As of this writing the cases have been relisted again. If the court does pick one, it will share something in common with the other contenders: All either ignore or tread lightly on the core purpose behind the Second Amendment, the maintenance of a well-regulated militia deemed “necessary to the security of a free State.” You can’t have that without an armed populace whose “right … to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” [More]
Yes, these are all good cases, all worthy of being advanced. But when are we going to get serious about addressing the part about "the security of a free State"?
2 comments:
I think the incrementalism is warranted. Here in Arizona, we started with open carry legal, concealed illegal. We fought like hell for years to get a concealed permit. Once we got that, we fought for no testing/fingerprinting for a renewal, and the fight was not nearly as long. Once we had that, we went for full Constitutional Carry. And we got it within two sessions. If we hadn't established a clear pattern of making the government say "yes" to our demands, instead going for the big trophy off the bat, we would have gotten squashed. I'm perfectly happy making SCOTUS say yes bit by bit until we go in for the big one; although I'm not happy with the time it takes. But RBG can't last forever.
Let's cut to the chase, shall we?
In the predawn hours of April 19, 1775, the members of the militia in and around Lexington and Concord, in what is now the State of Massachusetts, were alerted to the movement of a force of regular infantry and Royal Marines headed their way with the intent to seize and/or destroy stores of a military nature held by the colonists, and if possible to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock.
Before the day was out, some 3000 formerly loyal British colonist had run, some of them for miles, so as not to miss the opportunity to fire upon the troops of their own government.
The following year, another colonist would write:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
Now those truths may have been "self evident" to some, but they were truly seen as an abomination to others within those very same colonies. And as we have seen, they are an abomination to some down through history until the present day. The names Comey, Strzok, and Paige come to mind. The Tories wanted nothing to do with a "free State" then, and they want nothing to do with a free state now. Their goal then and now was and is to preserve a properly managed State, with them and their compatriots as the managers.
So, to answer your question: "But when are we going to get serious about addressing the part about "the security of a free State"?, never will work just fine for them.
Post a Comment