Anti-Gun people occasionally comment on pro-Human-Rights blogs. Blogs like this one, but ones people read. (Thank you my precious few loyal readers. Both of you.) More frequently, they anti on some anti-gun article before they get their hat handed to them by pro-gun commenters that have actual, you know, facts and stuff.
One of the more frequent themes anti-gun hysteric's post is citing the Second Amendment. The Militia part. And think that that ends the argument because the National Guard fill the militia role today. They figure that reading is obvious to anyone with a brain. That our side is illiterate and can’t parse that part.
Their assertion is invalid.
That the Second Amendment applies to individuals, and is an individual right, and not to some form of militia, came up in the Heller decision. It was decided. Shouldn’t they ‘move on’ and pick another angle to harp on? They’d have to appeal some case up to the Supreme Court and throw it the other way to make it a ‘group’ right, and not an individual right, again. And they’d have to fight precedent and stare decis at this point to do so.
Arguing that the 2A applies to a group is passé. Moot. Irrelevant. Ignorant. It’s been almost a year since the decision. When is the news gonna trickle down to internet blog commenters?
It’s like someone arguing with Einsteinian physics with Phlogiston theory of the aether... in 1935. Or arguing disease causes with our side being on the Germ Theory side of the aisle, while the other side is arguing an imbalance of Sanguine or Melancholic Humours causing infection. It’s just not relevant anymore to cite militia requirements as a reason to disarm people.
Ok, ok, it took a while before Arkansas and others realized the court and the feds really meant business after Brown v Board and that separate is unequal. It took a few tries before Gideon v Wainwright progressed to Miranda v Arizona. There is always inertia to overcome. And right now the inertia is on our side, as well as the moral high ground.
~~~
Update: A little serendipity, as it seems Joe Huffman lighted on this in today's post as well.
The liberals are probably thinking more in terms of the Supreme Court's Dred Scot decision, which ended up being reversed. Just as Roe v. Wade didn't mean the end of the abortion debate, and in fact faced a challenge about a dozen years ago, so the liberals hope to revisit Heller when they have a Supreme Court more to their liking.
ReplyDeleteThe future is known. It's the past that's always changing.
ReplyDeleteIn their world, at least.
The militia argument was doomed from the beginning. It involves purposely misunderstanding grammar that is easily parsed by a fifth-grader.
ReplyDeleteRelationship: milita <-- necessary to maintain a free nation <-- the people need access to arms, so they can train to become effective militia
Requirements: the state does not interfere with the right to arms
I used to get aggravated with the Second Amendment Grammaretreads, but now I enjoy pointing out to them that not only does the wording make no requirement for state-sanctioned militia service, but it also insists that the people bear arms primarily to train with them in a para-military fashion--not to shoot at paper or ducks, or whatever else is deemed more important than having the skills and the opportunity to preserve one's life.