Thursday, July 8, 2010

Left Staggers to Recover From McDonald

Thank you, Liston, for the opportunity to blog here on your site, which I read.

McDonald v Chicago, together with the Heller decision, are cornerstones in the repaired foundation of American liberty. Their significance cannot be overstated. Much will be written about them and you are probably already reading many takes on the opinions.

But, what if you are a big gun-controller? How do you regroup after this staggering defeat? And, make no mistake: McDonald and Heller are routs to the gun controllers. The Left is punch-drunk, but recovering quickly to determine their next move. That move will NOT incorporate rational re-thinking of their cowardly eagerness to relinquish this precious liberty--the individual, personal, real honest-to-goodness, applied, practical right to arm with firearms.

Paul Helmke., President of the Brady group of cowards so eager to turn in guns, exemplifies their fallback position. Now, understand, you will not get a clear, honest statement of their position. You must infer that from their spin.

Here it is:
1) *&!@#! (Unstated, of course)
2) We will glumly wait hoping that 5-4 will become 4-5. We will not accept this Supreme Court's reactionary reasoning (spoken with disdain); we must, instead, wait for better days.
3) In the meantime, we will NOT concede that this is a victory for the right to keep and bear arms crowd. We will, instead, spin this from what few cookie-crumbs we can fantasize from the opinion and make it sound like we are happy about it. We will pretend to have won. At least, we will NOT say that we lost, even when asked directly.
4) What about the fact that all of those people out there actually like the opinion, like the right to own a gun, and support this medieval decision? Well, that makes our true colors untenable. We cannot be honest about our intent, which is to strip away that right from the American citizen, leaving strictly a government monopoly on arms.
Therefore, we will now adopt the following public positions:
A) We support the right to keep and bear arms.
B) We are not against guns.
C) We are OK with (some) guns in the hands of (some) trained, stable citizens, so long as these guns are under careful control and safely kept.
D) McDonald means that the states and cities may impose all manner of reasonable restrictions, so it really didn't mean much. McDonald is limited to its holding [Which is true--all opinions are limited to the facts of the case and the holding, unless you are Justice Stevens who presumes to the authority to make whatever law he wants.] that a municipality may not prevent a law-abiding citizen from keeping a firearm in the home for self-defense.
E) The official Brady position is now that we must all focus on regulating these firearms "reasonably."

Wow. Paul Helmke is not against guns.

They are in utter disarray. Their post-McDonald positions will continue to develop. They will sound more and more strange all the time. You will have to listen very closely to what they are saying to discern from which direction the next attack will come. Do not expect any truth.

For example, they will continue to lie about the ease of buying a weapon, particularly at a gun show, as if a gun show is some sort of leftist street demonstration where all law and order breaks down.

But, Brady may repair their platform and re-state their Marxism in any way they want. The Supreme Court found the Second Amendment to state a personal, individual, and fundamental right to keep and bear arms and this elevates the right. State and city governments that, before, presumed to the arrogant authority to put gun owners under the ban are now far less free to write all manner of mischief statutes and ordinances effecting restraints on bearing arms. Period. This is like a hard punch smack in the face of the Brady losers.

If you find this article to be informative or interesting, please share the link with your friends.

Shop <span!" border="0" width="468" height="60">
Disclaimer: The information and ideas presented in this column are provided for informational purposes only. Gun rights, like all other Constitutionally recognized rights, must be exercised responsibly. Firearms, like cars, kitchen knives and life itself all can be dangerous. You should get professional training as part of any plan to use firearms for any purpose. I have made a reasonable, good-faith effort to assure that the content of this column is accurate. I have no control over what you do, and specifically accept no responsibility for anything you do as a result of reading my columns. Any action or lack of action on your part is strictly your responsibility.

No comments: