An Old Rant

[Subdeacon Joe]

The following popped up in my Facebook "Memories:"

 

Quote

I was going through some old files on my computer and found one, I think a response to an anti-civil rights advocate in a local newspaper. Thought I should share it:

OK, I'll bite on that red herring, Mr. G.

First, the 2nd "grants" me nothing other than protection from the federal government. Gotta get that straight right from the start. The right existed before the federal government. Need to be very clear on that. The Constitution cedes power from the states and the people to the federal government. It has nothing that that “free and independent states” and “we, the people of the United States” didn’t give it. I know that may be a scary thought for you.

The founders obviously saw nothing wrong with private ownership of ordnance. Look up "Powers of Congress." You will find that in the Constitution, the document by which you seem to think the federal government gives us rights. One of the powers is to grant letters of marque and reprisal. Don't give those to the Navy, do you? Gotta go to private individuals or corporations (ooooo…scary, evil corporations!). And it would be very difficult for a merchant vessel to attack other vessels without ordnance. No provision is made for the government arming those to whom it issued the letters of marque and reprisal, so the assumption was that the vessels would be armed privately. 
In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) the US Supreme Court ruled that “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Note that “to withdraw certain subjects from the vicessitudes of political controversy.” This debate should not even be happening. We have a fundamental civil right specifically protected by an amendment to the Constitution.

Now, back to the bazooka red herring. We need to get outside the Constitution for a minute and read the words of the founders to ascertain their understanding of the right. Tench Cox I think said it best, “The sword, and EVERY TERRIBLE IMPLIMENT OF THE SOLDIER is the birthright of every American.” OK, so we have “of the soldier.” Now, getting back to the present, well, 1939, and the Miller decision and what the anti-civil rights lobby claims bars private ownership of firearms, “"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Of course, there was an “absence of evidence” because Millers side of the case was not presented. If it had been, all that would have been necessary would have been to present to the Court that the federal government had bought close to 40,000 “shotguns having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” for use by the military in WWI for him to have been cleared. Now, read that again. Says that if firearm can be shown to have some “reasonable relationship” to militia use (oh, and nowhere in the Miller decision, or in the Constitution, does it say that one MUST be a member of the militia in order to exercise the protected civil right to keep and bear arms), its possession by we, the people, is covered by the 2nd Amendment.
Now, let’s put that all together. The intent of those who hammered out the second amendment seems to be making sure that the average citizen could maintain arms current with the standing army at least at the company level. What arms are common in the average infantry company? Would that list include bazookas? Would it include semi-auto firearms with “assault magazines?” How about light machine guns? The answer is “Yes” to all of those.

Now, how many drive by “bazookaings” happen in your neighborhood that you are so concerned about them? How many nation-wide? How often are bazookas, and by extension, rocket propelled grenades, used in crimes (not counting simple possession of them as being “used” in crimes)?

Are you maybe concerned that if you were allowed to own a bazooka you would go out and shoot up schools or banks with one? Why the assumption that anyone who has a firearm that you are scared of has your lack of self control and self discipline? That assumption, along with more than a bit of racism, is the basis of all modern gun control legislation. Not everyone has the same lack of self control and lack of personal responsibility that the anti-civil rights crowd seems to have. Most who buy firearms legally are well aware of the responsibilities of owning them, and the consequences of their misuse. I know that the idea of personal responsibility is something foreign to the antis.