26 Jun

Heller: One Vote Away From Revolution [Reader Post]

                                       

The tyranny of the liberals was almost complete. One more vote and they would be confiscating our guns. After that, they could have done whatever they wanted and an unarmed population of sheep could have done nothing about it.

Five Justices, in the starkest display yet of the importance of presidential elections, saved a Constitutional right from extinction at the hands of liberals. One more Obama liberal on that Court, and the 2nd Amendment would be gone, erased from the Constitution, after more than 200 years. They are dangerous and they are dismantling our republic.

But real Americans won this one.

From the New York Times:

The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.

But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.

The ruling does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying concealed weapons are to be swept aside. Furthermore, Justice Scalia wrote, “The court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Scalia notes how, if the liberals had their way, anyone not in a militia (not sure where one signs up for that nowadays) would be subject to having their guns confiscated. Text of the opinion here. (All citations omitted).

Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.

And smacks it down

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

The irony of the decision is that the 2nd Amendment was enacted to prevent the government from confiscating citizens’ guns. That’s a great idea until the government, through liberal justices on the Supreme Court, does an end around, and decides that there was no right in the first place. Thus is the tyrranny of the liberal judiciary.

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.

~~~

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving he militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.

Scalia hits Breyer’s dissent for its typical arrogant, elitist, whatever-we-want-it-to-be, judicial philosophy, i.e. you only have the rights the judge gives you.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

And the hammer.

Whatever else [this opinion] leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

~~~

[W]hat is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We should not have to worry so much that we will wake up one Thursday in June to find that the Supreme Court has taken away our Constitutional rights. Had the liberals had one more vote, the sleeping masses would have risen up and demanded judicial scalps. Had they allowed guns to be banned in the home, there would have been mass lawbreaking with citizens hiding their weapons and stockpiling ammunition. The Founding Fathers certainly would have recognized that kind of behavior.

We’re lucky the liberals didn’t have that last vote.

Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Barack Obama, John McCain, Politics, Supreme Court and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, June 26th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
| 45 views

27 Responses to Heller: One Vote Away From Revolution [Reader Post]

  1. Aye Chihuahua says: 1

    Unfortunately, the time has come for impeachment.

    The GTMO case was the first reason, the child rapist/no death penalty case was the second, and today’s 5-4 decision, which should have been 9-0, is the third.

    We need to start taking our country back now before we have to use our guns to do it.

    ReplyReply
  2. thebronze says: 2

    Dupray, I agree. That is the single biggest reason to hold your nose and vote for McCain.

    AC, you’re right. This should’ve been a “no-brainer” for the SC to vote 9-0 for this decision. Instead, the usual 4 suspects voted against the Constitution.

    ReplyReply
  3. tomk59 says: 3

    If you really believe that with a vote and stroke of the pen we’d be disarmed and helpless, then the only people who would be more shocked than you would be the government and the people trying to enforce it.
    I live in Arizona, my youngest brother in Texas, and I can assure you that there are more than enough people who would not allow it.

    ReplyReply
  4. bill-tb says: 4

    Tyranny is knocking at the door, and few recognize the Marxists for whata they are. Are people that dumb?

    ReplyReply
  5. Fit fit says: 5

    Bill,

    Part of your problem is many people stop listening when you start calling your fellow Americans Marxists or socialists. If really care about advancing your position, you need to filter the moonbat language. Do you take anyone serious when they call the President a fascist?

    ReplyReply
  6. Aye Chihuahua says: 6

    Do you take anyone serious when they call the President a fascist?

    Fit fit, the easy answer to your question is no because the descriptor doesn’t fit .

    That’s why it isn’t taken seriously.

    The Marxist labels, however, are completely apropos to their policies, practices, and desires.

    Bill said:

    few recognize the Marxists for whata they are

    Bill, you are correct. Here is what Fit fit said:

    Part of your problem is many people stop listening when you start calling your fellow Americans Marxists or socialists.

    That type of denial is precisely what you were addressing in your post.

    ReplyReply
  7. Fit fit says: 7

    Fine, keep talking that way and see where it gets you. Shouting into an echo chamber is going to help anything.

    ReplyReply
  8. Aye Chihuahua says: 8

    Fair enough.

    I have no problem with you defending the position that you have taken.

    Can you give me five good reasons why the Marxist label doesn’t fit?

    ReplyReply
  9. Arthurstone says: 9

    Aye Chihuahua asked:

    Can you give me five good reasons why the Marxist label doesn’t fit?

    Great question!

    Now can you give us five good reasons why the Fascist label doesn’t fit the President & his cronies?

    ReplyReply
  10. DW 5000 says: 10

    One more Obama liberal on that Court, and the 2nd Amendment would be gone, erased from the Constitution, after more than 200 years.

    This is one of three things: a) inexcusable ignorance; b) a demagogic lie; c) absurd hyperbole.

    “Amending the Constitution is a two-part process: amendments must be proposed and then they must be ratified. Amendments can be proposed one of two ways. The only way that has been used to date is through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the legislatures of the States can call a Constitutional Convention to consider one or more amendments….Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states, a process called ratification. Depending on the amendment, this requires either the state legislatures or special state conventions to approve the amendment by simple majority vote. Amendments generally go to state legislatures to be ratified, only the Twenty-first Amendment called for special state conventions.”

    ReplyReply
  11. Dave Noble says: 11

    Aye Chi,

    I thought you were a conservative. Now you’re a revolutionary.

    Viva Aye Chi!

    Democracy is a bitch. Sometimes your guy doesn’t get elected. Sometimes you put seven of your own on the bench and some of them vote with the other side. I think I’ll go with the wisdom of the Founding Fathers over the emotionalism of Mr. Chi. Or is that Che?

    ReplyReply
  12. Aye Chihuahua says: 12

    Ah David.

    You read more into my words than what is there.

    Nowhere did I advocate for revolution.

    I advocated for preservation.

    I am working directly from the wisdom of the Founding Fathers:

    “Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.” — Thomas Jefferson

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” — Thomas Jefferson

    “The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” — Thomas Jefferson

    “From the east to the west blow the trumpet to arms! Through the land let the sound of it flee; Let the far and the near all unite, with a cheer, In defense of our Liberty Tree.” — Thomas Paine

    “The great object is that every man be armed…. Everyone who is able may have a gun. … Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” — Thomas Paine

    “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason

    “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.” — Thomas Jefferson

    “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!” — Patrick Henry

    “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people…. 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe…depository of the public interest.” — Thomas Jefferson

    “What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

    Let them take arms.

    The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson

    ReplyReply
  13. Fit fit says: 13

    I really don’t need five reasons, I can do it rather succinctly in two.

    1. Marxism is an economic system
    2. The orginal post was about gun laws and our constitution, which have nothing to do with economic systems

    ReplyReply
  14. Dupray says: 14

    Dave, I know you are a rabid lefty and Obama supporter. You are not the Dave Noble in this story are you?

    http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3341

    ReplyReply
  15. Dave Noble says: 15

    Dupray,

    To the left of you, yes. Rabid, no not really. In fact, I would argue I’m one of the less rabid posters on this blog. I rarely if ever growl or foam at the mouth (Oops, Aye Chi, bodily fluid reference there). The guy in the story, no, can’t say I am. But I’m sure if he started blogging here, he would add something to the discussion.

    Aye Chi,

    Good use of quotations, seriously. But you did talk about having to use guns against the government. And just as a practical matter, if, God forbid, the government did turn on us and the black helicopters took to the air armed with Hellfire missiles, do you really think you could stop them armed with a handgun or a deer rifle? Whatever the merits of originalism as a legal doctrine, haven’t advances in military technology mooted the practical import of much of what you quoted? In 1789, the playing field was pretty even all around. Everybody had muskets for hunting and war. A cannon was a weapon of mass destruction.

    By the way, that last quote was a favorite of Timothy McVeigh.

    ReplyReply
  16. Aye Chihuahua says: 16

    But you did talk about having to use guns against the government.

    No, not against the government, but against those who would disregard the Constitution and take away our rights in the process.

    The power belongs to the People, not to the Gov’t, and the members of the Gov’t should be ever mindful of that.

    And just as a practical matter, if, God forbid, the government did turn on us and the black helicopters took to the air armed with Hellfire missiles, do you really think you could stop them armed with a handgun or a deer rifle? Whatever the merits of originalism as a legal doctrine, haven’t advances in military technology mooted the practical import of much of what you quoted.

    You may be correct.

    I am sure that it would not be easy for the common citizen if it got to that point, but determination is a factor not to be underestimated.

    ReplyReply
  17. Dave Noble says: 17

    In a democracy the power belongs to all the people, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Red, Blue, Purple, liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, vegetarian. The people exercise that power at the polls, not at the point of the gun. Just who are those you would use your guns against? That’s a rhetorical question, but I want you to think real hard about what your saying and it’s implications.

    ReplyReply
  18. Aye Chihuahua says: 18

    The people exercise that power at the polls, not at the point of the gun.

    You should read more Founding Fathers.

    The polls are the first course of action and are, of course, always preferable, but other options must remain on the table as well.

    ReplyReply
  19. Uddercha0s says: 19

    Voting, jury, ammo & soap.. 4 boxes of freedom. Keeping it simple for us simple folk ;)

    ReplyReply
  20. Uddercha0s says: 20

    In a democracy

    We were a constitutionally controlled republic. You can take your Democracy and carry it wherever you want.

    ReplyReply
  21. yonason says: 21

    “Are people that dumb?” – (bill-tb)

    With nearly 50% of America voting for the Demonkrats, I would say, “apparently they would seem to be.” HOWEVER, if many (hopefully most) of them had sufficiently accurate information they wouldn’t dream of voting for the Leftists. The real problem isn’t Americans, it’s the socialist leftist elitists who’s ideology dominates the MSM without whom the Fascists wouldn’t stand a chance. Thank G-d for Conservative blogers!

    ReplyReply
  22. NEWPUPPYDIXIE says: 22

    For DW 5000,

    You write that the belief that one more Obama leftist on the court would mean an end to the 2nd amendment must be either ignorance, a lie or hyperbole. And you then include the proper method of amending the constitution. Evidently you don’t understand that the 4 Marxist justices on the court are not interested in the constitution, its language or the proper method of its amending. Their vote, had Kennedy joined them, would have effectively done away with the 2nd amendment. This is what the poster indicated, and quite rightly so. The 4 are interested only in what they believe the document should say, not in what it does say. I should think that this fact is self-evident. They would have “amended” our right to keep and bear arms right out of existence…the “proper method” be damned! Had the vote tragically gone the wrong way, I assume you would have suggested that they “just can’t DO that.” And I’m certain you would have been very sincere. Wrong. Screwed right along with the rest of the American people. Minus our most vitally important right. But undoubtedly, very sincere. Wake up. The left has no interest in proper procedure. They are interested only in the destruction of this nation and in the death of our liberties and rights.

    ReplyReply
  23. Aye Chihuahua says: 23

    NPD,

    You are quite correct.

    The Left in this country uses the courtroom to accomplish what they could never get done through the ballot box or through legislation.

    The Courts in the country, especially SCOTUS, are legislating from the bench.

    They are making it up as they go along and they’re dragging us right along with them.

    ReplyReply
  24. Dave Noble says: 24

    Udderchaos,

    America love it, or leave it. I’ve heard that before, but nobody has ever told me to take my democracy and leave. Take it wherever I want? How about Iraq? It’s good enough for them, but not for us? Our servicemen are dying to spread democracy in the Middle East and we don’t even have it here? By the way, this is my country, I’m not going anywhere.

    Oh, I get it, democracy (Democrat), republic (Republican)? Now there’s some cheapjack partisan semantics for you.

    I guess the President didn’t get your memo, Udder. You need to speak to him:

    “Our common ideal of social justice begins with self-government. The promise of democracy starts with national pride, and independence, and elections. But it does not end there. A country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward, and risks sliding back into tyranny. A country that unites all its people behind common ideals will multiply in strength and confidence. The successful democracies of the 21st century will not be defined by blood and soil. Successful democracies will be defined by a broader ideal of citizenship — based on shared principles, and shared responsibilities, and respect for all.

