Much attention has been given to Gov. Palin’s membership in the NRA and her use of firearms to hunt with (as opposed to, say, bow-hunting). I’ve never been clear on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The clamor stirred up by Gov. Palin’s selection as John McCain’s running mate seemed like as good a time as any to educate myself further with respect to the Second Amendment. A ruling in 1939 (United States vs. Miller) restricted the right to carry an unusual weapon (in this case, a sawed off shotgun) but no Supreme Court decision had addressed the 2nd Amendment since then until District of Columbia vs. Heller was handed down on June 26, 2008.

Over the decades since the 2nd Amendment was adopted, there have been two schools of thought about its intent. One school, the “individual right theory”, holds that the State has no right to prohibit the ownership of firearms or to pass restrictive legislation of any kind. The other school, the “collective rights theory”, holds the opposite: that the State can regulate the possession and ownership of firearms. District of Columbia vs. Heller came down on the side of the individual rights theory, 5-4.

Scalia, et. al., make a compelling case for the individual rights theory while Stevens and Breyer make a less than compelling case for their side of the argument. While rather dense, actually reading the opinions of the Justices is quite educational. I certainly don’t pretend to be an expert on Constitutional Law, but I agree with the opinion, as handed down by Scalia.

Update on 10/5/2008: I’ve found an interesting blog that analyzes, in great depth, District of Columbia vs. Heller. This analysis supports the minority in the case, but does not affect the logic of this post, because in this post, I am arguing in favor of States rights and against the Federal government. It appears to me that conservatives, like liberals, worship the Federal government when it is convenient to do so. Liberals are committed to Roe v. Wade and conservatives are committed to their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Now, before those of you who are fanatical followers of the NRA start jumping up and down, saying, “I told you so”, I have a question to pose. In an earlier post, using the defining characteristics of a conservative from this website , I noted that a conservative holds the Bill of Rights in high esteem. Good. Everyone in this country should do so. Another defining characteristic of a conservative is the preference for liberty over equality. Again, a good thing. A third defining characteristic of a conservative is their suspicion of power and their hatred of big government. I couldn’t agree more. How does this tie into the question that I am about to pose?

Simple. How can you, as a conservative, profess to believe in the Bill of Rights, prefer liberty over equality, and be suspicious of big government and yet, support the agenda of the Bush Administration, which John McCain is very likely to continue? Bush has said that “the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper”, he has gutted the Bill of Rights, and government debt has tripled under his watch.

Will Gov. Palin do anything about this? Will John McCain? I think not. Gov. Palin is on record as saying that the war in Iraq is necessary to protect Americans against terrorists, has accepted Federal monies to build infrastructure in Alaska, and supports the overturn of Roe v. Wade. It sounds to me like she is exactly what a conservative would NOT want. It sounds very much to me that Gov. Palin embraces the power of the Federal government, as long as she gets to control the levers of power. If Gov. Palin were to take her belief in the Second Amendment to its logical conclusion, she would be in favor of the secession of Alaska from the United States, a platform embraced, however incoherently, by the Alaska Independence Party. But she doesn’t – she is just a parrot for the swill that John McCain, an insider if ever there was one, spouts.

In an earlier post, entitled, “I Can’t Say it Any Better”, I posted the thoughts of Larken Rose, who called both political parties opposite sides of the same coin. I firmly believe that and I call for conservatives to stop praising Gov. Palin and to step back and take a good hard look at what they are embracing. Just because you are against that “horrible liberal”, Barack Obama, doesn’t justify embracing an equally abhorrent line of reasoning. For once in your lives, think through the consequences of your actions.

I have the utmost respect for any individual who can argue rationally and coherently. The McCain/Palin ticket is all about throwing meat to their followers – the ticket is not about true change, change that is desperately needed in this country.

The McCain/Palin campaign, by its use of scurrilous lies and misinformation, has demonstrated that it will do anything to gain power. There is no discussion of the ideas that they embrace – they are only interested in attacking the ideas of the opponent. I have no respect for such campaign tactics. None.