Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say. Here is a previous post - expanded. 

A constitutional guarantee subject to future Judges assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. - Justice Anthony Scalia (June 26, 2008)

It's about time somebody said this.


I find it odd, when viewed from a historical perspective, that this decision is so momentous. The framers of the Constitution saw no need to enumerate the rights of individuals, which is what the Bill of Rights did (essentially the first amendments to the Constitution). The Bill of Rights were adopted because there was, in the countryside, a fear of government in general. In all governments which preceded this one rights were granted (or taken away) by the government. The Constitution of the United States takes a wholly different perspective - individuals have rights prior to there being government, so the purpose of government is to protect those rights. The framers felt that an individual's rights could only be denied by: 1) A criminal - hence the need for a police force. 2) An invasion by another government - hence the need for an army. 3) The US government itself - which did not get any such authority from the Constitution. Well that wasn't good enough for the States so the Bill of Rights enumerated what was already taken for granted by the framers.


Let's put this in real simple language: Individuals have the right to do anything which does not harm other individuals - period. Having a gun in your house doesn't harm anyone but; using that gun to shoot down your neighbor takes away his right to life; using that gun to rob your neighbor takes away his right to property; using that gun to hold your neighbor against his will takes away his right to freedom. If you take away someone else's rights you are a criminal and should be removed from society and punished.


Note that all rights are actions. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
-The right to life is an action - living takes action.
-The right to liberty is the freedom to act according to your judgment.
-The right to the pursuit of happiness - property falls in this category.


There is no such thing as a right to a good life. If you want to make it good then go ahead. You have a right to a life, however you make it.


There is no right to happiness, just to the pursuit.


There is no right to education - though it probably is a good idea to get a good one.


There is no right to a job - though you might want to be a good employee in order to keep the one you have.


There is no right to a standard of living set by bureaucrats.

There is no right to a vacation. 


On and on and on. Note that those items which are not rights are results, not actions. This is the test - the next time someone says they have a right to such and such - ask yourself if it is a result or an action. If it is a result, then someone else's right has been trampled on to get it.


So back to the Supreme Court's Second amendment decision. I find it odd that they even felt compelled to consider it in detail. Of course you have a right to keep a gun in your house - and only the government can take that right away - and the Constitution does not give that authority.


I guess those doubters of the federal government were right - we need to be afraid.