DC vs. Heller


Some sectors of the blogosphere have been abuzz of late regarding the case of DC vs. Heller. Yet why? Just because nine people named Samuel Anthony Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, John G. Roberts, Antonin Scalia, David Hackett Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Clarence Thomas will publish their various opinions on whether they think that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms? But the various opinions of these nine people have no bearing on the fundamental question of whether human beings in fact do have the right to keep and bear arms or, more broadly, the right to self-defense. A human right is a natural phenomenon, not something that can be created or obliterated by the mere opinions of nine people. If five or more of these nine people profess that they think human beings do not have the right to keep and bear arms, will the millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms today somehow magically lose that right tomorrow? The notion is nonsensical. A right has meaning only as a natural right. A so-called right that is created by politicians (executive, legislative, or judicial) is not a right but a privilege, which can be rescinded at any time with any justification that suits those who have aggrandized to themselves an undeserved and illegitimate power over other people. Woe to those who would confuse rights with privileges and thereby attempt to unnaturally usurp the inherent rights of the people!

Peter Saint-Andre > Journal