"Collective Right" is an Oxymoron

March 19, 2008

As everyone is probably aware the Supreme Court is taking arguments on the most important gun rights case of all time, Heller v City of DC. The main argument has been decided by nearly every judge on the Court has given evidence they believe in the individual right to own firearms, the difference being in the “reasonable restriction.” I’m glad to hear that this “collective right” BS is gone, as Marko demonstrates.  I see no reasoning behind this idea that the Second Amendment, alone among all other rights granted in the Constitution, is not individual. Luckily the Court seems to be ready to move against this.

Next on the antigun argument is the “well regulated militia” which they take to mean the National Guard, which coincidentally didn’t exist for a hundred plus years after the Bill of Rights was conceived. The main problem with this fallacy is the fact that it is totally against what the Founding Fathers believed in. They had just escaped the terrible hand of a despot and did not want concentrated power to ever threaten the freedom of its citizenry. The Second Amendment is precisely put in place to protect individuals from not only other individuals but also from the threat of overreaching government. This is why the National Guard argument fails:  the National Guard is a governmental organization and therefore is the antithesis of what the Amendment was designed for.

I’m anxious to see the ultimate outcome of Heller. It will either be back to square one or the biggest victory for gun rights in this country’s history. I hope that enough of the Justices have the same opinion of the issue, and I’m too afraid we’re about to go right back to square one. This time we’ll have a much more Sisyphean task on our hands.

Early Adopter

March 25, 2007

I guess I’m a bit early on this, but I’m already feeling cynical about the 2008 presidential elections. So far the Republicans have shown either the same damn thing that made them lose most of the 06 elections, authoritarian douchebags (that’s you McCain) or Giulani.

I admit that I think Giulani is a good leader, and has a chance, but the problem is that he has too many things wrong. His position on gun rights, and I honestly have little evidence to believe he has anything to offer me on the minarchism side.  While I think that Rudy doesn’t like the 2nd Amendment, I get the feeling that McCain dislikes all of the Amendments. His campaign finance reform law was a total affront to freedom of speech and too much of what he says gives me reason to believe the Constitution is a secondary concern for him.  I swore to others, and I’ll repeat it here, that if McCain wins the nomination, I will not vote Republican for president. No way whatsoever.

To make matters worse the Democrats are putting their A-team up against us. Hillary has way too much momentum, and Obama has what seems like a near personality cult going for him somedays. So the Democrats offer me either a inexperience junior senator with nothing to show but the same neosocialist bullcrap I hate already or Hillary “Global Village” Clinton whose ideas of a true nannystate disturb me immensely. Before anyone names another Dem possiblity, save your breath. It’s Hillary or Obama, although Obama is a horrible candidate. I don’t want someone whose only resume entry is a term and change in the senate.

So it may end up that I throw my vote away, but I cannot force myself to vote for a authoritarian “maverick,” and I’m afraid Giulani’s liberal social stance will make him unappealing to convention voters. Hillary will likely be the Democrat candidate and she’s possibly the best politician I’ve ever seen. 2008 will be an interesting year, although I’m already worried we’re fighting a losing battle.