You might remember a while back in this space was mentioned a group called Amendment II Democrats. Well, yesterday I was poking around on the Web and I came up on their site, on which was a link to their blog. I clicked on it, and came up on this post. Seems they're pretty upset about the selection of Joe Biden as Obama's running mate, and, well, for good reason, of course.
I am convinced that Biden's inclusion on the 2008 Democratic Presidential ticket is in part a warning shot directed at pro-RKBA Democrats across America. It sends the message that the historic DC v. Heller ruling by the Supreme Court guaranteeing the Second Amendment right of individual Americans to own firearms will be treated by the Obama/Biden ticket as though it never happened.That's pretty much the long and short of it, I would wager. It would be interesting to see how many other registered Democrats are frustrated by this ticket because of this. In any event, I was quite encouraged by the comments at the post, including this one, which was so good I had to show the whole thing...
Daniel, I for one, am stepping off this runaway train. I took Senator Obama at his word, that he knew the difference between where I live, and where he lives. I take Senator Biden at his word too, that he doesn't know if I am mentally fit. I got the message, loud and clear. I am tired of putting my beliefs on hold, fighting the good fight, and when we get some little victory, my party members looking at me and asking "who the hell are you?". If I could say to myself "Josh, you let your responsibility to the Bill of Rights slide a little there, but look at what you got in return: Cleaner environment, greater chance of social mobility, a country where kids and veterans and people who already worked their whole lives get healthcare when they are sick, no Bush tax cuts, no useless wars, on and on and on..........." it would be different. But I can't say any of those things.
I have voted for Democrats chiefly because of their stance on two issues: gay rights, and women's reproductive rights. I am a heterosexual male. I am physically incapable of excercising some of the rights I have been fighting for, and not at all interested in personally excercising some of the others. But in the "Liberty Triage" that I have to conduct in my head and heart, I saw those to be the rights in the greatest jeopardy, so I spoke for them the loudest. I think now, no more. I see that I am gonna have to start paying a little attention to this other patient too, or she's a goner. In all honesty, I feel responsible. I have not given my fellow Democrats any real reason to respect the 2nd Amendment. When they have tried to trample it, I have said little, or even made excuses for them. No more.
I'm gonna stand right here. If the runaway train that is the Democratic Party gets brought under control, and it backs up past me, I'll hop back on, and we'll all go on our merry way together, down the CORRECT track. In the meantime, ya'll keep shoveling coal on that SOB and see if you don't break it.
I expect I won't be the only one hopping off. If some of ya'll jump off within sight of me, we'll wave to each other, and talk about the good old days, and look for the train to come back by.
I will skip the Presidential Candidates on my ballot this year. I guess we'll all talk again in 2011.
Liberty triage. What a novel concept! Seriously, though, it's quite refreshing to see someone putting it in those terms, as the whole concept of liberty seems to be completely lost in politics these days. Heaven knows I more than likely won't agree with these guys on much else, but it's great to see the indication that at least some of them will bite the bullet on this issue -- so to speak -- and not give their vote to someone just out of blind party affiliation. I will admit I was a bit troubled by the rhetoric about the differences in where people live, because after all, natural rights shouldn't be contingent on where one chooses to live any more than they should be subject to a vote. And I also wonder about what they say about "acknowledging 'the necessity to restrict access to felons, mentally incompetent, all persons convicted of a crime of domestic violence or other specifically prohibited firearms possession by law.'" It makes me wonder to what extent they think along the same lines as many of us more libertarian folks do, i.e., if these people are so dangerous, then why aren't they locked up or otherwise committed away from society? I guess I am with the pragmatists and incrementalists as far as that goes, though, because I will take even a little progress rather than none at all -- especially if that shared belief translates to withholding their vote from their party, as at least a few conservatives will be doing this fall.
On the other hand, there's this number, from a Democratic blogger down in Fort Bend County
(http://halfempth.blogspot.com/2008/06/pete-olson-and-nick-lampson-brothers-in.html):
...for those of us who interpret the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution as it was written, and not as Justice Scalia reinterprets it (“Militia? What militia”), we will have no representation on this issue in Washington, DC whoever wins in Texas CD 22 in November.
Frankly, this doesn’t surprise me. This is Texas, after all.
And this is one case where I know that Nick Lampson is truly in favor of the decision, and is not just saying this to obscure the differences between himself and his conservative challenger. Nick is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association.
Said blogger goes on to make noise about U.S. v. Miller, and the "well-regulated militia," and as all the good little gun prohibitionists do, gets it all exactly wrong. There's a pretty good summary of it here -- just a snippet:
Here's what it does NOT say: "This guy is not in a militia so he can't have a gun." It says that this particular weapon has no reasonable relation to the weapons used in furtherance of a militia, so the 2nd Amendment does not extend to coverage of this particular weapon. This is explicitly stated.
Yep. The issue in the case was the weapon itself, not Jack Miller's membership or lack thereof in any government-sanctioned militia. Furthermore, the decision went on to say:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.Note that "writings of approved commentators" phrase. I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that some of those "approved commentators" would include the folks mentioned here. A typical quote, from Tench Coxe:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
In the hands of the people, and not the government. I don't know how one could get any more explicit than that. And I really don't know how one could come to the conclusion, knowing just how they felt about the potential of government, that the Founders would put an amendment into the Constitution ensuring the government's right to arm itself. As far as gun prohibitionists having no representation in the 22nd Congressional District...well, if they're so upset about that then why don't they, y'know, go somewhere that their warped view will be represented, like New Jersey or Illinois? On second thought, maybe it isn't so bad that they're here instead of there. There's strength in numbers, and I'd rather these people's voice be drowned out than amplified.
|