The more news coverage of the Supreme Court’s “historic” decision
upholding the Second Amendment I saw, the more depressed I became.
Though I’m grateful for the way the decision fell, I could not help
being appalled by the fact that only 5 out of 9 justices now believe
that the Constitution is constitutional. In short, the United States is
only one liberal Supreme Court justice away from being judicially
transformed into France.

Instead of simply upholding the Second Amendment, the decision in D.C. v. Heller
confirmed my suspicions that the American people are ignorant of their
own history and heritage, and as a result are prey for a court that is
occupied by justices who are not ashamed to be Leftist ideologues or to
arrogate to themselves the legislative process.

The Associated Press headline read: “Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns.”

Such a headline would be laughable were
it not made feasible by the fact that the American people as a whole
are ignorant of natural law, the writings of our Founding Fathers, and
the Constitution itself. Educators at every level have sought to keep
students from being exposed to any mention of America’s gun heritage.
As a result, one rarely can come across a college student who has
really read the Second Amendment, or Benjamin Franklin’s check on
unlimited democracy: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to eat for lunch, liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote,” or
George Washington’s simple assertion that “A free people ought to be
armed.” Such isolation from America’s history and heritage makes it
possible for Leftist news outlets to run headlines which state the
obvious yet sound groundbreaking to so many.

Dissenting from the
decision which revalidated the individual citizens’ right to keep and
bear arms, (a position anyone who has read our Constitution must admit
or lie to deny), Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the justices who
voted for the individual right interpretation “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.”
Stevens words are 180 degrees out of synch with our
Founders who, ironically, added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution
as a means of limiting the tools available to elected officials to
regulate inalienable rights.

Was not George Washington a
Founding Father? Do his words on gun ownership not count? Thomas
Jefferson was Founding Father, and he wrote, “No Free man shall ever be
disbarred the use of arms.” Has Justice Stevens missed the words “no”
and “ever” in the phrase “No free man shall ever be disbarred the use
of arms?”

Moreover, Jefferson also asserted that the people
ought to have guns in order to limit the power of our elected officials
should those officials seek to usurp our rights. He did so with these
words: “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance.”

William Blackstone, the Oxford Law Professor whom
Thomas Jefferson quoted more than twice as many times as he quoted
others in defense of his positions in the Declaration of Independence,
argued that “natural rights” of the sort protected in the Bill of
Rights should to be referred to as “absolute rights.” He wrote this
because he, like our Founders, recognized that natural rights were
given us by God, our Creator, and as such, were completely and utterly
unassailable by manmade governments; this would include manmade court
systems as well. In fact, Blackstone defended his use of the word
“absolute” to describe such rights by explaining that the giver of the
rights, God, is absolute and unchanging, therefore the rights allotted
to man by Him are absolute and unchanging as well. These are things
that every freshman in an American History survey course should be
taught, and would be taught, were not the Left positioning each
generation to be slightly more ignorant than the generation that
preceded it.

The danger posed to the whole of our freedom is
magnified when one also considers the dissenting words of Justice
Stephen Breyer. Concerning the decision to uphold the Second Amendment
he wrote, “[This] decision threatens to throw into doubt the
constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States." With these
words, Breyer has admitted that he believes the Supreme Court must see
itself as a superior to the legislative process, and therefore must
issue and craft decisions with an eye to how such decisions effect
policies and laws throughout the land. At least Steven’s dissent only
demonstrated his Leftist leanings and his willingness to turn a blind
eye to the Founding Fathers in order to usurp the Constitution.

Each
semester in my American History courses on the university campus, I
explain to my students that the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment
which contains the words, “necessary to the security of a free state.”
If you take away the 2nd Amendment you take away security, plain and
simple. The kind of security free men know and love; the kind of
security hundreds of thousands of our military men and women have died
to restore to failing European nations; the kind friends of mine revel
in when they get their concealed carry permits and say, “Frenchmen
can’t do this.”

Yet the magnitude of this issue persuades me
that I have not said enough, and that I even understated the
seriousness of this matter in my opening paragraph when I indicated
that only 5 out 9 justices now believe the Constitution to be
constitutional. Therefore, in the interest of freedom and clarity of
speech, I am determined that the next time a student asks about gun
rights or a friend about concealed carry licenses, I will take the time
in both situations to remind them that we are now only one liberal
justice away from being transformed into Frenchmen.