Dionne: Violent right-wing talk helps block sane gun laws

From an E. J. Dionne OP published in the Washington Post on 9/12/2011, and is just as (if not more) true today as it was then:

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Dionne-Violent-right-wing-talk-8232-helps-block-1611238.php

- Snip -

"But in part from e-mail exchanges with ardent foes of gun control over the years, I came to realize that the real passion for a let-anything-go approach to guns has little to do with culture or hunting. It is rooted in a very peculiar view of how America has maintained its freedom. Rep. Ron Paul, as is his wont, expressed it as plainly as anyone.

"The Second Amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand," the Texas Republican declared in 2006. "It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did.… The muskets they used against the British army were the assault rifles of that time."

- Snip -

"And at a Washington rally last year on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., linked this view to the current occupant of the White House.

"Fellow patriots, we have a lot of domestic enemies of the Constitution, and they're right down the Mall, in the Congress of the United States - and right down Independence Avenue in the White House that belongs to us," he declared. "It's not about my ability to hunt, which I love to do. It's not about the ability for me to protect my family and my property against criminals, which we have the right to do. But it's all about us protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government of the United States."

The notion that the Second Amendment affirms the right of "The People" to take up arms against the lawfully elected government of the United States is pervasive throughout the ranks of the Second Amendment absolutists. The fact of the matter is, that although some of the Founders were fearful of the formation of a "standing army," we in fact have one of the largest "standing" military organizations in the world. Is that fact a violation of the Second Amendment? Does the Second Amendment give Billy Bob Sixpack free reign to carry his AK-47 into the Oval Office and start shooting? Ted Nugent thinks that it does, and by his silence so does Wayne LaPierre.

The final two paragraphs of the dissent in Heller written by Justice Stevens point out the challenges for the lawmakers moving forward, and for the various courts, including the SCOTUS, which will review those gun control laws:

"I do not know whether today’s decision will increase the labor of federal judges to the “breaking point” envisioned by Justice Cardozo, but it will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.

The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy choice—the choice made by the Framers themselves. The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html