Reader Migraine Man writes . . .
As the Supreme Court term winds down and each passing week brings us closer to a ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the pearls are being clutched with such ferocity that they risk transitioning into diamonds. The hearty souls at Slate are the latest Paul Reveres of the anti-gun left to sound the alarm.
Slate’s latest panicked warning ticks off all the firearm panic-pr0n buttons: horror, extra-lethal lethality, overturning centuries of legislative tradition, a looming public health crisis, NRA propaganda, radical libertarian ideology, It’s truly is a masterwork of justifications for maintaining constitutional infringements on an enumerated civil right.
No doubt even the liberal left’s own Magic 8 Ball has been consistently producing undesired responses when the look at the case, and this article is but one more attempt to get out in-front of the issue.
With the leaked draft of the Dobbs v. Jackson opinion suggesting that SCOTUS is willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, it’s not a huge leap for socialists to infer that other social-control mechanisms are at-risk as well.
The Slate screed could easily have been clickbait titled as “You Should Be Terrified of the Upcoming SCOTUS Decision and Here’s Why.” Apparently upholding the Constitution as written is a threat to our very democracy. After all, as the big brains at Slate have concluded, “the court’s turn to originalism is a sham,” and strict adherence to constitutional principles “conceal[s] a version of living constitutionalism on steroids.” Huxley and Orwell would be proud.
The icing on the admiration-for-Bill-of-Rights-infringement cake is the fact that Slate’s Saul Cornell has concluded that the arguments presented by those looking to strike down New York’s corrupt may-issue laws are a “libertarian gun rights fantasy…that confuses James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment, with Dirty Harry.”
Just to refresh Cornell’s memory, Harry Callahan wasn’t a bad guy in those movies, shooting people at random as the author seems to suggest. Callahan was a product of and a response to a broken and corrupt system. By comparison, James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, the very document that enshrines the individual right to keep and bear arms with additional provisions for the purpose of restricting the government and codifying that all of the power and authority of the government is derived from the people.
James Madison’s contributions were a product of and a response to the broken and corrupt British government that the colonists had just thrown off. In fact, Madison and Callahan are quite similar, and to try to hold them up as polar opposites is, quite frankly, obtuse.
I can imagine Madison standing before the House of Representatives with his prototype for the Bill of Rights, offering, “Uh uh. I know what you’re thinking. ‘Is he proposing ten amendments, or only nine?’ Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that this is the Constitution of the United States, the most powerful document on the planet, do you feel lucky enough to include only nine amendments? Well, do ya?”