The other day Kevin linked to a place, mentioning that the view of the gentleman from Belgium probably caused GEErnst to wet his pants. So, having a minute, I clicked over and looked.
If you want a fair working definition of PSH, that place is it. I especially liked the absolute horror of the idea of anyone other than the government having arms, illustrated by ...The rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence, and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing. It’s kind of amazing, really, the flat terror and rage he seems to feel for the very idea of anyone telling the gummint to piss off. How anyone can read the founding documents of this country and get that, I do not know(of course, he may not consider the Declaration something people should really be aware of). The Consitution largely consists of “This the government should do; this the government may do; anything else, the government should NOT do”. What makes me think he either has not read both the founding documents, or dismisses one completely is this quote:
Any hint of protection for a fundamental or procedural right to be privately armed outside of a military or militia context would validate not just a malignant, anarchic vision of social and political life but also an insurrectionist doctrine. The Constitution becomes perverted. It defines treason as the waging of war against the United States and then secures a civil right to commit the same. Several amici refer to the insurrectionist doctrine but do not emphasize the centrality of this in gun right ideologies, how widely it is adhered to, and its constitutional impermissibility. The right of armed self-defense includes the right of armed self-defense against the government itself, the same government the gun rights claimants want to secure the right.
Contrast that with
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The people who argued out and wrote and signed this took this idea very, very seriously. They were fully aware that just by attending the meetings they were committing acts that the Crown would happily have them arrested and imprisoned- quite possibly executed- for; by signing their names to this document, their lives were forfeit to the Crown if captured. ‘Forfeit’ as in ‘hanged until dead’ or ‘stood against a wall and shot’ if lucky: hanged, drawn and quartered if not.
And it’s been pointed out before: they were declaring rebellion which would have them facing the most powerful, best-trained, best-equipped military force in the world. When the Colonies had been deliberately kept as weak in some ways as possible. England considered that the Colonies should be forced to buy virtually all manufactured goods from Britain, including iron, powder, shot and firearms. Which means not much in the way of materiel to fight with. But they signed anyway. You can’t say they were not aware of what was coming, many of them had fought before, knew the noise and horror of battle.
And signed anyway.
And yet, according to blank, it’s unthinkable that they would write a document noting the importance of the people A: having arms and B: being, in extremis, able and willing to use them against the government.
‘Fraid not, guy.
This one line, to me, shows how he just doesn't(or won't) get it:
The right of armed self-defense includes the right of armed self-defense against the government itself, the same government the gun rights claimants want to secure the right.
That's exactly right, but he's horrified by the idea. The Declaration specifically notes 'it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government', and the Constitution specifically notes the right to arms(which all nine justices agreed is an individual right); and yet he thinks that both are to be dismissed.
Enough to make you need a drink.