Activist Judges Piss Me Off
Quite the stir in the Blogosphere regarding the general fucking stupidity of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Instapundit, Clayton Cramer, SKB, and several others have taken up the cause of pointing out what’s wrong with this ruling. And they’ve done a far better job pointing out inconsistencies than I could do. Check out Instapundit and Clayton Cramer for some legalese type of stuff. I get the feeling that the ruling will be struck down by the Supreme Court, as usually happens with the 9th Circuit (per our long lost comrade in arms half-bakered).
The fact of the matter is this: From a constitutional perspective, the American people (individuals) have a right to keep and bear arms. Period. However, some folks (you know, the type that think you’re too stupid to be responsible for yourself and ban things like lawn darts and pop rocks) want to believe that the second amendment does not guarantee such a right, because you are too stupid to possess a firearm and we gotta do it for the children. So, they make stuff up. For example, they think the phrase ‘well regulated militia’ must mean the National Guard and other made up stuff. This is regardless of the fact that the law also tells us who the militia is. It’s me, it’s you, and it’s that guy down the street.
So, let’s run down the basic anti-gun arguments and rebut them:
1) Our forefathers didn’t know we’d have machine guns! Bullshit. They knew technology would advance to an extent. And, if at the time, machine guns were available, I’m sure our founding fathers would have used them instead of muskets.
2) We don’t really know what they meant by the second amendment due to its wording. Bullshit. We know exactly what the meant. They wrote volumes about it. Read the Federalist Papers and the personal journals of our founding fathers.
3) You don’t need assault weapons! Why not? They’re functionally the same as sporting weapons. They just look mean. For example, this weapon:
Affected by the California law is illegal.
This one:
isn’t. They’re both functionally the same. They both are semi-automatic. Each fires .223 caliber rounds. Each has magazines that hold 3 to 30 rounds and each can be fitted with folding stocks, suppressors, slings, and bayonets. But one looks meaner than the other. Because one looks meaner, it’s banned. These laws are a waste of time for preventing crime. High capacity is also about convenience. I go to the range with my 15 round magazines so that I don’t have to reload as often.
4) You don’t need that to hunt. It’s not about hunting, sparky. It’s about the people and their right to arm themselves in defense against tyranny.
5) But the most recent Supreme Court Decision took the militia stance!
Not really. It said that a sawn-off shotgun did not resemble a militia weapon and therefore wasn’t protected by the second amendment. It didn’t say who the militia was.
6) But even by purchasing those weapons, you couldn’t stand up to the government if it became corrupt! You’re right. I probably couldn’t win. But with those weapons, I could do more than if I had a rock, stick, or some sort of garden implement. To paraphrase Washington, ‘we can’t expect victory, but we can deserve it.’
7) Guns cause crime.No, they don’t. There are several studies that say guns cause crime and just as many that say the prevalence of guns reduces crime. The facts are that people commit crimes and will do so with or without guns. The periodic shooting of someone is a small price to pay for freedom. It just sucks if you’re that guy that gets shot.
