For years, those who would trample Americans' Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms attempted to justify their position by claiming that this right is not codified in the Constitution after all. The "right of the people," they argued, isn't really "of the people" (the Brady Campaign actually tried to edit the "of the people" part out of the Constitution, and then tried to suppress word of their attempted deception), but is instead a "right" of the . . . National Guard. And "shall not be infringed" doesn't really mean that the government cannot infringe on the right at will.
With the Supreme Court's rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago having made the individual's right to keep and bear arms a settled point of Constitutional law, however, that position has become more and more untenable (except, evidently, for the U.S. Senate), and as this column recently observed, forcing the citizen disarmament advocates to call for the outright revocation of the Second Amendment. Some go further even than that, and disparage the entire Constitution as being "too old."
And that brings us to professor of Constitutional law Rosa Brooks, writing for the News Tribune, to tell us, "Blood on the Constitution: Concern about American lives starts with gun control," and she begins with some rather odd "logic":
For a start, we have too many guns sloshing around. . . . Reading the news, you might imagine that Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or some other conflict-ravaged nation would be leading the most guns-per-capita race, but nope: That’s us. We’re No. 1.
In other words, she starts off by neatly proving that the presence of more guns does not equal more violence--but does not appear to know it.
Having accomplished that, she gets down to the serious business of bashing the Constitution (about which she is paid to teach the next generation of gun-haters/liberty-haters/America-haters):
And why do we have lousy gun-control laws? Because of the Second Amendment, which gives Americans a constitutional right to lousy gun-control laws. That’s why we fought a war against the British: We wanted to the right to kill each other, instead of being killed by foreign enemies.
For an "expert" on the Constitution, she seems rather confused, if she believes that the Second Amendment (or any other part of the Bill of Rights) "gives" any right. The Supreme Court has known better than that since at least 1876, with the United States v. Cruikshank case, and reaffirmed in the D.C. v. Heller decision in 2008:
We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”
But she's far from finished:
Why, oh why are so many Americans killed by guns ["progressive"-speak for "killed with guns"]? In the end, I blame the U.S. Constitution and our weird quasi-religious worship of that antiquated text.
And she just goes downhill from there. She sounds, as National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea points out, very much like another "Constitutional scholar," this one living in the White House, who once said that the Constitution "is an imperfect document," reflecting "deep flaws in American culture."
British subject Henry Porter, whose Guardian bio hilariously describes him as "specialising in liberty and civil rights," and who evidently favors sending U.N. forces into the United States to disarm the citizenry (good luck with that), actually boasts about the British people voluntarily surrendering rights, as he explains in the Guardian (emphasis added):
Half the country is sane and rational while the other half simply doesn't grasp the inconsistencies and historic lunacy of its position, which springs from the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, and is derived from English common law and our 1689 Bill of Rights. We dispensed with these rights long ago, but American gun owners cleave to them with the tenacity that previous generations fought to continue slavery.
Yep--not only is he proud that his nation "dispensed with" the right to possess the means of defending one's life and liberty, but he compares those who defend that right to those who were unwilling to cease in the evil of enslaving human beings.
Rabidly anti-gun immigrant Sanjay Sanghoee blames "gun violence" on the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms, and in turn, on people who refuse "to get off their literal following of the constitution [sic] for every single thing." He apparently prefers a "figurative" adherence to the supreme law of the land.
Long ago, this correspondent wrote about another Guardian writer who is actually disdainful of having any rights guaranteed in a written constitution:
For anyone who doesn't know, America is governed by a written constitution. A series of amendments cast in stone - like the Commandments handed to Moses.
The UK is governed by an unwritten constitution. The UK's laws are not easily changed, but if a law becomes archaic, out-dated or unworkable, it can be changed. You've got more chance of hell freezing over than you have of changing the US constitution.
Do you suppose he hasn't noticed that the Constitution has been changed 27 times? More fundamentally, he seems quite comfortable with allowing the government to tell him what his rights are, and with those rights being subject to revocation at the government's whim.
An enemy of the right to keep and bear arms is an enemy of the Constitution of the United States, and is therefore an enemy of the United States itself, and of the American people. Kinda sounds like a dangerous choice, doesn't it?
And one more bit of bad news for them--repeal the Second Amendment, or even throw out the entire Constitution--and we'll still kill any who attempt to disarm us.
- Freedom is obsolete
- Written, Constitutional guarantee of rights is a bad idea, according to British subject
- Bill Maher asks what Constitutional rights we should lose--2nd Amendment chosen
- New York Times hosts call to 'get rid of the right to bear arms'
- Anti-gun immigrant chides Americans for 'literal following of the Constitution'
- U.S. has been 'mostly non-tyrannical'; Second Amendment obsolete?
- Gun prohibitionists' attempts to rewrite 2nd Amendment are a good thing
- Michael Moore wants dead children exploited to 'revise or repeal' 2nd Amendment
- U.K. columnist asks if world should intervene to stop U.S. ‘gun violence’
- "U.K. columnist asks if world should intervene to stop U.S. ‘gun violence.’" Please do. Then we can get this settled once and for all. Just be sure to send enough body bags.
- The UN in The US? Oh Please Oh Please Oh Please
- A Professor of Constitutional Law