Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080628/ADV06/806280374/2014/adv
By Chuck Carlson • June 28, 2008
Guess I'm going to buy a gun.
Guess I'll buy several, and the larger caliber ones too that can tear holes in everybody and everything and really send the message that my Constitutional rights are worth preserving.
Maybe an semi-automatic too, just so the deer can't get away.
Lots of guns. And big ones. All the time and everywhere.
That's because the Supreme Court says I can, with another of its landmark 5-4 decisions.
Soon concealed weapons will be all the rage throughout the country because, you know, you're not really free unless you're packing.
We will, indeed, be the Wild West, and that's OK, because interpreting what guys in powdered wigs meant to say 230 years ago is what the Supreme Court does.
But don't you wish sometimes we could step back in time and ask James Madison and all those other larger-than-life figures what they really meant when they crafted this document?
Wouldn't it be great to sit down with some brats and a few cold ones and ask them whether privacy is really guaranteed in the Constitution?
We could ask, "Did you guys think about abortion and gay rights and civil rights and the Internet and the fact that 10-year-old kids can get access to handguns?"
And we could ask them if any of that would have even mattered when they sat down to put pen to paper to create this remarkable document.
What they did finally come up with was this: "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."
But what does it mean? What has it ever meant?
Constitutional scholars and lawyers and politicians and bureaucrats and Supreme Court justices have wrangled over it for years but, really, no one knows for sure.
Does it mean Americans can only have guns as part of a militia? And, for that matter, what is even the definition of militia these days?
Does it mean every American everywhere has a right to own firearms even though we know what they can do?
Does it mean every American should own a weapon to protect themselves from invading British soldiers?
Is it a case of a bunch of smart guys, living in an age when it took two weeks to ride a horse from Philadelphia to Boston, assumed it was something we could all figure out for ourselves two centuries later?
The Constitution isn't perfect. It was never meant to be.
There are cracks and holes and anachronisms galore but it's the best we can do, and it's the best around, and it was written by men who knew better than any of us what liberty really costs.
Maybe that's why it's so unfortunate they included an amendment about guns.
And maybe the framers of the Constitution are having a little laugh at our expense.
After all, those who question the real meaning of the amendment focus on the first part of what is written.
Those who back every American's right to carry a gun focus on the second part.
There's something there for everyone, and nothing there to get a definitive handle on.
It is open to the kind of interpretation that so often ties this country in knots.
And so with the Supreme Court's latest decision earlier this week to strike down a gun ban law in Washington, D.C., the backers of gun ownership have declared victory.
It is our right and our privilege, I guess, to own guns and to argue that point, apparently, is to argue the very nature of what makes us free.
But the argument isn't over. With every ruling on one side, the other mobilizes its forces and comes back even stronger.
The debate continues, the Constitution lives on and, somewhere, the guys in the powdered wigs are laughing their heads off.
Chuck Carlson is editor of the Door County Advocate. Contact him at cecarlso@doorcountyadvocate.com or (920) 743-3321.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080628/ADV06/806280374/2014/adv
By Chuck Carlson • June 28, 2008
Guess I'm going to buy a gun.
Guess I'll buy several, and the larger caliber ones too that can tear holes in everybody and everything and really send the message that my Constitutional rights are worth preserving.
Maybe an semi-automatic too, just so the deer can't get away.
Lots of guns. And big ones. All the time and everywhere.
That's because the Supreme Court says I can, with another of its landmark 5-4 decisions.
Soon concealed weapons will be all the rage throughout the country because, you know, you're not really free unless you're packing.
We will, indeed, be the Wild West, and that's OK, because interpreting what guys in powdered wigs meant to say 230 years ago is what the Supreme Court does.
But don't you wish sometimes we could step back in time and ask James Madison and all those other larger-than-life figures what they really meant when they crafted this document?
Wouldn't it be great to sit down with some brats and a few cold ones and ask them whether privacy is really guaranteed in the Constitution?
We could ask, "Did you guys think about abortion and gay rights and civil rights and the Internet and the fact that 10-year-old kids can get access to handguns?"
And we could ask them if any of that would have even mattered when they sat down to put pen to paper to create this remarkable document.
What they did finally come up with was this: "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."
But what does it mean? What has it ever meant?
Constitutional scholars and lawyers and politicians and bureaucrats and Supreme Court justices have wrangled over it for years but, really, no one knows for sure.
Does it mean Americans can only have guns as part of a militia? And, for that matter, what is even the definition of militia these days?
Does it mean every American everywhere has a right to own firearms even though we know what they can do?
Does it mean every American should own a weapon to protect themselves from invading British soldiers?
Is it a case of a bunch of smart guys, living in an age when it took two weeks to ride a horse from Philadelphia to Boston, assumed it was something we could all figure out for ourselves two centuries later?
The Constitution isn't perfect. It was never meant to be.
There are cracks and holes and anachronisms galore but it's the best we can do, and it's the best around, and it was written by men who knew better than any of us what liberty really costs.
Maybe that's why it's so unfortunate they included an amendment about guns.
And maybe the framers of the Constitution are having a little laugh at our expense.
After all, those who question the real meaning of the amendment focus on the first part of what is written.
Those who back every American's right to carry a gun focus on the second part.
There's something there for everyone, and nothing there to get a definitive handle on.
It is open to the kind of interpretation that so often ties this country in knots.
And so with the Supreme Court's latest decision earlier this week to strike down a gun ban law in Washington, D.C., the backers of gun ownership have declared victory.
It is our right and our privilege, I guess, to own guns and to argue that point, apparently, is to argue the very nature of what makes us free.
But the argument isn't over. With every ruling on one side, the other mobilizes its forces and comes back even stronger.
The debate continues, the Constitution lives on and, somewhere, the guys in the powdered wigs are laughing their heads off.
Chuck Carlson is editor of the Door County Advocate. Contact him at cecarlso@doorcountyadvocate.com or (920) 743-3321.