The Eclectic One

…Because labels are a poor substitute for thinking

How the gun-phobes lie

Posted by Bill Nance on August 18, 2008

You just have to love ability of people who should know better, to deliberately lie in order to support their position.

Judge Richard Posner who sits on the on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, has written an article in The New Republic entitled “In Defense of Looseness,” decrying the recent Supreme Court Decision in District of Columbia Et Al vs Heller. In case you’ve been living in a cave, the ruling established, in clear terms, that individuals have the right to possess arms.

The gun-phobes have long been making the historically untrue and constitutionally incorrect argument that the second Amendment, which reads: “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,” is about militias, not individuals.

Now I have better things to do than go through the many ways in which this point of view is flawed, often dishonest, and usually more about “Oh, Noes!! GUNS!!” than about the law, the role of government or intellectual honesty. There are plenty of good resources out there on the subject, and one I recommend is a particularly well-researched and documented paper on the subject, published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.

The core of Posner’s argument seems to be the usual “The constitution is a living document” kind of thing. And I tend to agree when it comes to granting the people more rights. But when it comes to asserting more government authority, you have to be illiterate, stupid, or have serious totalitarian instincts to support the idea, not to mention failing to grasp what this country was and has always been about. To wit: limited government authority.

But here’s the part that really caught my attention: (emphasis mine)

The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property. It is doubtful that the amendment could even be thought to require that members of state militias be allowed to keep weapons in their homes, since that would reduce the militias’ effectiveness. Suppose part of a state’s militia was engaged in combat and needed additional weaponry. Would the militia’s commander have to collect the weapons from the homes of militiamen who had not been mobilized, as opposed to obtaining them from a storage facility? Since the purpose of the Second Amendment, judging from its language and background, was to assure the effectiveness of state militias, an interpretation that undermined their effectiveness by preventing states from making efficient arrangements for the storage and distribution of military weapons would not make sense.

The paragraph above, is just plain BULLSHIT. Posner knows damn well it’s BULLSHIT. You don’t get to be a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals when you’re an idiot, and that’s the only other possible explanation.

Shame on you Judge Posner, you know better.


One Response to “How the gun-phobes lie”

  1. […] on gun-phobes’ lies I realized last night that my post on Judge Posner’s article was short on rebuttal, so I’ve decided to write a little more […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: