It will be interesting, to say the least, to witness how the U.S. Supreme Court rules in McDonald vs. Chicago – a lawsuit aimed at terminating that city’s 28 year long ban on ownership of handguns. Since the ban took effect in 1982, Chicago’s crime rates have skyrocketed. Time and again, government laws that restrict the inherent human right of self-defense have had that onerous, if predictable, consequence.
Yet unlike this lawsuit’s recent brethren, Heller vs. District of Columbia, this most recent appeal to a panel of nine black-robed charlatans will allegedly decide whether the Second Amendment supercedes State and local government laws, or only applies to federal ones.
Here’s what I’m asking, just in part: Where in the Constitution is the U.S. Supreme Court even authorized to “interpret” that same document? And if numerous rulings by that same body have held the the amendment in question guarantees an individual right to both keep and bear arms, doesn’t and shouldn’t that make all further discussion moot? If it is generally and historically accepted that self-defense is a right of all individual human beings before the sheer lunacy of government-creation even begins, doesn’t it qualify, rather, as mere common sense (partial apologies to Thomas Paine) rather than something that must be legislated and then endlessly challenged, interpreted, and intersticed with myriads of exceptions and special qualifications?
In short, shouldn’t the slogan be: What part of the principle of self-defense do you not understand?
This all goes to show the wholesale illogicality of governments themselves – in particular the American version. For if government is ostensibly designed to secure and protect rights, it does a damned lousy job – since the moment it comes into existence it begins by its very nature to violate them, by demanding compulsory taxes from those it arrogantly assumes “protection” over, and then establishing sets of rules all of the “protected” are supposeed to follow under threat of violence – lethal violence, if necessary, in order to compel full compliance. This, it should be obvious, has nothing to do with “protection,” and everything to do with domination, exploitation, and persecution. It exposes government as nothing more than an ultimate – and highly vicious – con game.
It gets better: At the federal level, and in all 50 “states,” numerous court rulings – in glaringly unambiguous language – have stated that governments have no legal or constitutional duty to protect individual “citizens.” This means, in plain terms, that governments small and large across America have long since tossed its founding (if absurd from the very get-go) principle out the window: Again, that governments are instituted to secure and protect rights. Don’t think, in light of this, those in government don’t realize what a preposterous perversion of logic this is.
No, this court ruling, when it’s handed down, won’t be about common sense. It won’t be about each human’s inherent right to protect themselves from physical harm and aggression – for if it were, there would be no ruling to begin with, no court, no lawyers, no codified “law,” no elections, no politicians, no bureaucrats, no government.
It is time for Americans to see government for what it truly is, rather than the manner – in classic Orwellian fashion – in which it has sold the last several blind generations the polar opposite.