One of the most fundamental of all human rights is the right to self defense. It is only the existance of this right that justifies the existance of government. Every person has the right to use force to defend his or her person, liberty, and property. Government is the organization of this individual right into a collective force to defend persons, liberty, and property. This right lies behind the Second Amendment, which specifies that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The part of the amendment just quoted is an independent clause that can stand on its own. Preceding that clause, it says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," which is a dependent clause that cannot stand on its own. Those who try to make the dependent clause dictate the meaning of the independent clause, try to make the tail wag the dog. It is logically untenable.

When this was written, the militia included every able bodied man, and they were expected to provide their own arms. One of the purposes of the militia is to maintain freedom. To that end, it is to be made up of an armed populace, to serve as an obstacle to the erection of a tyrannical government. Tyrannies always seek to disarm the people. The National Guard is not the militia; it was created under Article I Section 8 Clause 12 of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to create armies.

In the recent case of D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, and the fact that it protects an individual right to own firearms. The District of Columbia enacted an ordinance effectively disarming its law abiding citizens, and outlawing self defense. Even if you were one of the few who owned a gun, the ordinance required the gun to be kept in an inoperable condition, even in the owner's home. No wonder crime multiplied in D.C.; the citizens could not defend themselves. Such a law encourages crime. Criminals do not abide by gun laws. They are criminals; they do not respect law. Will the police protect you? In most cases, no. They usually will not be able to respond quickly enough. In D.C. some years back, victims brought suit against the city, after police ignored repeated urgent calls for help, for something like 14 hours. A D.C. judge ruled that the police had no obligation to protect the citizens. On the other hand, in several places, such as Florida, when strong concealed carry laws have taken effect, crime has gone down. Criminals do not want to face an armed citizen, prepared to defend himself or herself.

The justices who ruled in favor of freedom and the Constitution were Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, and this time at least, Kennedy. Those dissenting justices who would have ruled against freedom and the Constitution, and in favor of disarming Americans, were Breyer, Bader-Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens. We need more justices like those in the majority in this case. It may be that neither candidate for President would appoint such justices, but it's possible with McCain. Obama would give us more like Breyer and Bader-Ginsberg. Obama favored the D.C. gun ban, voted against confirmation of Justices Alito and Roberts, and when in the Illinois state legislature, voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self defense in their own home. McCain has supported the right of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms.