Supremes dance, say there is an individual right to own firearms.
As I've noted previously, the arguments presented by gun lobbyists don't make any sense. There has never been a brutal dictatorship overthrown because it ran out of brutal thugs willing to enforce its rule, instead said dictatorship has always been overthrown because it ran out of money to pay for said thugs. The fall of the Soviet Union should be instructive there -- the Soviet military at the end could not even buy food for its soldiers, and they simply would not fight to preserve the rule of the Communists anymore. Similarly, the Communist government of Afghanistan lasted for many years after the Soviets left, and collapsed only because the Soviet Union collapsed and quit sending them money, at which time they could no longer pay their thugs and their thugs switched sides and overthrew them.
In short, guns in the hands of ordinary civilians have proven worthless at getting rid of brutal dictatorships, at least if you do not have significant external support and a safe haven beyond the border. The notion of U.S. citizens rebelling and overthrowing their government using personal firearms is beyond ludicrous. Oppressive regimes collapse because their citizens silently undermine them by ceasing economic activity until they can no longer pay their thugs, not because they get overthrown violently (well, often the final act is violence -- but the violence succeeds only because unpaid thugs have deserted, otherwise the result is a lot of dead civilians and a lot of strutting thugs). This is why the petro-dictatorships of the Middle East can continue -- they can still pay their thugs. Once the oil runs out and they can no longer pay their thugs, well, all hell is going to break loose.
So anyhow, as I've pointed out prior, personal firearms in the hands of civilians aren't the magic talisman they're often claimed to be. On the other hand, the language of the 2nd Amendment is clear, and if we want to ban personal firearms, we should do so by changing the Constitution -- not by trying to re-write it by saying it doesn't say what it bloody well does say. That way leads to the rest of the Bill of Rights similarly getting re-written. Now, let's see if the Supremes, now that they've voted to uphold the 2nd Amendment, will similarly vote to uphold the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, .... well, all the other amendments, the ones that the NRA and Rethugs apparently do not care about. Then we can say they've actually got some scruples. Until then, I'm reserving judgement, other than to say that voting to uphold one amendment of the Bill of Rights certainly is a step in the right direction. Now let's see them vote to uphold the other amendments...
-- Badtux the Constitutional Penguin
Tux, what matters is not that angry "patriots" with handguns could never overthrow an oppressive government. What matters is that they FEEL like they could. Reality is not important; the fantasy of power is. Thes people have no power over events in their lives, but holding a gun that could be used to kill another human, why, it makes them feel like a god...
ReplyDeleteRule of thumb: whenever a Second Amendment nut talks about his weapon, substitute the word "penis" for "gun" and you'll know what motivates him. That includes female gun nuts, too. Closest they'll get to owning one!
We'll see how devoted they are to the rest, but I'm not holding my breath.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you BT. As someone who's been shot by a criminal with a gun, I personally would like to see all handguns dumped in the ocean. But I can read, and the Second Amendment clearly gives individuals the right to own guns.
ReplyDeleteWell-said. It was a good judgment.
ReplyDeleteSo anyhow, as I've pointed out prior, personal firearms in the hands of civilians aren't the magic talisman they're often claimed to be.
ReplyDeleteMaybe so, but I'm not giving mine up. I may need one for personal protection for to hunt some food with.
I could have been born in a different land, but I am here and I expect that Judges and Politicians can read, and would follow laws. But they always surprise me, when they don't. Now how is that different from the Criminal or State owned thug that carry weapons to enforce taxation, or general theft? Surprised? No, I am not - I would carry a gun to make my point that I can, to shoot something or someone, or because I like the weight. Being very old (60) I am sure that all my time with weapons has no effect on my sexual activities - ever. But then having carried, owned and used weapons for almost my entire life I never saw it as a powerful thing - I was always more impressed with my ability to fight with my fists and feet. That took effort.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have with gun rights advocates is when they don't want registration and they don't want background checks at gun shows. Why? Well, that leads to traceability, which leads to responsibility. The thought of being held responsible for proper sale of their gun or even for keeping them out of the reach of children frightens them to no end.
ReplyDelete