The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

My family are not outdoors people - we didn't hunt or camp. My father had a rifle and a couple handguns in the den which I saw him shoot at targets a few times. I've shot a gun once or maybe twice at a target myself. Generally, though, I'm not around guns or people who own guns. After my father died I didn't know what to do with his last remaining handgun. The gun was in a hard gun case stored in closets over the years. I kept the bullets somewhere else. Eventually, I left it with CW when I moved out of his house. That's my gun history.

At this point in my life I don't think most people should own guns. Its too great a tragedy when they're discharged accidentally or without experience. Its not worth the potential loss of life. For those who do have experience with guns, the potential for people to use the gun in anger or frustsration and cause loss of life is also not worth it.

I'm not a legal or historical scholar so I'm just laying out what seems logical to me based on what I understand today.

Even though I don't think guns are good for 90% of the people, I do recognize, however, the 2nd amendment as a right for people to own guns. I think the framers of the constitution recognized that in order for a people to overthrow their government (like they did), they'd need arms. How would we have overcome the British without weapons? I think that's what their point was. And when they talked about a militia, I think they were using the term differently than we do now. Today, a state's National Guard is a militia. But, in those days, the 'militia' were local, neighborhood, or regional citizens who were willing to throw down the shovel and take up arms against enemies of democracy. They are not people associated with the government, because in that case how could they overthrow the government? What if our country is occupied? The army makes a difference, obviously, but we also need an armed resistance - like an insurgency (which of course, could lead to a discussion of Iraq and why we should stop acting like an insurgency is unreasonable given the circumstances - but I'll leave that to another time).

One of the problems with civil liberties is that we have to expect (believe) our fellow citizens will rise to the challenge of responsible use of the rights. We wouldn't need gun control laws if we could trust that people would make sure guns were never discharged accidentally or with anger and malice.

That's the case with all our civil rights - if people would live up to the challenges rather than find ways to take advantage and avoid responsibility, we wouldn't have to make laws to protect us from the lowest common denominators in our society.

In any event, I believe we have to trust (teach if necessary) our citizens to behave responsibly. So, even though I don't like guns and I wish people wouldn't want them, its a right given to Americans in our constitution.

(Gun ownership is not a spiritual right - that's a whole different subject, and one that's probably more important, eternally speaking)

The problem I have with the Supreme Court opinion on the 2nd amendment is not the outcome, its the hypocrisy of Scalia and Thomas (in particular) and conservative right wing people who talk about Judicial Activism. I've always felt what one person calls judicial activism is what other people call interpretation. And for the right-wingers and the Scalia/Thomas crew to imply that only their opinions are correct interpretations and everything else is judicial activism is hypocrisy and a double standard that even they can't fail to notice.

See E.J. Dionne Jr's 06/27/2008 column. The last paragraph...
"I hope Helmke is right. But I also hope this decision open's people's eyes to the fact that judicial activism is now a habit of the right, not the left, and that 'originalism' is too often a sophisticated cover for ideological decision-making by conservative judges."

I agree.

On a related but tangential note: The Supreme Court also ruled this week that execution for child rapists is not an appropriate punishment - the punishment does not fit the crime.
I envision a situation in which the people who purchase guns to protect them in their own homes will kill a burglar. In that case, the 'punishment' doesn't fit the crime either. Will they be charged with murder? (Are they now?)

Final note: My pro gun control and anti NRA stands are a reaction to the extreme nature of their views. I think they want to have the right to kill animals and carry guns like the old west. I don't find that a spiritually enhancing lifestyle choice (fear and killing). I don't want their energy to degrade my living environment with their extreme negativity.