McCLELLAN BLAIR: Weapons and the U.S. Constitution
March 24, 2013 2:40 AM

Leftists demonize conservatives and the Founding Fathers as the Siamese twins of religious fanatics. Mrs. Dembosky’s twist on the Second Amendment, for example, facetiously has God whispering dicta to proponents. The Constitution conveys the right of self-protection for both the nation and the individual. All surviving species have some means of protection. Humans have no claws, fearsome teeth, speed or camouflage. Our unique protection is in our brains and in our tools. Weapons are those tools.

Our president is acutely aware of the need for superiority of weaponry. He famously advocated the bringing of a gun to a knife fight. Why, then, does he abrogate our right to that self-protection? Could it be that he wants us all limited to bringing knives to his gunfight?

The exact words of the Second Amendment are that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Try as Ms. Dembosky might to “spin” the meaning of infringement — even to the absurdity of God whispering sweet nothings to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — the plain meaning of infringement is limitation and/or impediment.

The Second Amendment allows us to protect ourselves according to individual needs and circumstances. Here, any pea-shooter would be overkill, which is a good reason to live here. If I had to live in Chicago, the weapon of choice would be an Uzi, because that is what the natives bring to the fight. If I were in Kabul, it would be the AK-47 and RPG. If I were in Damascus, I’d look like Rambo with his M60, SAM missiles, and LAWS rockets.

A possible constitutional limitation to arms that can be borne might deny the individual’s right to a Nimitz-class carrier, or an H-bomb, which may be those unusual weapons to which Mr. Scalia referred, not more bullets or a gun that shoots them faster.

Weapons are both a means of protection and a deterrent. If one has a “bigger stick,” one is less likely to be attacked.

If defenseless, like Sandy Hook, one is at the mercy of another with superior weaponry. Clearly any person who desires control over others wants to limit their ability to protect themselves or retaliate.

That is why statists, politicians, totalitarian governments and thugs seek the removal of weapons from potential objectors.

And it is why our Founders had the foresight to place the right to self-protection up-front, unambiguous and central in the Bill of Rights.

McClellan Blair


Disclaimer: Copyright © 2017 Indiana Gazette. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.,16786695/