Live By The Gun, Die By The Gun
In reference to the recent Supreme Court ruling about the possession of guns, I am not a constitutional scholar - far from it, but I do have an opinion of the real meaning of the gunsact as enacted by our Founding Fathers over 200 years ago.
"A 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."
The only thing I can say is the gunact was just and proper for those days. It enabled the defenseless people to defend themselves against the British and many, many times against the lawless bullies that, without any dispute, would go to their house, land and kill everyone of them and claim possessions. For that, we applaud the action taken by our Founding Fathers. Today that meaning is useless, it has lost the original purpose.
We have the most powerful army in the world to defend us. As for the lawless bullies, times have changed.
Our possessions are well protected by law against any ill intentioned bullies. What is bothering me is the fact that the ruling in favor of the right to possess a gun does not specify any details about its possession (according to what I read.)
In writing the majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said ,
"THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PERMIT THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION ON HANDGUNS HELD AND USED FOR SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME."
Do I get it right that everyone has a sacred constitutional right to possess a firearm?
That is men, women, old people, young people, children, infants, mentally ills, disabled and incapacitated, citizens, aliens, friends and foes and, of course, the hard core criminals.
No details about the guns. Is it a conventional gun? a semi- automatic or an assault one? Is there any provision for a safety on the gun or how to keep it, loaded or not?
A license or regulation? Who needs them when the Supreme Court grants everyone an undisputed right to possess firearms. This is insane.
For over 200 years the gun-act has baffled many people, including constitutional scholars even among the 9 Supreme Court justices. The verdict 5 vs. 4 says a mouthful.
We still do not know the real meaning of that act. The only thing we know about it is that it has stirred many interpretations and controversies. If that was not enough, now we have the Supreme Court decision to add more ambiguities, more interpretations on the subject.
Someone should remind Justice Antonin Scalia and the other four justices, of course, of the ill-famed "LIVE BY THE GUN, DIE BY THE GUN."