Like the inhabitants of other formerly free societies, Americans are content to define "freedom" in terms of those liberties we are permitted to exercise. Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller is perfectly in harmony with this self-defeating concept of "freedom."
While everybody's popping champagne corks, William Norman Grigg issues a warning that we ignore at our peril. We need such critical examinations, especially since there will be no shortage of "practical" voices, ostensibly from "our side," dismissing such examiners.
I especially am moved by his observation that "the intellectual and psychological disarmament of our population is nearly complete."
[Via Ron W]
11 comments:
When you plug everything into the equation, we've suffered a serious net loss.
In New Orleans after Katrina, Greensboro after the tornado and Cedar Rapids after the flood, being legal and law-abiding meant exactly squat.
Balaclava is Russian for "target indicator."
"the intellectual and psychological disarmament of our population is nearly complete."
It may be almost, but it is not complete and this is what we have to work with and continue from. I take a lot of comfort that in our worst nanny states of MA and CA you will still find gun owners fighting to protect our rights and slowly making some progress on this. I think with the latest ruling we will be able to make a few dents in the laws of both states. Unfortunately only time will tell us for sure if this is the beginning of the battle turning our way or the beginning of the end. . . .
The gov't is in no way going to surrender its' monopoly on force, and it is going to regulate guns in the hands of its' citizens out of existence. That is the end game, and all speculation is about it is null. They can point to the 1st A and say,look, you have freedom of speech, and you know damn well under McCain-Feingold that you do not. It's time to embrace the horror.
This is by far the best analysis of Heller I have seen anywhere.
"FBI head Robert Mueller told members of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld a constitutional right to own guns for self-defense may harm efforts to deter violent crime in communities and college campuses." -AP
Even WITH all the "reasonable restrictions"???
I read it and I agree with it, especially since I had previously made those same point right here in the comments.
Look, what were you expecting? For SCOTUS to say it is now okay to buy an HK UMP45 from amazon.com? I am getting a little tired of gunnies complaining about the decision. We are far better off than we were a week ago - the "collective" right argument is done for. Now that we have it recognized as an individual right we can move on to getting "shall not be infringed" recognized.
Have you stopped to consider that had the majority taken a more hard-line stance, Kennedy may have not signed on - and we would be facing a landslide of anti-gun legislation, rather than pro-gun legislation that has emerged - and will continue to emerge - from this?
Quit complaining about what might have been and be happy for what you got - A HUGE NET-GAIN from this decision.
"we can move on to getting "shall not be infringed" recognized"
No we can't, the robed dictators have now decreed that the masters can infringe in any manner they like. Enjoy your scraps of "freedom" while the feds, cities, and states devise new schemes, registration requirements, and fees that fit the outline set out and allowed by the ruling. The landslide is coming anyway. "the intellectual and psychological disarmament of our population is nearly complete."
Anon at 12:57:
As I said, While everybody's popping champagne corks, William Norman Grigg issues a warning that we ignore at our peril. We need such critical examinations, especially since there will be no shortage of "practical" voices, ostensibly from "our side," dismissing such examiners.
If you don't, mind, while the vast majority are out there doing cartwheels in their rose-colored glasses, a few of us will examine the meaning of the decision in total--which includes presenting a cautionary post like this one.
You're doing exactly what I predicted. You'd be doing yourself--and whoever listens to you--a favor if you opened your eyes, uncupped your hands from your ears, and stopped screaming "LaLaLa..."
I'll continue presenting pro and con sides here, but don't worry. For sheer volume and reach, your message drowns out mine big time. Only a few will ever hear another side, and the fewer who are persuaded by it are easy to dismiss as "principle fetishists."
Mr. Roth's final point, about regulation of commerce and de facto registration deserves emphasis, as relatively few of even the severest critics mentioned this.
Mr. Roth's remark about holding a flashlight shows there's even more amiss with the "amazing one hand move" Scalia described than I saw (and mentioned in my snarky comment on "Heller affirmed"
To straightarrow: yes you did.
No matter how long or eloquent the passages in the opinion about "individual right" a right means nothing given the "regulation " that's permitted.
To jd: I'm not sure about having the time to make a difference.
All the best, cycjec
My apologies, my earlier comment was in part intended to follow up on the the Roth "Heller High Water" post.
Post a Comment