Throwing the Dice on Guns

D.C. v. Heller is being argued today in front of the John Roberts and the Supremes.

Let me just say, now, that the arguments being advanced in support of the District's position are basically inane. Nobody, from the dawn of civilization in Sumer, has ever disputed a government's right to maintain armed groups of men. Whether you call it a "militia" or an "army," that is a prerogative of the State.

The reason for the Second Amendment is the same reason underpinning the First Amendment: They give the populace the right to to be heard. When read together, the two Amendments can be read like this:

"We, the People, have the right to free speech, the right to assemble in peace and the right to come talk to you guys about what concerns us. Should you refuse to let us speak or refuse to listen to us, we have the ability to compel you to do so by force of arms."

Free speech is anathema to tyrants (if that is a concept that is news to you, your education was woefully lacking). Tyrants seek to crack down on free speech, from things such as the Great Firewall of China, imprisoning dissidents and book-bannings to less drastic actions such as the "Free Speech Zones" and carefully screened "Forums of Sycophants" used by Our Preznit. Without the Second Amendment, the right of free speech protected by the First Amendment survives only so long as a president lacks the stomach to brutally crack down on the people.

Free people, citizens, own weapons. Subjects, people whose relative freedoms flow from the will of the sovereign, do not. The argument today will have a major bearing on whether we remain citizens or whether we become subjects.

UPDATE: Pay no attention to reports of what questions the justices asked or how they "appeared" to be leaning. Those news stories are little more than a legal version of Kremlinology. The only thing that counts is the wording of the majority opinion and, to a lesser degree how many justices signed onto it and what it says in the concurrences and the dissents.