If not proof positive that elections matter, little speaks more loudly than the comments section of my local paper during this fortnight of walkout and march. I asked, after the walkout story: "Did we obviate the 'well regulated militia' when we established local, county and state police forces and went with a professional army to defend us? Someday a Supreme Court decision might say just that and read the 2nd amendment differently than Scalia's thought processes in 'DC vs. Heller.' Were that to happen, would that be the boogie man 'tyranny' that is such a bottom line to so many. Could today's recreational bashing of liberals be a precursor to much worse if in due time the political winds in the country succeed in reversing a 38 year trend?"
One response, and hardly atypical these days, was: "No, the establishment of police forces and a professional military do not obviate any provision of the Second Amendment. Remember that 'well regulated militia' is immediately followed by 'being necessary to the security of a free state.' A free state must be defended not only against external foreign powers but also against internal domestic powers that seek to take away the other rights granted to us under the Constitution."
I don't know about you, savvy reader, but I took that as a "yes."
My point about him being right about the individual right being asserted and defended by Scalia was lost in his assumption that I was challenging the obviating or lack thereof. My point about it coming from the political realm and not some divine ordinance remained unaddressed but not lost to the discussion.
|A Human Event|
For after the local paper reported on our town's March for Life this past Saturday, the comments section had an aneurysm. This same commenter chimed in "I have to wonder if the idiot supporters of Initiative 42" (ed note: now 43, to do with assault weapons control) "know how many Oathkeepers and 3 Percenters there are here in Oregon. If this idiot proposal were to become law, are they willing to literally go to war to to enforce it? Heck, disarming my literal neck of the woods alone would take no less than an infantry batallion with armor, air, and special operations support."
I took that as a double "yes?" A "hell yeah" and an "I'll tell you what!" Literally.
I found a post by Andrew Rosenthal (NY Times 12/11/15) to be fair and balanced because he spelled out Scalia's opinion without skipping straight to a wish list. He laid the justice's premises out clearly but then added: "So rather than saying 'assault weapons,' in the future perhaps we should say 'the kinds of weapons that Justice Antonin Scalia has defined as dangerous and unusual and subject to regulation or an outright ban under the Second Amendment.'”