Gun rights protect us from . . . ?

No government is trustworthy or benign. Government of any kind -- in any nation -- is to be viewed with extreme suspicion.

Guns in the hands of citizens are not about target practice and duck hunting. They are part of the serious business of ensuring that Americans can remain free of a tyrannical federal government:

The Second Amendment was directed at the new federal government as a warrant against federal encroachments, usurpations and tyranny. Even Alexander Hamilton, the most outspoken of the Federalists, would be aghast at seeing this warrant being brushed aside as an antiquarian relic in oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

The District of Columbia is focusing on “the devastation worked by handguns.” The nine justices [in the DC gun ban case] appear to be focusing on whether the Second Amendment creates an individual or collective right. Nobody has highlighted the fact that the Founders were agreeing to tie the hands of the federal government created by the Philadelphia Convention — and only that government.^[1]

The Supreme Court has done its best over the years to dismantle the legal protections against the Leviathan state, a massively powerful federal government. Frank Creel provides a brief but accurate summary of the way in which it has undermined or even neutralized the original scheme of the Constitution through the "nebulous strands" of the 14th Amendment:

Some will immediately reply that the “doctrine of incorporation” woven by successive courts out of the nebulous strands of the 14th Amendment is what renders the elephant [behind the DC gun law] invisible. Just so. That historical fact is, indeed, what the court should be focusing on now that plaintiff Heller’s complaint and the District’s appeal have thrown the issue into its lap.

Some pertinent questions: How is interpretation of a later amendment permitted to antiquate the original understanding of the Second Amendment, render the Ninth and 10th amendments historical oddities, and generally stand the pristine Bill of Rights on its head, such that those rights are undermined as bulwarks against federal encroachments and mysteriously made into cudgels against the states and the people they were intended to protect?^[2]

Here's my prediction: the Supreme Court -- true to form -- will interpret the Second Amendment out of existence and justify its decision as a vindication of legitimate government efforts to reduce crime and gun violence.

I predict this based purely on cynicism. All the battles over appointments to the court and handwringing about who will be appointed by a Republican or Democrat president are a waste of time. Given the choice between expanding or protecting freedom on the one hand and regulating or governing Americans on the other, the court will vote to restrict freedom.

Why would it do otherwise? The 51 bar associations of the states and the District of Columbia, and many other bar associations clustered around the federal courts, are all populated with lawyers who, to a man, know full well how the Constitution has been distorted by the Supreme Court. They will do precisely nothing to highlight this fact for their fellow citizens or work to undo these distortions. Are these august associations and their esteemed members going to rise up in protest at this next legal betrayal? Will the press, Hollywood, Broadway, academe? I'll leave you to ponder those tough questions.

Bottom line: the court has a free hand to search out emanations, permutations, interstices, glosses, patinas, nuances, harmonics, best practices, tintinnabulations, and whispers from on high in the text of the Federal Consitution.

My prediction has the same basis as my related prediction involving the Executive or Legislative Branch and the matter of border control. Given a choice that affirms and strengthens national sovereignty and the interests of the American majority, on the one hand, and negating these, on the other, both of these branches will choose the latter option. The law of gravity is more iffy than that iron rule.

I hope I am dead wrong on both of these predictions. But, for now, I am operating with the First Principle of Cynicism in mind:

The race is not always to the swift, or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets.

Bet on the erosion of freedom and you won't go wrong.

If you'd like a snapshot of how far we are from living in a free society after 219 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, consider this description of what a free society would look like:

In terms of [things that are concrete], by capitalism I mean an economy with no progressive taxes, no central bank, no pure paper currency, no drug prohibition, no gun prohibition, no "affirmative action" employment mandates for any ethnic group, no government-run health care, no federal departments of education, energy, labor, homeland security, health and human services, no DEA, BATFE, SEC, EPA, FTC, FDA, no minimum legal wage rates, no price controls, no tariffs, no welfare — domestic or foreign, rural or urban, for the rich or the poor. You know, a free economy!^[3]

It is beyond the scope of this post to say definitively which of these policies, laws, agencies, or programs would be unsustainable under the Constitution of 1789.

However, the list is instructive because it shows dramatically to what extent government has expanded into every area of life. No doubt each one of these came to be because the answer was "Yes" to the question "Do we need to fix the problem of [________]?" Doubtless, too, the people who voted to anchor these things in concrete couldn't have cared less about the resulting particular (or aggregate) diminution of liberty in the United States.

Supreme Court justices know this, and they know that one more deprivation of our liberties won't disturb anyone overly. Yes, Kelo caused a few ripples but it's now been swallowed by the waves.

A decision neutering the 2nd Amendment will similarly find its way into the law books, to be accompanied by a clever quip. When the Supreme Court betrayed the Constitution by surrendering to FDR and the New Deal Democrats in the face of a threat to "pack the court," the law books record the witticism of that time that the junking of almost 150 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence was "the switch in time that saved nine."

The neutering of the 2nd Amendment will similarly be recorded in the law texts as a quaint anachronism overtaken by the need to solve a more contemporary problem. A living constitution must adapt to the times, you see, just like a living contract and living marriage vows.

The obfuscating ditty could go like this:

Arms are for hugging.
This we mandate.
Don't cry about tyranny.
We cannot relate.
There'll always be liberty.
Since we're so sincere.
Call 911 if there's trouble.
Don't bug us up here.

If I'm wrong about this, I will be positively delighted to read and reread every horse laugh sent my way.

Notes
^[1]"Don’t ignore the elephant behind the gun law." By Frank Creel, examiner.com, 3/24/08.
^[2] Id. (Emphasis added).
^[3] "The Anti-Capitalists: Barbarians at the Gate." By Larry J. Sechrest, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 3/24/08.