I stumbled across a
story this morning which made me hesitate a little
while before deciding to compose a quick response.
Yesterday morning, Zack Ford, blogger at
ThinkProgress.org, penned a story entitled “Scalia
Suggests ‘Hand-Held Rocket Launchers’ Are Protected Under Second
Amendment”. In the story, he references
an earlier morning interview on Fox News with Justice Antonin Scalia in which
Scalia was asked about his views on the Second Amendment with regards to the
recent shooting in Aurora, CO. Scalia
correctly alludes to the fact that the Second Amendment protects the individual
right to possess and carry weapons of
even military grade.
Mr. Ford makes the absurd claim
that “(t)here is no conceivable way to apply the Founding Fathers’
understanding of a ‘well-regulated
militia’ armed with slow-to-load, hard-to-aim muskets to today’s weapon
technology. Arguably, the full extent of alleged gunman James Holmes’ munitions
could have easily decimated an entire brigade of musketeers before they’d even
loaded their first ball.” This is the
favorite ploy of those who desire a more powerful government: fear. His ridiculous comparison of modern weapons
carried by an individual used against a state agency using ancient weapons is both
incongruous and deceitful. Citizens in
the 18th century had access to then-modern weaponry just as the
state agencies had access to them. Both
the citizenry and state agencies had access to the modern weaponry of the 19th
century as well. It was not until the 20th
century that citizens began to have their access limited.
A more accurate comparison would be the average person with small
caliber firearms versus state agencies with armored vehicles, automatic
weapons, body armor, and the whole suite of goodies which are de facto or de jure off-limits to “mere” citizens. Mr. Ford’s claim was made for the sole
purpose of inciting fear in the common man in order to encourage more
individuals to clamor for more “protection” from Big Brother. If anything, I think the events in Aurora
speak volumes regarding the inability of the state to protect individuals.
In any case, the overlooked
phrase in this particular segment was Justice Scalia’s comment about the nature
of the amendment being based on 18th century societal sentiment. In this respect, he is correct; the Second
Amendment (in addition to the remainder of the Constitution) was agreed to by
people living at that time. Unless we are to believe that people can be
enslaved by previous generations, this particular agreement no longer stands
valid and holds only voluntarily submitted authority over individuals. See my prior conversation on this topic for
more.
1 comments:
Excellent information, With your article I got some good points.
Arkansas Medicare
Post a Comment