There's a variety of reasons, and I'll go into others later. Right now, I'm concentrating on people working hard to trash the Constitution because it doesn't agree with what they want to do. Specifically, on the 2nd Amendment.
(note: this is going to be a bit long for me, and I'm not as good as pieces like this as Kevin
or the Curmudgeon
for instance; but here goes)
:“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.
So this mucksucking lawyer says, in essence, that in the middle of a bunch of noted Rights of Free Men, the founders of this country threw in a amendment to protect the MILITARY having arms, and says he and the other Superior Beings can ban ALL firearms if they choose.
From the Geek
:Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"
Think about that. Despite there being clear instructions in the Constitution itself about how this highest law of the land can be changed, here's some God-cursed judges and other lawyers asking 'can we erase any part of the Constitution?'
if they decide it's unneeded
? Unless you're a lawyer or judge with delusions of grandeur the answer is obviously NO! But if you're not one of those things, what do you
It's been said before, the Judicial branch of the government needs a big, swift, serious kick in the ass. Too many judges for too long have decided that THEY are the arbiters of everything, that no other branch of the government can tell them "No", and that whatever they say, goes. And they've been getting away with it- at least partly- because A: a bunch of other judges like having that level of power and help them along and B: too many cowardly/statist/fill-in-the-blank politicians find them useful to push what they want, bypassing the Constitution that they swore to protect and defend.
And every member of the perpetually offended out there loves it: because if they can't get people to vote the way they want, they can get some idiot judge somewhere
to order what they want. Screw the people, screw the law, the JUDGE has spoken and that's all that counts.
And it's a big part of what's pulling this country apart. This current bullshit is just one aspect, but it's a big one. Kim said:
"It does not matter what the Supreme Court decides.
Our Bill of Rights enumerate our Constitutional freedoms as individuals, and that’s the beginning, and end of it.
So let the blackbirds chirp all they may, and whatever they decide, it’s irrelevant. We know what the Second means, and the legal opinions of some appointed civil servants don’t matter.
Cold. Dead. Hands."
I agree. The Constitution does not mean what a bunch of black robes say, it means what those words on parchment say. Problem is all those Superior Beings who think it should mean what they say it does, therefore they can say what they want and- ta daa!- that's it. Which has already meant various levels of trouble, and in this could mean Big Trouble. Because- not only in this case- if the people decide that the Constitution no longer means anything except what some judge says, and it(finally) becomes obvious enough that too many politicians like it that way, it basically means that there no longer is a United States, there's just a rule by government fiat in all ways. We're too damn close to that for comfort now; if we step over the edge, I flat hate to think about it.
Over at Uncle's he's got this post, with various comments. You can go to most any gunboard and find similar threads, all boiling down to "What happens if some court says 'you can't own guns, turn them in' and various LE types start knocking on doors saying 'We're here to take them'?" (Note that Uncle asks "The right to self defense is considered in almost all societies as sacrosanct. How could any court rule in a way that would put citizens at the mercy of criminals that have no regard for the rule of law?" The answer, unfortunately, is 'with great ease of mind'. Just like courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect you, just to protect 'society', and at the same time will rule to hang you for using what amounts to 'unapproved means' to protect yourself.)
Two things to note here. One is the fact that most gun owners are not only honest citizens, they don't want to hurt anybody. Many having been in the military and/or LE themselves, they do not want to find themselves looking over sights at one of those uniforms. But they remember that oath, to protect and defend the Constitution, that they took; and that the people who'd be knocking on their door took but seem unwilling to uphold("The chief/commissioner/mayor/governor gave me an order, I HAVE to obey it"); and some of them will fight. All the others, they've had a lifetime of respect for the law and those who enforce it, and that would be hard to break through. But for at least some, they'd be a law-abiding citazen who's now been told by government "You can't be trusted with/don't need/shouldn't have guns, and we're taking them" and now finds the minions of government, armed and prepared to arrest or kill, beating on their door. And some will say to themselves "I cannot tolerate this", and it will get very, very nasty from there.
Second thing you will have in this mess is the LE community(which it has unfortunately become) and the military types who will
become involved if this happens. Part of the 'go to hell' process is the attitude of too many LE personnel, "I've got my orders and that's that. I have to carry them out whether I like them or not, and if that means shooting or jailing you so I can go home tonight, then that's what I'll do." It's been pointed out that some- maybe many- LE and military will refuse to carry out such an order, and some will. The rest, even those who don't like it, will do it. And the moment there's resistance, the 'us vs. them' kicks in, the "We can't let anyone defy this, let alone fight it, because that is Defiance Of Authority which we cannot tolerate: it causes problems and reduces our authority if we do. So we will stomp all over you".
And that means that after the first report of someone fighting, it'll go from 'we intended this to be an orderly process with consideration for peoples' rights' to 'just kick in the door and go!'. Which will get bad almost beyond belief. You think we have a problem with wrong-door raids and people being wrongly shot now? Think what'll happen then. And if wives/kids/neighbors get in the way or have 'something resembling a weapon in their hand' or are just in the wrong place when bullets start flying, well, it will obviously
be the fault of the gun nuts. Which will be used as 'proof that private citazens should never have been allowed to own these dangerous weapons', etc. After 9/11 every government agency out there dragged out their wish list of 'things we need enacted/powers we need for security'; think it'll be any different if/when this starts?
And the alternative possibly sucks even more. It means the whole population saying "Well, we can't fight the government" and meekly handing their arms over. Which will be followed at some point with handing pretty much everything else over because those who want this will not be satisfied with taking our guns
. They will, sooner or later, want pretty much total control over all parts of our lives.
You want to know what we'd become? Look at England. Taxed to death, told how you're allowed to speak and write and think, few firearms allowed to the peasants and their government wants to ban them all, you use 'too much force' or a weapon in self-defense, even against an attacker in your own damned home
, and you stand at least as much chance of going to prison as your attacker. And on and on, including the government planning to supvervise your life down to and including how you read fairy tales(the approved ones, of course) to your kids.
One of the nasty things I've been contemplating on in this is that if I'm not already, I will be on a list of 'these are the people we need to get first'. No, I do not think I'm so prominent, so publicly known and popular that I'm a particular threat. It's simply that(I think Kevin's the first one I heard say it) what I do here, and things connected with it, will put me there. We buy guns, we write about them, we post on gunboards, we bitch at the gummint and LE when we think they do something badly or just flat wrong and we encourage others to do the same. Which means that if we're not already on some alphabet-agency list, if this crap in DC goes through and various agencies and politicians start rubbing their hands together in glee, we will
be. I'd imagine I'd be way down on the list compared to a lot of other people, but I'd be there(in generally good company I'd say). Which is a sobering thought.
Generally speaking, I cannot imagine it actually going through. Among other things we have the this from Ohio
, and this
from Washington, both of which give hope. So we wait and see, and hope the SCOTUS hasn't completely lost its collective mind.
And I keep worrying for my country.