Kim has some thoughts on a Constitutional
challenge to Washington DC's gun ban.
For one thing, Kim says he's "not worried". I doubt I could go toe-to-toe with Kim in a debate, but I think he's naive. Let's not ignore the fact that 1. The U.S. is the last "civilized" nation in the Western Hemisphere which recognizes an individual's right to own - and bear - arms, and 2. We just elected a Democrat congress and 3. Just wait 'till '08. Britain and Oz aren't nations of fools (though they act like it sometimes.) Their gun rights were taken away from their citizens quietly, and by legislative increments, with cries of "stop the gun crime" and "think of
the children." To think it can't happen here is folly.
But I digress...
Here are some key points from the article:
“We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms,” said Todd Kim, the District’s solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.
“Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do,” Judge Laurence Silberman said. “It doesn’t appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century.”
These quotes are good examples of how the 2nd Amendment debate has long been missing the point.
First off, Todd Kim doesn't seem to understand what the Bill of Rights exists for in the first place. His statement suggests that arms in "military terms" = the military of the government.
Wrong, Mr. Kim, but thanks for playing.
The Constitution as a whole lays out the format for the American government. In essence, it says what the
government can do. The Bill of Rights was added to delineate specific rights to
THE PEOPLE - e.g.
NOT THE GOVERNMENT. The Bill of Rights says what
the government can't do.
It's the whole "balance of power" thing ... get it? The founding fathers wanted to make sure that the people had the guns -- not the government. That way the government couldn't make war on the people, and couldn't make war without the de-facto consent and particiaption of the people.
Anyone want to debate the Iraq war with that in mind? See what happens when the government - rather than the people - is the entity keeping and bearing the arms? Did the Left not get the memo?
That's where Judge Silberman also misses the point. What difference does it make how the 2nd Amendment was "interpreted" in the 19th century? Should we also look to the 19th century for interpretations of the roles of women and blacks in society? You idiot.
The Constitution - and the Bill of Rights - aren't up for "interpretation". The "people" mentioned then are the same "people" who exist now. The importance of the rights of those people haven't changed, either. The Second Amendment still means what it has always meant. There's no timeline that applies.
I'm tired of feeling weird about my last point, so I'll throw it in the mix. The time of the militia may very well have passed when the Revolutionary War ended.... but I'd say it has rolled around again. No doubt that a modern militia can't win America's modern wars, but that doesn't mean there's no role for it anymore. Quite to the contrary.
Look at the state we're in right now: our military is overextended. The concept of "homeland security" is a dubious one as it exists now. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is the most recent example of the relevance of militias in modern-day America. Whether it's the "unorganized militia" (yes, it's in the Constitution -- look it up) of individuals who drove to New Orleans with their fishing boats and plucked people off their roofs on their own, or the more organized militia (i.e.
Blackwater) who kept order while the N.O.P.D. either ran away or joined in the looting (what?!? the mercenaries are the
good guys?!?!?), the role of the militia in America still stands. And it's more important now than ever before.
Need I remind you of how it's phrased in the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."People like Judge Silberman would like to think that modern-day gun owners are trying to ignore that part of the Amendment. We aren't, and we should be more loud about it. The concept of the security of the state isn't relegated solely to well-coordinated wars, outside our country's border and waged by our professional military. Our state's security in the 21st Century hinges on fighting looters after a hurricane. It hinges on protecting stores during riots in L.A. when the cops are nowhere to be found. It's about checking up on your neighbors in Kansas City when the power has been out for a week in the dead of winter. THAT's the militia.
And who makes up the militia, Judge? THE PEOPLE, you moron. The ones who SHOULD have the guns.
I've had enough of this myopic view of what constitutes the "necessity" of arms in the context of "security". Fools. The security of our free state is at stake every day, on every street in America. You rob America's citizens of an active role in keeping their State secure at your own peril. To do so will make us the same castrated, whining, limp-wristed, snivelling, powerless vassals which inhabit Europe today. God forbid.
There is no "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The need for our state's security hasn't changed, "the people" mentioned therein haven't changed, and they still make up the militia, which is still needed to keep America free.
End of discussion.
