, the end of slavery by amendment 13 for example:
Amendment 13 of the U.S. Constitution - (ratified December 6, 1865):
Section 1 - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for a punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2 - Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The most important responsibility of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution and it's no health care bill. The Constitution is pretty easy to understand. That's part of it's ingenuity. You've read some of it in this post and how much did you find confusing?
We now know that 4 of the 9 justices, as well as our president, find much of it confusing. The progressives only need 1 more after Elena Kagan. If they get it then the protection of our Constitution against an overreaching government will be in danger. The government already has far more power than it should. It must not get any more.
FDR was trying to pack the courts for the left because it was shooting down many elements of his massive New Deal failure. Obama has the same mentality in the face of a similar problem.
While the left will demonize today's ruling in favor of the second amendment the rest of us should applaud it. I wish the Liberals would put as much effort into fighting crime as they put into painting all gun owners as criminals.