“Individuals do not have the legal authority to determine for themselves what their rights include,” Pierre Atlas (above) writes an indystar.com, “doing so would be anarchy. In our republic, determining the scope and content of constitutional rights is up to the legislatures and the courts. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, made this clear: ‘Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'” Well now . . .
I’m a Second Amendment absolutist. I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. A guarantee that makes no mention of the type of arms Americans are “allowed” to own, the manner in which they must be carried, or for what purpose they’re carried. Because freedom.
More than that, I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. As the Founding Fathers pointed out in the Declaration of Independence, men (and women) are endowed by their creator with inherent and certain inalienable rights. If the right to self-defense isn’t an inherent human right, what is? So while I’m glad the Supreme Court’s Heller decision affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms, I didn’t think we didn’t have one. Ever. And I wouldn’t change my opinion if they decided otherwise.
Does this make me an anarchist? If you agree, does that make you one too? Or are anarchists people who feel free to interpret the Constitution as they see fit, according to their political whims or the opinions of the mob?