24 September, 2009

Blood doesn't indeed make trees grow

The title of the post is actually 'Blood doesn't make tress grow." The author produces a run on sentence that left me breathless from just reading it. I won't subject you to it. The author calls the Second Amendment an incredibly ambiguous amendment. Really, because in looking at Justice Scalia's opinion from D.C v Heller he states pretty clearly the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."

Further the court goes on to say "With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment—a purpose not previously articulated by the Court—and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected."

It seems quite clear to me that the court ruled that banning someone from owning a handgun was and is unconstitutional.

Further the author seems to lump the NRA in with a group of gun owners who feel that armed resistance is the only way to restore our constitution. Now I don't claim to know everything about the NRA, but I do know it is a 'Civil Rights' organization. The very first one in fact. It's civil, meaning Law Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or international regulations or proceedings. Civil also means sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude: Does the NRA wish for it's members to attack violently the government? I doubt it. It doesn't fit with the NRA's civility. Does it wish them to become actively involved in the debate about gun control, certainly. And why not, the current president is a known supporter of gun control.

It amuses me that the bigoted anti gun folks lump every gun owner into one group. We are as diverse a group as you'll find. Please, if you wish to argue the second amendment, find out about us.

No comments: