Saturday, June 28, 2008


My son thinks that perhaps, instead of seeking a career as a psychologist, he would like to become a munitions manufacturer or designer. He's always been fascinated with weapons. And, with the latest SCOTUS decision, there's bound to be an increased demand for same.

Yes, I refer to the now old news that SCOTUS reads the Second Amendment without the benefit of a proper background in grammar, as it does not pay much attention to punctuation, apparently.
Justice Scalia, writing for 5-4 majority that struck down a gun control law, opined that the Second Amendment gives individuals a right to own guns apart from militia use.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Apparently the majority of SCOTUS does not believe that the commas in the previous sentence have any meaning for us.

I find this reading so very odd, coming from conservatives as it does. We Liberals are so often accused of reading more into the word of law than is apparent at first blush. Yet this seems more of the same. The framework of the argument at that time had nothing to do with the right of individuals to keep guns in their homes to protect themselves from criminals. Our Founders were concerned with the right of The People to protect themselves from governmental tyranny with a well-armed militia of, yes, The People.

In the alternative, I'm happy to join in with the Trib editorial board (boy, that sentence doesn't come out of my mouth terribly often) in calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment. The board acknowledged in the very next sentence that such an action was highly unlikely and bemoaned the loss of the conversation about whether or not guns should be banned, saying that such a decision should not be taken from the people.

So The People and the people are free to own guns to protect themselves. But no one is free to legislate further protection by eliminating guns altogether. It's a flip-flop topic, I guess. Those who usually argue for broader individual rights are left longing for legislation to take away those rights. And those who usually argue for legislation over court fiat are darn happy with the fiat.


Hoped to write about several other items of note. But there is a party on my block this evening. Live band, covering Bob Seger's "Old Time Rock and Roll" among many others. Ha. I identified a song from the 70s--and you thought I was out of touch with the culture of my times. The band sounds decent. The vocalists, not so much. I can't concentrate when people sing out of tune!

Off to watch "John Adams" and avoid loud neighboring sounds.



Post a Comment

<< Home