There are strong indications from oral arguments in the US Supreme Court that New York’s strong gun control law might be overturned. Liberals are up in arms. But there is only one logical solution to the problem, albeit gun control,a difficult one.
Embracing Cognitive Dissonance Is Only Logical
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
2 Comments. Leave new
Re: Second Amendment. The supreme court Heller case finally, legally connected the notion of self-defense to the second amendment … even if took some “skillful” mental gymnastics to blatantly ignore several contradictory references, in the body of the constitution (see below), to the second amendment’s predicate of the right to bears arms, i.e. “the militia.”
However, note what aforementioned mental gymnast, SCOTUS Justice Scalia, also wrote in the prevailing Heller decision but which seems never to be included in discussions on gun regulation: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is NOT unlimited … (N)OTHING in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or LAWS IMPOSING CONDITIONS AND QUALIFICATION ON THE COMMERCIAL SALE OF ARMS” (my emphasis)
http://tinyurl.com/nqm9en
One must wonder how “open carry” by an individual in any way relates to “the militia’s” sole constitutional mandate to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions ….” all under operational control by the congress and the president? Where is the constitutionally described/authorized “the militia” in the present day? Will ongoing investigations note that one recent example of “open carry,” seen globally, was the armed invasion of the US Capitol during a joint session of congress? THE purpose of the Second Amendment “right to bear arms” was precisely to suppress insurrections NOT facilitate them.
Below are all the constitutional references to “the militia” to give virtually never-acknowledged context to the myriad references to its mention in the second amendment:
Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article II, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
Second Amendment
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.
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; …
Open carry? It’ll never happen. Why? Replay the events of the George Floyd case, but this time, have the crowd of mostly black witnesses packing heat. The cops will not permit the citizens to be openly armed. It would endanger them when they try to commit murders.