The Second Amendment, Heller, and “Gun Control Extremism,” if there is such a thing

Last updated on: March 17, 2016 at 8:25 am by Jane the Actuary

The Second Amendment, Heller, and “Gun Control Extremism,” if there is such a thing 2016-03-17T08:25:49-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The Second Amendment is, apparently, up for grabs again. Or, at any rate, in 2007, after the D.C. circuit court had struck down the tight D.C. gun restrictions, Supreme Court justice nominee Merrick Garland voted for rehearing the decision; he was not with the majority, and the decision was upheld both there, and at the Supreme Court, becoming the Heller decision holding that the Second Amendment does indeed provide for an individual right to bear arms. The folks at the National Review use this decision, and a second case involving the federal government illegally retaining records on background checks, as evidence that he’s anti-gun (and, by implication, likely to overturn Heller; Media Matters dissects this article and claims that these assertions are bogus; I don’t have the background knowledge or research time to assess either side’s claims.

As regards the Second Amendment itself, I simply cannot find my way to finding plausible any interpretation that negates the individual right to bear arms.

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.

Yes, I’ve read that people argue that the initial clause about militias means that this amendment has only to do with the right of states to arm themselves with a state militia. But the amendment does not say, “the federal government shall not interfere with state militias” nor does it say, “to the extent that a state shall determine it necessary to further the preparedness of their militia, . . .” or in any way suggest that the initial dependent clause is a limiting factor for the second independent clause. (Wikipedia provides what appears to be a pretty good summary of the commentary at the time and subsequently.)

Imagine that the text of the First Amendment had read: “Free choice in religion being an aid to the proper moral instruction of the People and providing for the relief of the Poor, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Would there be grounds for saying that freedom of religion only applies to religions which provide charitable services and moral teachings?

But having said that, I understand why many people would like to wish this amendment away. Mind you, I’d wish they’d simply be honest and propose a repeal of this amendment, rather than say things such as “the founders could not have envisioned the powerful weapons we have today, so let’s compromise and say that all 18th century weapons are permitted.” But it is true that the Second Amendment is something unique to America. Here, for instance, is an article in The Guardian describing gun restrictions in Germany, the UK, and elsewhere. I’m not sure of the accuracy of all of its details (certainly there’s an error when the article claims our gun homicide rate is 3.34 per thousand), but it’s clear that many countries which see themselves as free and democratic do not have a right to bear arms in their constitutions/foundational laws, nor do they believe there is any human right to armed self-defense.

And it’s thus no surprise that many liberals, who look abroad and wish for systems of parental leave, or state-provided health care, or the like, as exist in Europe, would likewise wish for their various systems of gun restrictions. And it should likewise be no shock when President Obama, or any other Democrat, says that “if Australia can act to prevent gun crimes, we can, too.”

Now, if you look at Hillary Clinton’s platform, she speaks of background checks and the like. She does not want to say, “I want to appoint a justice who will overturn Heller, and then implement a system of restrictions similar to what other countries have done, in which only limited types of guns are available, and only to active hunters.” She can’t say that, of course. But I bet that’s what she thinks, and I’ll be that, in private, she speaks admiringly of gun restrictions abroad.

But you know what?

I’m pro-life. I’d be pleased to see abortion criminalized, and think that, but for the Supreme Court decisions standing in the way, we’d have come to a consensus long ago, permitting only early abortions and rare exceptions otherwise. NARAL and NOW and the like, like to label those of us who think this, “extremists,” and we, of course, reject that label.

And in the same fashion, it’s similarly wrong to call gun-banners “extremists,” when they simply hold a viewpoint which is out of the norm here, but perfectly ordinary in other democratic nations which share our cultural heritage.

Uncategorized

guns

Second Amendment

Previous Post

March 16, 2016

Is John Kasich delusional - or an a**?

Next Post

March 18, 2016 Coming to a store near you? - "Diaper Stamps"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What principle does "love covers a multitude of sins" teach?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Pride is good Forgiveness and mercy Revenge is best Jealousy wins