Gonzo attacks the wrong rights

Alberto Gonzales (a.k.a. "Fredo", "Gonzo") believes that there is no right of habeus corpus in the U.S. Constitution, since the constitution merely says that it cannot be taken away! By that logic, there is no right to bear arms either, since the Second Amendment merely says that the right cannot be taken away. (Think Progress)

Habeus Corpus has a history that is centuries old, and is part of what once made America a better place to live. The Second Amendment existed for the purpose of creating a citizen's militia, or people's army, to stage a revolution and defend freedom whenever necessary. Thomas Jefferson once said that he expected the republic to last about 20 years. It was common sense that each generation would have to fight (the government) to defend their freedom. But the Second Amendment is never interpreted to mean the right to bear nuclear arms and chemical weapons is protected. The founders probably never meant to include automatic weaponry, or support the possession of weapons by citizens who were not even part of a well-organized militia defending the security of a free state.

Wingers always like to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of the second amendment. Dashboard Widget Google Fight shows "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" out-frequencied by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" by 1,430,000 hits vs 378,000 hits.

If we are going to live under a dictatorship with no rights, it would be better to have an authoritarian socialist dictatorship rather than one to defend the property rights of the parasitic class. This is the erosion of freedom that was presented as a worst-case outcome under communism, but now promoted as everyday life under capitalism, slavery being the cost of freedom.