    For my own country, the process of becoming a mature, multi-ethnic democracy was lengthy. ”

    President Bush Discusses Democracy in the Western Hemisphere
    Blue Tree Park Hotel
    Brasilia, Brazil
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051106-3.html

    Aye Chi,
    Give me an example of a recent Supreme Court decision that took an affirmative right away from you The Heller decision affirmed a right. And interestingly, it took 219 years and how many Supreme Court justices to affirm that right. If it was so self-evident, why did it take so long to affirm it? Even given that gun control legislation is a recent phenomenon, were all the those Courts since then sitting on their hands?

    What is the substantive basis for all this irresponsible rhetoric about tyranny and revolution? Because you don’t always get your way in a democracy? The definition of an “activist judge” seems to be “a judge who makes a decision I disagree with.” Your definition of “legislating from the bench” seems to be “making decisions I disagree with.” It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. It has been so since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Saying what the Constitution means is not a recent usurpation on the part of Marxist judges. BTW, one of the Marxist judges in the Heller minority was appointed by Gerald Ford, another was appointed by George H.W. Bush. And that Marxist Justice Kennedy was appointed by his fellow Marxist Ronald Reagan. Pardon the blasphemy.

    ReplyReply
  25. Uddercha0s says: 25

    Dave,

    Are you about individual freedoms or the most amount of good for the most amount of people? If the government wants to build a road across my land becasue it benefits the majority, should they be allowed to confiscate my land?

    Love it or leave it? No, you can stay here even if you don’t love it. If you open your piehole, expect a response.

    I really don’t care what the POTUS, Congress or the SCOTUS has said. They have all diverged from what this country was founded on, mostly for political gain. We have what we have to work with. Are you going to try and tell me that the United States of America was not founded as a constitutionally controlled Republic? If you do, I want to speak with your history teachers. Do you know the difference between the two?

    Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the socialism inherent in Democracy. And to answer your question, no, Iraq should want better than that.

    ReplyReply
  26. DW 5000 says: 26

    What is the substantive basis for all this irresponsible rhetoric about tyranny and revolution? Because you don’t always get your way in a democracy? The definition of an “activist judge” seems to be “a judge who makes a decision I disagree with.” Your definition of “legislating from the bench” seems to be “making decisions I disagree with.” It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. It has been so since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

    vs.

    I really don’t care what the POTUS, Congress or the SCOTUS has said.

    One guy refers to Supreme Court precedent. The other guy stamps his foot and metaphorically shrills, “You’re all wrong! I hate you! I hate you!”

    Somebody’s history teachers are certainly due for a talking-to, UdderchaOs, but it’s not the person you’re suggesting.

    Also: up above you gave the old heave-ho to all three branches of government, saying that you don’t care what they have to say on the meaning of the Constitution. Why do you hate our form of government? Why do you hate America?

    P.S.: you really should answer the guy’s questions; if you don’t, you look like you’re avoiding something.

    ReplyReply
  27. Uddercha0s says: 27

    P.S.: you really should answer the guy’s questions; if you don’t, you look like you’re avoiding something.

    reading is fun-duh-mental here DW.

    Was it the

    Love it or leave it? No, you can stay here even if you don’t love it. If you open your piehole, expect a response.

    I didn’t answer?

    Maybe it was this question

    Our servicemen are dying to spread democracy in the Middle East and we don’t even have it here?

    That you missed my answer of?

    And to answer your question, no, Iraq should want better than that.

    Or did you want me to answer the silly question of Republican = Republic vs Democrat = Democracy?

    So, whose history teacher needs talking too?

    Somebody’s history teachers are certainly due for a talking-to, UdderchaOs, but it’s not the person you’re suggesting.

    Are you going to step up and say we were founded as a democracy?

    Maybe an English teacher needs to be spoken to as well. Questions are usually followed with a question mark –> ?

    As for hating America.. no, I love her with all my heart. I won’t bore you with the details. My story is not unlike millions of others.

    As for our form of government, it has been taken over by a political class, left wing radicals, marxists, left over communists, judges ruling from the bench, unenforced borders, indoctrinated yoots and various other special intersest groups that feel they are somehow special and want entitlements from others. I’m sure I missed a few in there but I hope you get the point.

    Care for some tea?

    ps. it makes a bit more sense to put my statement in context. : “I really don’t care what the POTUS, Congress or the SCOTUS has said. They have all diverged from what this country was founded on, mostly for political gain.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>