and he explains his actions, in today's Houston Chronicle.
Americans breathed a sigh of relief last year when the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment does, indeed, protect individuals from government infringement on their right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, some state and local governments still believe that prohibition does not apply to them.
Indeed they do, and I do not understand. I am quite familiar with the doctrine of selective incorporation, and I know that's exactly what this is an example of, but I have never understood why anyone would think selective incorporation was a good idea -- in theory OR in practice. Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz said this of those who try to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution: "They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." And this is exactly what the doctrine of selective incorporation does as well, because its very foundation rests upon the premise that some of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are more equal than others. Call me crazy, but I don't think the Founding Fathers would have agreed with that.
Oh, and I thought this was quite interesting, considering the source...
The rights that the Constitution's framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable rights." They were also called "natural" rights, and to James Madison, they were "the great rights of mankind." Although it is commonly thought that we are entitled to free speech because the First Amendment gives it to us, this country's original citizens believed that as human beings, they were entitled to free speech, and they invented the First Amendment in order to protect it. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs...
Given what they paint as their stalwart defense of the rest of the BofR, a it's worthy question as to just why the ACLU doesn't defend the 2A as ardently as the other nine amendments contained therein. It would seem, going from the words of chairperson Nadine Strossen, they believe some rights are more equal than others too. "...the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty." Really? As the man says, if that's the case, then why the hell did they put it in the Bill of Rights? Right behind freedom of speech, religion and assembly, no less?
Back to Greg Abbott's piece, though, I also thought it was pretty sharp of him to point out the use of gun control as a tool of racist governments to limit the liberties of blacks. That seems to be a lost point in the debate these days, especially with groups like the NAACP arguing for stricter gun control all the time. One wonders who the REAL Uncle Toms are now, hmmm? Like I've said before, no doubt the Deacons for Defense and Justice would so very proud...
|