NOVAE MILITIAE

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/europe/russia.php

Sort of reminds me of this one:

Can you imagine most modern American politicians, including commanders-in-chief, striking such a pose?  Nobama, for instance?  Schmillary?  (Not this is any kind of endorsement of the GOP candidate, Juan Mequeno.)

No, we can only imagine our solidiers, marines, seamen and airmen with arms in hand.  And even they run the risk of being feminized by either those who purport to "lead" us or by their own, liberalized ideologies.  Which, concerning those military men (the women should return to hearth and home), means either that they'll grow breasts and lose their balls, or start to reconsider their mindless, absolute obedience to the non-entities who would "govern" us from the nation's "capitol."

If those military men don't rise to the occasion - or worse, obey orders to subjugate American citizens - then I say long live the stripe of Medvedev.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm

As usual, the authors get it wrong about the 1939 Miller case. That case explicitly affirmed neither a collective or individual rights theory, although in its historical analysis, which was pretty good, it did acknowledge the importance of the 2nd Amendment's militia clause in interpreting the amendment. What it went on to further acknowledge, however, is that these arms used in militia service were privately owned arms which "the people" -- the aggregate of individual citizens -- brought to militia service. Why does one privately own arms unless for BOTH self and collective defense? Thus, Miller implied that the right was BOTH individual and collective. What's more, it treated Miller and Layton as individuals who had "standing" to litigate this matter, and those guys weren't members of the National Guard, but "indivduals".  In fact, there was no National Guard back in late 18th century when the federal constitution was drafted and ratified. As the court in Miller clearly acknowledged, the militia was comprised of civilians.

What happened in Miller had to do largely with the question of whether or not a sawed-off shotgun could be considered a firearm suitable for militia use. "In the absence of evidence" tending to show this, the court wrote, it could not say that it was, and it remanded the case back for further finding. However, bootleggers Miller and Layton and their counsel had disappeared into parts unknown, and so that's where the case remained. Had they appeared and had their attorney been savvy enough, they could have shown how short-barreled shotguns were used in both the WBTS and WWI and were therefore firearms with military utility.

Regarding the Heller case now before the Supreme Court, there is much speculation out there in that part of the legal community which devotes itself to gun rights issues that the high court will find some way to achieve a very narrow ruling that will affect only DC and not the rest of the country. Or in the alternative, as the USA Today article indicates, some sort of balancing act where an individual right to arms is affirmed but retaining the government's power to enact broad controls, if necessary. Tough to do, since the standard of judicial review for "fundamental" rights is that of "strict scrutiny", which, if applied, renders broad controls unconstitutional. It'll be interesting to see what this court does. Kennedy will be the guy to watch, as the article indicates.

In the end, however, for several reasons it really doesn't matter what the high court says. The American gun culture is generally very familiar with the constitutional history of the right to arms on the one hand and the malfeasance of the American judiciary on the other. That culture knows that there are state constitutional provisions that protect the right as well, nay, that the right itself antedates its enshrinement in state and federal constitutions. Which is to say that it is going to keep and bear arms regardless of what some black-robed philosopher-kings say. And an armed populace is just as much a check on the misuse of political power as is the separation of powers inherent in our system of government.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080226/1a_bottomstrip26.art.htm

But of course they are.  The public schools, aided by the general cultural milieu, are creating a generation of dumbasses. 

That's why cultural renewal, if it is to happen here in America, will stem from all those families who opted out, and home-schooled their kids.  Those people, hardly noticed by the tens of millions of the benighted who consider the current American cultural rot normative, will be the genesis of what takes the place of that rottenness when it has finally returned to the dust.

Which is pretty much what I've been saying here for the last few years: the Empire's days are numbered.  From its ashes a new civilization will come forth: Christendom II. 

"It is history that teaches us to hope."  (General Robert E. Lee)