Well it only took about 220 years, but today the Supreme Court will finally weigh on the matter of our right to bear arms in the United States. The case centers around a 30 year ban on handguns in the nation’s capital. A ban that has done so much to make the District of Columbia the crime free Eden it has become.

This cases promises to be one of the most significant cases the high court has addressed since the Kelo decision, and we all know how that went. Much of the controversy centers on the actual meaning and/or intent of the 2nd Amendment:

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 Amendment

To Gun rights opponents, the argument is clear, the 2nd Amendment only applies to a militia. This, of course, is an erroneous argument. In the first place, the militia as it existed 200 plus years ago does not exist, today’s National Guard is more akin to a standing army than the militias of yesteryear. A militia was an all-volunteer force, generally composed of all available able-bodied men in a particular area. These militiamen supplied their own weapons and munitions and were not generally compensated for their service. If will think about the intent of the framers of the Constitution, no one in their right mind could legitimately argue that the framers were opposed to individual gun ownership, the suggestion is laughable. Indeed the majority of Americans were likely gun owners at that time.

DC isn’t the first or only government that has sought to ban or severely restrict gun ownership, other American cities, like Chicago and New York have taken a similar path. Indeed other countries in recent years have adopted such measures including the UK, Australia and Canada and yet in each of these three countries violent crime continues to rise. The fact is such restrictions of gun ownership are in effect, restrictions on law abiding citizens as criminals, by definition do not recognize or follow the law in the first place. Indeed here in the US of all violent crimes involving handguns, less than 1% are committed by those who were legally authorized to have such weapons in the first place.

If the court sanctions a ban on such weapons, and that is a very real possibility, the court is essentially declaring that we as individuals have no inherent right to defend ourselves, our family or property when threatened. Indeed even when our lives are at risk, better to die than to use a firearm to save your life.

The fact is, leftist who support such bans recognize that gun ownership is an extension of the individual responsibility, which statist abhor. We are to be subservient to the state, even when it comes to protecting ourselves. Leftist care nothing about our constitution, which is why it is so frequently ignored when it doesn’t suit their purposes. Regardless of what the 2nd Amendment says or what the intent behind it may have been the advocates of state centered government will continue to oppose it. We can only hope that the esteemed members of the Supreme Court will consider the consequences of their actions when rendering this all to important decision.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/17/scotus.guns/