Justice Antonin Scalia told Mr. Dellinger that â€œthe two clauses go together beautifullyâ€ if the Second Amendment was understood as an effort to guarantee that militias would not be â€œdestroyed by tyrants.â€ The proper reading, Justice Scalia said, is, â€œSince we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.â€ [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.