A Rumination Upon Heller,
Special to David Codrea's War on Guns Blog.
by Mike Vanderboegh
8 July 2008
Special to David Codrea's War on Guns Blog.
by Mike Vanderboegh
8 July 2008
Dancing the hora on Dealul Spirii (Spirii Hill), Bucharest (1857 lithograph)
Hora: a type of circle dance originating in the Balkans but now found in a number of countries, most of which use slightly different spellings. . . Hora (pl. hore) is a traditional Romanian folk dance that gathers everyone into a big closed circle. The dancers hold each other's hands and the circle spins, usually clockwise, as each participant follows a sequence of three steps forward and one step back. The dance is usually accompanied by musical instruments such as the cymbalum, accordion, violin, viola, double bass, saxophone, trumpet or even the panflute. Hora is popular during wedding celebrations and festivals, and is an essential part of the social entertainment in rural areas. One of the most famous hore is the Hora Unirii (Hora of the Union), which became a Romanian patriotic song as a result of being the hymn when Wallachia and Moldavia united to form the Principality of Romania in 1859. During the 2006/2007 New Year's Eve celebration, when Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union, people were dancing Hora Bucuriei (Hora of Joy) over the boulevards of Bucharest as a tribute to the EU anthem, Ode to Joy. . . A different dance, also called the Horah, is the most popular of Jewish folk dances and played a foundational role in modern Israeli folk dancing. It is usually performed to Jewish or Israeli folk songs, typically to the music of Hava Nagila. -- Wikipedia.Hora Bucuriei: Dance of Joy
You can perhaps see now why I chose David Codrea's War on Guns blog for the venue of this essay. David is, after all, my favorite Rumanian-American. Or is it American-Rumanian? He is certainly first and foremost a great American. Perhaps American of Rumanian descent? In any case, he's one heck of a guy and an indomitable fighter for our Second Amendment rights. I don't know. My ancestry is Dutch-German with some Scotch-Irish thrown in, but I've never been one to claim "Dutch-American" as a title. Now, if the Spanish government ever gets around to paying reparations for the evil oppression that King Phillip carried out upon the country of my great-great grandparents, I could perhaps embrace the term. If there was money in it.
But I thought of the Rumanian dance of joy when I watched the celebrations in Internet Gunnie Land around the Heller decision. Many of us seem to believe the battle, if not the war, is over. But another term sprang to my mind the same instant: praecox. It is an ugly little Latin word meaning premature, as in:
Dementia praecox: Latin for premature dementia.Hora bucuriei praecox. Thus, in the first Rumanian-Latin phrase that I've ever created, I combine the terms Hora (dance), bucuriei (joy) and praecox (premature) in the title of this essay, for many of us certainly seem to be engaging in a premature dance of joy. Here's why.
1. Any of several psychotic disorders charaterized by distortions of reality and disturbances of thought and language and withdrawal from social contact.
2. Schizophrenia. No longer in technical use.
or,
Ejaculatio praecox: Latin for premature ejaculation; a lack of ejaculatory control, which interferes with sexual or emotional well being in one or both partners.
Nine Black Robes and One Vote
Yup. One vote. 5 to 4. Give us another liberal president, which we are sure to have no matter who's elected, and the balance could shift with the suddenness of a heart attack, or maybe a stroke. Read the dissents and you will see what awaits us -- collectivism that the Founders would laugh at with derisive scorn. Except the Founders aren't around any more. One vote. Do you think the enemies of liberty in this country are going away? They're in it for the long haul. This decision is a temporary setback to them, if it is a setback at all.
The Decision Secures What, Exactly?
[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]Heller secures "an individual right to bear arms." So they say. But how is that when the language of Scalia's majority opinion leaves a regulatory barn door large enough to parade an elephant (with "Predatory ATF" painted on its ass) through it? "Individual right to bear arms," may we introduce you to "reasonable regulation?" What a crock. Why are you dancing?
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. -- The Princess Bride, 1987
Olofson Trumps Heller
Also, we have "Maximum Mike" Sullivan of the ATF telling us that Heller is a decision "we can live with." Heck yes, he can live with it. It and every other law his unconstitutional agency ignores. Witness, if you please, the Olofson case. Until the ATF abides by the law, laws -- or Supreme Court decisions -- secure NOTHING.
It is claimed that even with all of Heller's faults, we should celebrate for "we have a dodged a bullet." Uh, huh. Dodging a bullet on a battlefield where many more bullets are flying and the enemy continues to advance is trivial and incidental.
"Legality": the Opiate of the American Masses
Finally, there is this. Marx called religion the "opiate of the masses." In modern day American, the opiate is "legality." The only thing Heller accomplishes is to lull that minority of the American people who really care about their Second Amendment rights into a false sense of security. Oh, your "individual right" to own a firearm is "secured," except (after the next administration closes "the gun show loophole") you will have to have the government's permission to buy or sell one; AND they'll be able to choke off your ammunition supply with confiscatory taxes or "labeling" schemes; AND they'll be able to ban "assault weapons" or "sniper rifles" or whatever. Oh, yes, you have an individual right secured by Heller. An individual right to be further victimized by collectivists. But it's "legal," so it's OK. Right?
Try to remember that liberty as the Founders envisioned it and "legality" as our current politicians use the term, are two entirely different things. When the Founders encountered the King's legality, they struck hard, knocking it down to secure their own liberty through the Constitution. Government misconduct as in Olofson may trump Supreme Court opinions like Heller, but liberty trumps legality. This is a point that from time to time in American history has been unfortunately necessary to make at the business end of a rifle.
The Hora is a great dance, an expression of human community and joy. It is, however, in the case of the Heller decision, entirely premature.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
Well said.
ReplyDeleteThe Heller ruling is the right to have a loaded revolver in your home, and only in your home. That's not "bearing." Gun dealers anxiously await DC's NEW rules regarding handguns and are AFRAID to sell any to DC residents until those rules are in print. That's not "keeping."
And "arms" doesn't mean only technology that's been around since the 18th Century. The semi-auto came along in the 1890s. Some handgun competition scenarios may be designed to be "revolver neutral" but the world isn't. And "people" doesn't mean "approved people."
Now that "reasonable" restrictions have gotten the grinning thumbs-up from the black-robed oracles, we can be sure there will be many MORE.
We must simply hack through the impossible Gordian knot. Agreeing to be tested by trying to untie it only encourages them.
WorldWatch: Italy has released one of the terrorists who took over the cruise ship Achille Lauro and killed passenger Leon Klinghoffer.
ReplyDeleteThe Italian government also wants to fingerprint all Roma people living in Italy. We know them better as Gypsies.
The barometer is falling, it seems.
Hmm...and I presume NRA will still be suitably Wayne-bound to support any of these new "legalities", won't it?
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Mr. Vanderboegh: this is no time to rest on our heels. This strikes me as the moment right after you've put an adversary down, in which you had best check your perimiter for his friends. In this case, it seems we have just put down a chihuahua, and may be able to hear the snickering of the bigger dogs in the woods.
I want Heller to be more than that, but I don't think it is. At this point, what Heller can do for us seems to depend on what we might do with it. Using it to take the offensive--that may be worthwhile. Using it as a benchmark, to show that the statists will always play games with words no matter what happens, and always take any advantage of decent people's trust--I hope that is worthwhile too. I must continue to believe that most people are decent and smart enough that they have a limit, even if that limit is different than mine, and even if they don't realize they have a limit yet.
While I agree, of course, that the jubilation in some circles over the ruling was very overly optimistic, I do think that getting the "collective rights" nonsense off the table was a significant gain for our side.
ReplyDeleteApparently, SCOTUS knows what "right of the people" means.
Now to instruct them on shall not be infringed
I agree with Kurt: the Heller ruling declared the 'collective rights' argument for the nonsense it always was, at least for now. Beyond that it didn't really do very much.
ReplyDeleteHeller is what we choose to make of it. Vorwarts! ;-)
ReplyDeleteI agree that a lot of celebration was premature, but we should not ignore how much can be made of this. Most district courts rejected an individual right of the 2nd; now they must acknowledge it. Scalia's opinion left registration on the table; but registration wasn't before the court. Incorporation against the states wasn't spelled out, and some lower courts are already denying it; but the clear implication is it will be in the future. No degree of scrutiny was spelled out; but one part of the ruling mentioned applying the same level of protection as for the other individual rights, i.e., strict scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteThis could be big if our side continues to play smart and aggressive.
Levy and Gura said up front that this was a narrow case, brought to get a specific answer. So we knew that going in. Alan Gura is involved with a lawsuit challenging Chicago's gun ban. Another relatively narrow case, and try again after that.
I haven't forgotten the NRA tried to spike this case when it was first mooted. Who dares, wins.
I almost choked when I saw a commenter elsewhere crediting Heller to the NRA, but they have come onboard on a number of lawsuits now. Which is all to the good, as long as we don't stop there. I'm a new believer in incrementalism, as long as there's a strategy behind it.
RE: incrementalism - For the record, I'm for anything that reduces the power of the government, and against anything that enlarges it. Call it incrementalism if you will, but it's the only thing short of violent revolution that can get us where we want to go.
ReplyDeleteWhile Heller may have done away with "collective right", Scalia gave the other side an even more potent weapon to use in destroying the Second and its guarantee.
ReplyDeleteHe morphed the purpose of the Second into the right having at its "core purpose" the right of arms for self defense in the home.
Just think about how much room and how many more decades of abuse that allows for overreaching government. Those words are in the decision and anyone who doesn't think the next round of regulations won't be worse than any we have seen heretofore probably views reality as "Once upon a time there was a fairy princess.....".
But what is far worse is that they can use Heller to restrict, uh, excuse me, regulate any arm or use of arms or possession of arms they do not deem suitable for defense inside the home. Heller gives them that option, it erroneously (not mistakenly) erased the true purpose of the Second Amendment and replaced it with something much less. Further, the decision legitimizes infringement of that which "shall not be infringed", by allowing for regulation, restriction, and other schemes.
It may have been a narrow case, but the decision was a sweepingly wide hammer blow to liberty. The decision has much more width and opportunity to further abuse the citizen than existed before we "won?".
So far, I seem to be the only one who sees this redefinition of the purpose the second amendment as dangerous. I don't really understand that. It seems to me that is the most dangerous thing in the decision. While the decision left "regulation" intact, it provided the vehicle to deliver much more restriction than we have yet seen.
"Collective rights" interpretations may have been overturned, collectivism hasn't and that's the point. Your "individual rights" don't mean squat. There have been two firearms cases decided since Heller by lower courts. Both quoted Heller in refusing relief to the pro-firearms side of the case. (WRSA has the link on his blog, I believe.)
ReplyDeleteSo what good is overturning the "collective rights" interpretation? The other side just lost a portion of its figleaf, but the tool to screw you out of your liberties is still hanging there tumescent. (My, what an image.)
Obviously this is no time to let our guard down. Still, nice to have that blasted militia argument off the table. Now the real work begins, we challenge Chicago, San Fran and other Cali holdouts, and we stay on top of DC as they attempt to weasel their way out of the ruling.
ReplyDeleteAnd we must focus in on the Olofson case. It must be overturned on appeal or every semi-auto is at risk as are their owners. The slimy bastards have seen to it that Dave spends as much time as they could arrange in jail even while his case is on appeal. Says to me they know it will be overturned, so this is their petty vindictive best shot.
His sacrifice must not be in vain.
I'm still not sure that Heller opened the door to "reasonable restrictions" any more than it was already open.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that "reasonable restrictions" were already coming pretty fast and furious--the protection that the Second Amendment should have provided against those was simply ignored.
How can we have lost something that we didn't have before?
I agree that we didn't gain a lot of ground, but we avoided losing everything. That's something, I would think.
45 superman sez: "I agree that we didn't gain a lot of ground, but we avoided losing everything. That's something, I would think."
ReplyDeleteYes, it is. But I wonder if we will later wish that they had rather done us the favor of telling us NOW that they consider us serfs rather than citizens instead of later. We are losing the argument by attrition. As my son once told me, "Dad, you've got to stay alive if you want to have my kids grow up in the same country that you grew up in because people of my generation don't have any memory of what that country looked like. We need people of your generation around to tell us."
In some respects I'm in agreement with you. It could have been worse. But then I look at what is coming out of the public schools these days -- ignorant, brain-washed subjects of Daddy Government -- and despair that we will ever turn things around. A nice hard slap across the chops would do us gunnies good, I think. Better sooner than later if we are to save the situation at all.
But then I look at what is coming out of the public schools these days -- ignorant, brain-washed subjects of Daddy Government -- and despair that we will ever turn things around.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you could mean, Mr. Vanderboegh--oh do you mean people like this recent product of the Chicago Public Schools?
Just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it should be allowed. The Constitution was based in the 1700s. This is 2008.
I have, I think, been guilty of the excessive optimism to which you and Straightarrow refer, mostly out of fear of just how hard the hard reality might be. Frankly, I don't want it to come down using the Second Amendment for the purpose for which it was written, because as a fat, wheelchair bound paraplegic of no particular courage or skill, I'd be worse than useless in a fight, and would prefer not to live long enough to see that fight.
Loved the link.
ReplyDelete"Define irony: a bunch of idiots dancing around on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash." Garland Greene in Con Air (1997) as "Sweet Home Alabama" plays in background.
An anti-constitution gun control advocate going to Rwanda to "study" comes a close second, maybe beats it, actually.
I was pleased with some aspects of the Heller decision, but, I wasn't happy to see them wipe away the Dual Nature of the Right, both an Individual and Community Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
ReplyDeleteBy wiping away the Militia Clause they swept up the power to deny Weapons that would be 'required' of a Militiaman.
If you look at the Rights specifically noted as pertaining to "...the People," by nature, they can be exercised both individually and collectively.
That means they will jump on the concept of limiting the type of weapons available, and, we won't be allowed to buy those weapons that would naturally be the best for armed Combat.
Just as I said 6/27, we got nothing from this SC verdict, and the stage is set for more of less. They will keep nickel and dimeing us until it don't work no more, or enough of us are dead or enfeebled and then they'll make their ball of wax move, and it'll be easy.Push back? Here's the deal. They KNOW we're not pushing back, and that we WON'T. The only way we're going to keep our freedoms is if we just push back, regardless of what they do. They have the initiative. We don't. The side that seizes the initiative and keeps it is the side that will endure. Unless the dynamic on our side changes, we're done.Our current path will lead us to the slaughterhouse. We have done nothing but lose for over 70 years, and I don't give a damn what anyone tells me, every one of those so called gains has a bigger gov't gain attached, which makes it a net loss. We are nothing more at this point, than a lot of well informed fenceposts. That last SC verdict was a WARNING. As in COOKBOOK.
ReplyDelete