The more news coverage of the Supreme Court’s “historic” decision upholding the Second Amendment I saw the more depressed I became. Though I’m grateful for the way the decision fell, I could not help being appalled by the fact that only 5 out of 9 justices now believe that the Constitution is constitutional. In short, the United States is only one liberal Supreme Court justice away from being judicially transformed into France.
Instead of simply upholding the Second Amendment, the decision in D.C. v. Heller confirmed my suspicions that the American people are ignorant of their own history and heritage, and as a result are prey for a court that is occupied by justices who are not ashamed to be Leftist ideologues or to arrogate to themselves the legislative process.
The Associated Press headline read: “Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns.”
Such a headline would be laughable were it not made feasible by the fact that the American people as a whole are ignorant of natural law, the writings of our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution itself. Educators at every level have sought to keep students from being exposed to any mention of America’s gun heritage. As a result, one rarely can come across a college student who has really read the Second Amendment, or Benjamin Franklin’s check on unlimited democracy: “Democracy is two wolves and lamb voting on what to eat for lunch, liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote,” or George Washington’s simple assertion that “A free people ought to be armed.” Such isolation from America’s history and heritage makes it possible for Leftist news outlets to run headlines which state the obvious yet sound groundbreaking to so many.
Dissenting from the decision which revalidated the individual citizens’ right to keep and bear arms (a position anyone who has read our Constitution must admit or lie to deny), Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the justices who voted for the individual right interpretation “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
Stevens words are 180 degrees out of synch with our Founders who, ironically, added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution as a means of limiting the tools available to elected officials to regulate inalienable rights.
Was not George Washington a Founding Father? Do his words on gun ownership not count? Thomas Jefferson was Founding Father, and he wrote, “No Free man shall ever be disbarred the use of arms.” Has Justice Stevens missed the words “no” and “ever” in the phrase “No free man shall ever be disbarred the use of arms?”
Moreover, Jefferson also asserted that the people ought to have guns in order to limit the power of our elected officials should those officials seek to usurp our rights. He did so with these words: “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance.”
William Blackstone, the Oxford Law Professor whom Thomas Jefferson quoted more than twice as many times as he quoted others in defense of his positions in the Declaration of Independence, argued that “natural rights” of the sort protected in the Bill of Rights should to be referred to as “absolute rights.” He wrote this because he, like our Founders, recognized that natural rights were given us by God, our Creator, and as such, were completely and utterly unassailable by manmade governments; this would include manmade court systems as well. In fact, Blackstone defended his use of the word “absolute” to describe such rights by explaining that the giver of the rights, God, is absolute and unchanging, therefore the rights allotted to man by Him are absolute and unchanging as well. These are things that every freshman in an American History survey course should be taught, and would be taught, were not the Left positioning each generation to be slightly more ignorant than the generation that preceded it.
The danger posed to the whole of our freedom is magnified when one also considers the dissenting words of Justice Stephen Breyer. Concerning the decision to uphold the Second Amendment he wrote, “[This] decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States." With these words, Breyer has admitted that he believes the Supreme Court must see itself as a superior to the legislative process, and therefore must issue and craft decisions with an eye to how such decisions effect policies and laws throughout the land. At least Steven’s dissent only demonstrated his Leftist leanings and his willingness to turn a blind eye to the Founding Fathers in order to usurp the Constitution.
Each semester in my American History courses on the university campus, I explain to my students that the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment which contains the words, “necessary to the security of a free state.” If you take away the 2nd Amendment you take away security, plain and simple. The kind of security free men know and love; the kind of security hundreds of thousands of our military men and women have died to restore to failing European nations; the kind friends of mine revel in when they get their concealed carry permits and say, “Frenchmen can’t do this.”
Yet the magnitude of this issue persuades me that I have not said enough, and that I even understated the seriousness of this matter in my opening paragraph when I indicated that only 5 out 9 justices now believe the Constitution to be constitutional. Therefore, in the interest of freedom and clarity of speech, I am determined that the next time a student asks about gun rights or a friend about concealed carry licenses, I will take the time in both situations to remind them that we are now only one liberal justice away from being transformed into Frenchmen.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter