Those odd words are part of an op-ed by Jonathan Turley in today's USA Today. In it he admits, much to his dismay, that the NRA may have been right all along: there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. That is a belief he spent his entire life avoiding, by his own admission.
The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.
Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "A well 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." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
No, principle is a wonderful thing and Turley has them, that is obvious. The recent events in Burma illustrate in general terms what the framers were afraid of. Of course, even they could not have envisioned haw depraved socialist tyrannies could be, but they understood the general idea. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a defense against an out of control government intent on crushing the people's rights.
Turley deserves a thank you for his honesty and principle.
No, Gaius, they knew _exactly_ how depraved a tyranny could be. That’s why they made it so hard for Government to take our guns.
The 1st and the 2nd cannot exist without each other. To take one you must take the other or trust that a tyranny will never develop here.
Well, there is an effort to limit free speech, remember.
The only thing I take issue with is the phrase “depravity of socialist tyrannies.” There comes a point where it doesn’t matter what economic organizing principle an oppressive government uses. The results are usually the same.
Tyranny is tyranny is tyranny. A capitalist tyranny is just as bad as a socialist one.
Wrong, Jamelle, there are NO capitalist tyrannies who have effected the genocide of their OWN PEOPLE as much as Uncle Joe [18 million in Gulags, several million in purges, 2O million-plus in stupendous miscalculations in WWII] or The Great Helmsman who killed over 50 million in his social-engineering experiments in the PRC, or Pol Pot [2.3 million out of a total population of 6]. Now we have Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez in the minor leagues, but NOT ONE capitalist tyranny, not even ADOLPH, has killed as many of HIS OWN PEOPLE as these socialist engineers like Joe, Mao & Pol.
And let’s not forget Baathist Saddam and his living Baathist counterpart Bad-boy Bashar.
Care to mention ANY CAPITALIST TYRANNIES, Jamelle?
And the National Socialists (aka, the Nazis) weren’t capitalist. Ultimately, Hitler nationalized many industries, and the remaining industries bowed at his feet, either out of fear or greed. They were collectivist in nature – the good of the many over the good of the few – which, though not obvious, runs totally contrary to true capitalism.
So, you can’t count Nazi Germany as a capitalist tyranny, either.
Whoa guys, way to be a little too aggressive. The subtext of both of your comments is that I’m asserting that capitalism is in some way bad. Which I’m not, I happen to think that capitalism (with some limits) is a very good thing. My claim though is that you can separate a political structure from it’s economic base. There doesn’t have to be any capitalist authoritarian states but it is still possible for them to exist.
There are capitalist authoritarian states though, Singapore and apartheid-era South Africa are good examples. Now I’d agree that in terms of deaths, there isn’t a capitalist authoritarian state that matches the Soviet Union in terms of deaths caused by the state.
Now I take issue with the claim that Hitler’s Germany wasn’t capitalist. Because it was. Fascism at its most basic is simply an authoritarian corporatism. Hitler’s Germany may have been cosmetically socialist, but I wouldn’t say that it was socialist in any meaningful sense.
Now I’m certain that you two will disagree, but I don’t think socialism is incompatible with political liberty and democracy. In fact, I know it isn’t (see the northern European states for example).