The post-Newtown debate on the right.
Brett Joshpe is wrong that the 2nd Amendment
guarantees an individual right only to have a weapon in one’s home and only “for
limited purposes including self-defense.”
Williamson is right about the sorts of weapons covered and
the political and military purposes envisioned in the amendment, itself,
although he overstates the domestic side of the thing.
With amusement I note that, writing in a magazine devoted to
neocon propaganda, this fan of the 2nd quotes Story with approval on
these matters though Story’s argument relies heavily on the notion that standing
armies cannot be trusted by a free people and are wholly unacceptable.
Too, he ignores the prompt refutation of Story’s and his own
viewpoint, and indeed the very purpose of the 2nd, by the outcome of
the Whiskey Rebellion (utter defeat for armed civilians resisting “government
tyranny”) and the whole course of the War of 1812 (the Brits spent the war
spreading havoc in the US that our forces, militia and regulars combined, could
not prevent).
As does the entire tribe of conservative blowhards bragging inanely
that they and their little crackpot militias are all that stands between us and
those would be tyrants, the commie liberals in Washington.
The likelihood of armed rebellion even making the least
sense in the US is vanishingly small, and the likelihood it would in such a
case do the least good is null.
The 2nd was a stupid mistake from the beginning
and has been nothing but a source of trouble for a very long time.
Indeed, all the more so since the Supremes got a bit more honest
about its meaning (individual right, but not to much) while remaining dishonest
enough to apply it to the states and their subordinate jurisdictions
(incorporation).
Still, Williamson was right about this.
“Brett may think that such a notion [as the political and
military purpose of the amendment] is an antiquated relic of the 18th century,
but then he should be arguing for wholesale repeal of the Second Amendment
rather than presenting — what’s the word? — disingenuous arguments about what
it means and the purpose behind it.”
On the other hand, why bother when Scalia has already effectively
denied its political and military purposes, anyway?
Now if we could just get the courts to back away from
incorporation of the 2nd into the due process guarantee of the 14th,
things would be a lot better.
Not great.
But a lot better.
Joshpe relies on Scalia to vindicate a much-diminished view
of the right created by the 2nd.
He is mistaken, as was Scalia, I think.
No comments:
Post a Comment