Regulating the Militia - Kevin D. Williamson - National Review Online http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson#
......" My friend Brett Joshpe has published an
uncharacteristically soft-headed piece in the San Francisco
Chronicle arguing that in the wake of the massacre at Sandy
Hook, conservatives and Republicans should support what he
calls “sensible” gun-control laws. It begins with a subtext of
self-congratulation (“As a conservative and a Republican, I
can no longer remain silent . . . Some will consider it heresy,”
etc.), casts aspersions of intellectual dishonesty (arguments
for preserving our traditional rights are “disingenuous”),
advances into ex homine (noting he has family in Sandy Hook,
as though that confers special status on his preferences),
fundamentally misunderstands the argument for the right to
keep and bear arms, deputizes the electorate, and cites the
presence of teddy bears as evidence for his case.
Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing,“Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The
answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second
Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.
There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons
are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign
and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court
by the guy who wrote the Constitution:The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons,
who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of
power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the
government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the
usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."....
......" My friend Brett Joshpe has published an
uncharacteristically soft-headed piece in the San Francisco
Chronicle arguing that in the wake of the massacre at Sandy
Hook, conservatives and Republicans should support what he
calls “sensible” gun-control laws. It begins with a subtext of
self-congratulation (“As a conservative and a Republican, I
can no longer remain silent . . . Some will consider it heresy,”
etc.), casts aspersions of intellectual dishonesty (arguments
for preserving our traditional rights are “disingenuous”),
advances into ex homine (noting he has family in Sandy Hook,
as though that confers special status on his preferences),
fundamentally misunderstands the argument for the right to
keep and bear arms, deputizes the electorate, and cites the
presence of teddy bears as evidence for his case.
Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing,“Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The
answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second
Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.
There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons
are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign
and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court
by the guy who wrote the Constitution:The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons,
who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of
power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the
government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the
usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."....
No comments:
Post a Comment