|
I enjoy the Huffington Post and Daily Kos. I had not been to the other site as I recall.
All of the articles are basically hand-wringing over issues that the SCOTUS has finally settled as a matter of law. The fact of the matter is, as of the Heller decision, all these people's opinions are at odds with the Supreme Court of the United States. As a matter of law, they are now factually incorrect in their opinions.
We could hash all their usual arguments, that have been going on for decades, over again, but what's the point?
The Huffington Post article does not condemn the ruling outright, but rather is displeased with the research of the justices, and seems mostly pleased that the ruling did not become a political card to play in the upcoming election. I'm also glad of this.
The Daily Kos article is a re-hash of the much worn-out argument over which right is more "American" - the right to free speech or the right to bear arms. Kos, predictably, makes the assertion that it is the right to free speech that is most important, ignoring the fact, of course, that a man with a gun can make you say what he wants, while a man with a speech can't make a man with a gun do much of anything.
They say:
"In that argument are the seeds of a fundamental change in what it means to be an American citizen--what it means to be a free person. On the one hand, we have a vision of the world where one is free by virtue of the right to express oneself. On the other hand, we have a vision of the world where one is free by virtue of the right to shoot a potential attacker."
Of course what the last sentence should says is that, "On the other hand, we have a vision of the world where one is free by virtue of the right to resist tyranny.
This, also, is an ancient relic of an argument used by anti-gun folks since forever - the idea that armed revolution in modern civilized society is obsolete. Again from the article:
"Scalia is arguing much more than the definition of 'right to bear arms' as put down in the 2nd Amendment. He is arguing that fundamental meaning of citizenship in The Constitution is a reaction against the oppression of Protestants by 17c English monarchy! If we accept this definition, we are left with the flawed and violent idea of a American citizenship--with an idea of citizenship grounded in the idea that a tyranny begins with government taking away the guns of citizens. In essence, Scalia is replacing the idea of a fundamental right on which American citizenship is based--booting freedom of expression to second or even fifth place, and pushing to the head of the line a supposed right to bear arms in cases of confrontation."
The passage is flawed in that while the fundamental meaning of citizenship in The Constitution is a reaction against the oppression of Protestants by 17c English Monarchy, the reason for this fundamental meaning of citizenship is because our founding fathers anticipated that such oppression could happen again! Whether tyranny may or may not begin with government taking away the guns of citizens is beside the point - the point is that the fundamental right on which American citizenship is based is a right - not a supposed right - but the right to bear arms in cases of confrontation - against oppression, both individual and state-sponsored.
I haven't the time to go through the final article, but I'm sure it's more of the same, tired arguments that have now, hopefully, been put to bed as a matter of law.
Finally, finally, finally, we no longer need debate things like:
1) Are guns only for people in a militia? The answer, by law, is now "no".
2) What was the ideal behind an armed citizenry? The answer, by law, is now "In case of rightful confrontation, either against the state or individual"
3) Is there an individual right to bear arms? The answer, by law, is now "yes".
If websites like the above continue to hand-wring about these points it may not make them idiots, but, in fact of law, it does make them wrong.
And I am very happy about that.
|