I even started writing a comment, got up, walked away, and got pulled back because there was just too much idiocy in this post to let stand without objecting.
First, you have a really facile interpretation of the Constitution if you think the plural term "the people" is always going to convey an individual right, or that liberals shouldn't vociferously defend collective rights. Not only is it facile, but it's illogical. Look at the example you picked: the right of assembly. When one person assembles,there is no assembly, there's just one person exercising his or her right to express a view, which is freedom of speech. For the right of assembly to be an individual right means that you've compressed it into the right of speech--in other words, you've actually taken away one distinct, collective right and folded it into another one. That turns the right of assembly into a dead-letter, and that's simply foolish.
Second, restrictive gun laws aren't inherently anti-Second Amendment. The 2nd is a narrow right, protecting very limited ranges of conduct, and not everything that touches on gun ownership, possession, sales, or transportation is a constitutional issue. The RKBA folks were nice enough to let me borrow their platform a few months ago to elaborate this point--feel free to read it.
Third, and this is the most important in my book, THERE IS NO RIGHT OF REVOLUTIONin the Constitution (unless you read it into the guarantee of the Ninth Amendment). There's a grant to Congress of the unchecked authority to punish treason, which pretty well flies in the face of the idea that the document enshrines our right to commit it. The 2nd may facilitate treason (I'm sure it made life easier for many in the Confederacy, for example), but to say that it's a right is asinine. And from a logical perspective, have you considered that at the point when a group is waging war on the United States it is no longer bound by the Constitution? If we wanted to raise an army to challenge the US military (which is fucking suicidal--the Iraqi insurgency fought a small proportion of our troops away from our homeland, which bears about as much resemblance to a home-grown revolution as a large turd does to the Sistine Chapel), why the bloody hell would we give two shits about the 2nd Amendment, if we're in a position where we don't recognize the authority of the state?
Your premises don't hold, your argument requires a type of constitutional textualism that's anathema to actual liberal goals, and your entire argument ignores the real harm that befalls our society because of unchecked weapons proliferation.
[And because this is somehow obligatory for me to note: I'm willing to bet that I'm one of the very few people on this goddamn thread who spent any part of today firing a weapon at a shooting range. For those in or near western Maryland, the Savage River State Forest's outdoor range is quite nice, though it does tend to get crowded on holidays.]
I cannot add a thing to either of these substantive critiques of her contentions. I only note that when one is pontificating about the Constitution, and especially when one fancies herself an excellent writer, one ought to know how to spell habeas corpus. She repeatedly misspells it. The correct spelling is contained in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the Constitution. Perhaps she should read it more carefully. Or go to law school. And if she had a persuasive argument in the first place, it also might help her credibility if she referred to more than one Attorney General as Attorneys General. I had to stop reading after that. The National Enquirer has better editing skills than she does.
ReplyDelete