The problem with even the legal experts who support the Second Amendment is that they are generally part of the statist system that worships at the altar of stare decisis, rather than at the altar of first principles. Only a lawyer could twist “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” into “the right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed,” based on a gramattically irrelevant modifier dangling from the first part of the statement like some malign legal dingleberry.
And then support these unconstitutional infringements for centuries, based on the fact that they’ve existed for a certain amount of time.
Finally, at the nub of it all, is the nature of the Constitution itself. It is a plan of government written by revolutionaries who feared and in some cases hated government itself. It is designed to limit the power of government over us as much as possible. Therefore, government regards it as an enemy document, to be circumvented or ignored as much as possible whenever it seeks to interfere with the powers of the state. Frankly, I assume that any politician or other government official who swears an oath to uphold and defend the consistution is, ipso facto, a liar. The primal urge of the state is to grow larger and more powerful. The prime directive of the U.S. Constitution is to not permit that to happen. How could not the two forces be enemies to each other?
Lawyers are, at heart, statists. Hence, even those who claim to support the Constitution have a visceral level of fear of it, because it threatens the framework of the state in which they must work to survive.
It is from this fear that we the sort of legal reasoning that seeks to twist the plain language of the Second Amendment, which implicitly demands that the people be armed sufficiently to be a threat to the existence of a tyrannical state itself, into something less threatening and less powerful. In other words, they want to have their statist chains, but wear them lightly.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment