Justice Antonin Scalia told Mr. Dellinger that “the two clauses go together beautifully” if the Second Amendment was understood as an effort to guarantee that militias would not be “destroyed by tyrants.” The proper reading, Justice Scalia said, is, “Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” [NY Times]With all the talk from the radical right these last eight years about how liberals, especially anti-war liberals, are traitors, and considering that some of the radical right (freelancers & self-organized "militias") will surely consider either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama a "tyrant," I think I'll begin this week to assert my right to own a gun. I grew up among hunters & I'm not afraid of guns -- I'd need a little practice to refresh my feel & aim, but not that much. Seems like a good investment about now. Yep, I'm going to start building my constitutionally protected arsenal. Think I'll start with a shotgun. [Note: In case it's not obvious, the preceding paragraph contains hyperbole & sarcasm, both well-known rhetorical devices, at least until recently.]
Does anyone else find it strange that the majority of the Supreme Court appears ready to endorse a reading of the Second Amendment that categorically affirms an individual's right to own a gun because gun ownership is necessary if one wants to overthrow the government. It is a measure of just how radical this court is that it is about to side with the Tim McVeighs of this world against the rest of us.