PLEASE READ ENTIRE DIARY BEFORE MAKING COMMENTS!!!
First of all I am a left wing leftie nut case and I am even left handed.
"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". 2nd Amend. US Const.
Now what does this mean???
It's the US constitution, so we better know what it means. As far as laws go in this country the US Constitution is "GOD". No higher laws exist, and only the United States Supreme Court can interpret the meaning by having a final say.
So, why do I, a bleeding heart liberal support this decision. Is it because my constitutional law professor (mega liberal) at Drake Law School said that the 2nd Amen. protects an individual's right to bear arms? No, it's more than that. For a while now our supreme court has been issuing opinions interpreting the constitution. Some of these decisions we are very proud of, like Brown v. Bd. of Education. that killed separate but equal. Dred Scott decision made prior to Brown was an example of just how wrong things can get.
Roe v. Wade (a decision important to this diary) was another excellent decision. Also every decision that curbed or limited the death penalty was also good.
My point is this, I hate guns. I grew up in a country where 200,000 people died (I immigrated to the US some years ago and became a proud voting citizen) because of guns in a civil war. I do not own a gun and will never own one. I have two little boys that are wonderful (2 and 4) but give them a gun and there will be an accident. I don't even let them play with toy guns.
But we must be realistic. The "founding fathers" came up with the constitution. It is not perfect but it's what we have and we must obey it unless we can amend it. They worded it they way they did. Some parts were left intentionally vague. This is precisely so that in the future the "evolving standards or morality and decency" would guide the constitution’s interpretation and thus make it a living document and not a lifeless dictate that Scalia suggests.
We have a constitution where the SC found a right to an abortion, a truly great decision even though this right is not clearly spelled out, in fact, there is no mention of abortion. Slavery was abolished even though there is no prohibition against slavery.
If we liberals are to expect that the constitution remain a living document to be interpreted in a manner that recognizes the advancement of our civilized society then we cannot expect that a right (to bear arms) that is mentioned specifically (even if somewhat vague or subject to some interpretation) can be taken away. If that does happen then can abortion be next. Well abortion is not even mentioned specifically and if the right to bear arms can go so can abortion. I do not want to go down that route. Also reasonable regulation of guns remains very healthy.
Also we are now truly facing an important election. We will either get out of the hole we are in or we will elect John W. McCain and he’ll keep digging. If this decision was decided in a 5-4 decision the other way that would give the conservatives and the GOP so much red meat to mobilize around. Can we afford that??? The argument would be, we need conservative justices that will not give a right to abortion that "does not exist" and take away our right that cleary is spelled out and exists.
Same goes for FISA. Can we afford giving them red meat on that, like Democrats are weak, Obama is a left wing radical and he’ll protect Bin Laden but not you.
At some point, whether in 20 or 100 years this country will get to a point when we the people will amend the constitution and we’ll specifically add abortion and ban guns, just not now. I wish we were there yet but we are not, and in the mean time I will just make sure my two little boys don’t even know what a gun is for as long as possible.