quote of the day

Today’s particular quote originates at SouthernFemaleLawyer‘s weblog, but was not written by her… Instead, it was originally typed by a very well-known, and generally-reviled, anti-rights advocate who writes under the pseudonym of “Laci the Bitch Dog”, and as such, will remain generally linkless – I could link to the specific comment, but Laci’s handle links back to her own webpage, and I have made a policy of not linking to, even indirectly, those who would seek to abridge basic human rights of American citizens when I can avoid it (which is basically always). Based on the below blockqutoes, though, you should be able to Google up the comment in question, if you are so interested.
A few points of clarification, before we start, for those people who are unfamiliar with this particular individual: she claims to be British, a lawyer of some variety, and someone who is “well-versed” in the vagaries and details of the Second Amendment. Furthermore, on several separate occasions, on several separate posts on her particular weblog, and on a few comments elsewhere, she has taken the position that she would very much like it if some/all “gun-loons” were to kill each other, be murdered by criminals, or even be murdered by herself. Finally, she expressed bountious quantities of joy at the news that Meleanie Hain had been murdered by her husband: “I only rejoice that someone who was a fool has been removed from this earth…”
With those admittedly distasteful clarifications dispsensed with, we actually have to get through a few build-up quotes before we get to the real clincher. First:

I have researched the issue and am convinced that the Civic right interpretation is the correct one.

Understand that when Laci refers to the “Civic right interpretation” of the Second Amendment, she is actually referring to the “collective right interpretation”, and even a step beyond that – it is her claim that the Second Amendment was specifically crafted to solely and only prevent the United States Government from keeping and maintaining a standing army, and that the Amendment only protects the National Guard.
Obviously this position flies in the face of the text of the Second Amendment, the quotes of our Founding Fathers regarding the right preserved by the Second Amendment, and what few judicial cases there are regarding that simple sentence, but, in reality, we need only look a few years back to understand how very wrong Laci is: all nine then-seated Supreme Court Justices agreed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right when they wrote their opinions concerning D.C. vs. Heller. From the Opinion of the Court:

Putting all ofthese textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

From Justice Stevens’ Dissent (signed by all dissenting Justices):

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

And from Justice Boyer’s Dissent (also signed by all dissenting Justices):

The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.

All nine Justices agreed that the Second Amendment exists a pre-existing individual right – they only differed on what they considered to be acceptable and appropriate governmental infringement. Given the pseudonymous ramblings of a murderous anti-rights advocate who claims to be a lawyer but apparently has no actual understanding of American law, and the opinions of all nine then-seated Supreme Court Justices, there really is no question in my mind as to which party to believe.
Moving on to another quote from Laci in the same comment:

When one discusses self-defence, then that is a completely different issue to the Second Amendment.

First, we again turn to Justice Scalia’s words:

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.

…

Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

…

Similar discussion attended the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Fourteenth Amendment . For example, Representative Butler said of the Act: “Section eight is intended to enforce the well-known constitutional provision guaranteeing the right of the citizen to ‘keep and bear arms,’ and provides that whoever shall take away, by force or violence, or by threats and intimidation, the arms and weapons which any person may have for his defense, shall be deemed guilty of larceny of the same.” [...] With respect to the proposed Amendment, Senator Pomeroy described as one of the three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty … under the Constitution” a man’s “right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead.” [...] Representative Nye thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary because “[a]s citizens of the United States [blacks] have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” [...]

It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.

…

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

Again, given the choice between a depraved, oppressive lunatic who would just as soon murder someone as allow them to exercise their rights, and a Supreme Court Justice, I know which side of that fence I am coming down on.
However, this time we are going to go a little farther back to prove just how ignorant Laci truly is. Consider these words of St. George Tucker regarding the Second Amendment:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

While this may initially seem to play into Laci’s erroneous “standing army” argument, reexamine the above statement, and see how standing armies are simply one element of a two-variable function, with the larger being the inherent right to self-defense preserved by the Second Amendment. By way of trivia, by just the nineteenth century, Mr. Tucker’s words had been cited in over 40 Supreme Court cases. I wonder how many Laci can claim?
Likewise, Alexander Hamilton had this to say:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

In reality, though, I suppose we should be thankful that such documentation exists from the period – indeed, the argument then was not whether or not the Second Amendment pertained to the inalienable right to self-defense, but rather whether or not it was actually necessary to codify those rights:

A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe’s analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear ‘their private arms.’ The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights.

Apparently, and sadly, it was necessary…
Moving on to more of Laci’s “proof by vigorous assertion”:

Firearms are not a good choice for self-defence.

Really?
Are you sure?
Completely sure?
Because asinine statements like that fly in the face of somewhere over 300 years of history, knowledge, and experience, and that is just here in the Americas.
However, all this reading, all these exposures of Laci’s ignorance (and possible illiteracy, which would certainly explain the ignorance), and all of this background is just building up to today’s quote of the day:

You may examine the material on my blog since I am not going to bother with reposting it here. I doubt tthose who call themselves “pro-gun” will as it challenges their assumptions.

I would be laughing my arse off if that statement were not so very pathetic. You see, the would-be mass-murderer known as “Laci” does not allow comments on her weblog, and gets very annoyed, and very defensive, when people call her on it. Why does she not allow comments? Oh, she can wax philosophical on that question for paragraphs at a time, but it basically boils down to the simple fact that she is tired of people disagreeing with her, she is tired of people pointing out the flaws in her arguments, and she is tired of having this all happen on her webpage… in short, she is tired of having her assumptions challenged.
“Projection” does not even begin to describe this disgusting, murderous filth’s psychological shortcomings, but the above comment more than adequately illustrates a prime example of it. Is it any wonder why the anti-rights advocates are losing ground steadily, day by day?