David Codrea at Ammoland.

“Substantial numbers of constitutional scholars … believe that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision was wrong … and I am among the dissenters as well,” he discloses to no one’s surprise. “Even so, the Constitution has never been interpreted in a way that would give people the right to have firearms in their possession anywhere they want and for whatever reason they want.”

Here’s a news flash for you, genius.  You don’t get to dissent.  You’re not a justice on the Supreme Court.  You’re an ass-clown.

“Although the Supreme Court has never credited the ‘citizen uprising; theory of the Second Amendment, there are plenty of people who think that their arsenals are a bulwark against a tyrannical government,” Buchanan continues. “How they think they would win against the weaponry of the modern military is anyone’s guess, of course, but that is beside the point here.”

Well, it isn’t beside the point if you brought it up, and you did bring it up.  Since you brought it up, I get to call you an idiot.

There.  Enough of that and on to something I wanted to address as part of this piece.  One of the commenters writes this.

In a way Buchanan is right. The constitution is irrelevant as one’s right to self defense need not be codified by The State to be law. The problem again with people like Codrea is that they are binary Statists: Democrat/Republican, Legislation/No Legislation. Although you may think that Codrea gets it, he doesn’t. He mistakes legislation for law and can’t see freedom existing without the central state…which BTW “The State” and “Freedom” are mutually exclusive entities.

“We will not disarm.” is a strong statement from a fellow who sees the State as the final arbiter of whether you can make a gun quiet. My inkling is that Codrea would be the first turn turn in his arms if the State mandated it.

Now David is a big boy and doesn’t need me to defend him, but I will anyway.  This commenter must not know David very well, or the concept of covenant.  We’ve discussed it many times before.  The Constitution (and BoR) is a covenant, bringing blessings and curses as corollaries to obedience and disobedience.

If we or the government fail to live by the covenant, the guilty party both (a) suffers in the here and now for it, partly in that the curses are invoked (in this case meaning that tyranny is held accountable, or at least it should be), and (b) God holds us all accountable for obedience to our covenantal obligations.  The WCF is very solemn on entry into oath and vows.  God knows everything we do and will hold us accountable.

It makes good sense for peaceable men to try to persuade others to live by their covenantal obligations.  That is certainly not the same thing as recognizing that our rights and obligations are ultimately rooted in God and His law-word, and the fact that we are made in His image.  Turning this truth into a simpleton’s statement on “binary statists” is stolid and unthoughtful.  I can’t stand unthoughtful men.

For heaven’s sake, turn on at least part of your brain before commenting.  Or have your first cup of coffee before typing.  Or something.