Editor's notes: Thomas Sowell, an economist out of Stanford, in the article below, discusses the myth of gun ownership -- that a gun toting population will run loose, killing each other at will. More than that, he wonders why this is a political issue and finishes with some comments about the role of the media in all this. Understand that over at CNN, Jeffery Toobin, a legal advisor for that network, voiced shock at today's High Court decision to support private gun ownership as "Constitutional." In a nonsensical discussion on Anderson 360, this clown took the position that prior to today, it was established opinion that the Constitution did not address private gun ownership !! Can anybody say "lala land?"Remember Sotomeyer? She was Obama's first Supreme Court appointment. In today's 5-4 decision in favor of private gun ownership, Sotomeyer voted against the majority opinion. What is frustrating is the fact that during her confirmation hearings, she specifically stated that she thought the Constitution supported private gun ownership. In today's decision, she said she couldn't find that support. Midknight Review opposed Sotomeyer's appointment pointing to her progressive ways. Turns out we were right.
In the case of Elena Kagan, we have a woman with no judicial experience, having voiced her opinion that speech needs to be qualified in order to be protected (that's NOT the definition of free speech, folks). She also believes that the Court should play a vital role in a thing called "social justice." With such people, the amendment process for changing or adding to the Constitution, is supplanted by the Courts. Rather than "the people" deciding when Constitutional precedent should continue or be revised, the Courts usurp this authority and take the rule of the people, by the people and for the people away from the people.
In this we see the definition of the present conflict: Constitutional rule versus Progressivism. In that definition, it is clear that Progressives are the enemies of a Consitutional form of governance. --- jds.
Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the Second Amendment to the Constitution means that individual Americans have a right to bear arms, what can we expect?
Those who have no confidence in ordinary Americans may expect a bloodbath, as the benighted masses start shooting each other, now that they can no longer be denied guns by their betters. People who think we shouldn't be allowed to make our own medical decisions, or decisions about which schools our children attend, certainly are not likely to be happy with the idea that we can make our own decisions about how to defend ourselves.
When you stop and think about it, there is no obvious reason why issues such as gun control should be ideological issues in the first place. It is ultimately an empirical question whether allowing ordinary citizens to have firearms will increase or decrease the amount of violence.
Many people who are opposed to gun laws that place severe restrictions on ordinary citizens owning firearms have based them on the Second Amendment to the Constitution. But, while the Supreme Court must make the Second Amendment the basis of its rulings on gun control laws, there is no reason why the Second Amendment should be the last word for the voting public.
If the end of gun control leads to a bloodbath of runaway shootings, then the Second Amendment can be repealed, just as other constitutional amendments have been repealed. Laws exist for people, not people for laws.
There is no point arguing, as many people do, that it is difficult to amend the Constitution. The fact that it doesn't happen very often doesn't mean that it is difficult. The people may not want it to happen, even if the intelligentsia are itching to change it. When the people wanted it to happen, the Constitution was amended four times in eight years, from 1913 through 1920. . . . . . READ THIS TWO PAGE ARTICLE >>>
No comments:
Post a Comment