Here’s a story from a few days ago about a Malden, MA man whose gun just may have saved his life against two robbers:
“The mother of a Malden man who survived being struck with four bullets in a gunfight that left the other two men dead said yesterday that she is grateful her son was armed with his licensed handgun at the time.
‘He had it on him. Why, I don’t know. His friends said he’s never had it on him. But I am very thankful he did. Otherwise it would have been him killed,’ said Kathleen Becerra, 47.”
Read the rest at the Boston Herald.
A few days ago, the Daily Kos (of all sites) had a great post arguing that liberals should support all of our constitutional rights, including our Second Amendment rights.
“Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.”
Read the rest here.
I wish more liberals thought like this! Liberalism used to mean a philosophy that is basically the same as present-day libertarianism. I’m glad that to the authors of that blog post, it still does!
The Supreme Court ruled today in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments in addition to the federal government. The case centered around Chicago’s ban of basically all handguns, which will likely be repealed as a result of the ruling.
The decision is not perfect – it allows some state and local gun restrictions, just not those that ban handguns entirely. Paul Helmke, the head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, was “reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution.” But this is still a victory for liberty because the court has upheld one of our fundamental rights, the right to bear arms, and sent a message to state governments that they cannot trample all over people’s freedoms just because they aren’t the federal government.
Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute wrote as much:
“The Fourteenth Amendment, coming on the heels of the Civil War, says clearly that never again would the Constitution tolerate state oppressions and that all individuals possess certain fundamental rights. And it is equally clear that the right to keep and bear arms is one of those deeply rooted fundamental rights, not least because the Framers thought so highly of it as to enumerate it in the Second Amendment.”
Otis McDonald, the Chicago grandfather and community leader who brought the lawsuit against his city, brought up another positive aspect of the decision, in addition to preserving freedom:
“This will make criminals think twice. If you have the right to have a handgun in your house, even if you don’t have a gun, that will give criminals a second thought, a third thought about breaking in to your house.”
Full text of the decision (PDF)
Gun pictures thanks to Adams Guns
Three cool things I’ve come across recently:
Until the other day, I never knew much about the League of Women Voters. I just assumed they were a nonpartisan organization that supported the Nineteenth Amendment (giving women the right to vote) and now are kind of obsolete and support non-controversial things like making sure everyone gets the opportunity to vote. Well, was I ever wrong! I had no idea, until I visited their website, that the LWV of Massachusetts is the most left-wing organization I have ever heard of.
The first thing I saw was the following notice:
“Thank you to all who helped defeat Ballot Question 1!”
Okay, so they have no concept of private ownership of property. Great. But the horror got worse. They have no concept of the Constitution either. Under “Where We Stand,” they list all the things they support. For “Handgun control,” they write:
“Elimination of the private possession of handguns and assault weapons.”
Noooooooooooo!!!!! I have never heard of any organization that has ever publicly held such an anti-gun position. It horrifies me that an American organization would directly oppose the Second Amendment. But IT GETS WORSE. Under “Citizen rights,” the LWV writes:
“Protection of basic constitutional rights.”
WHAT ON EARTH???? I don’t think I even need to point out that these two statements directly contradict each other. Thomas Jefferson must be rolling in his grave. Apparently no members of the LWV are aware that the Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution. The LWV gives the rape advocate on BostonHerald.com from my earlier post a run for her money as the biggest hypocrite on Earth.
So, in short, to say that the LWV is left-wing is the biggest understatement ever. They make MoveOn.org look right-wing and make Obama look like a Republican. I am disgusted and horrified by their hypocritical, anti-freedom views.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms, it seems that America has forgotten about what the Second Amendment actually says. In case you don’t know, here it is:
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.
Note how it doesn’t say that only people of a certain age can bear arms. It doesn’t say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms only applies if said people have a permit for their guns. It doesn’t say that people have a right to keep and bear only certain types of guns. The Second Amendment guarantees everyone a fundamental right to own and handle whatever guns they want, for whatever reason they want.
Then why is it that Giants football player Plaxico Burress was arrested for accidentally shooting himself in the leg? You’d think getting shot in the leg was bad enough, but the government had to arrest him merely for owning a gun. The media is referring to the gun as an “illegal” weapon because he had no permit for it. Well, no weapons should be illegal, because weapons are not immoral and do not hurt people. Forcing people to go through an expensive and time-consuming process in order to get a permit to exercise what should be a fundamental right is an undue burden on Americans’ freedom and is unconstitutional. Burress did not hurt anyone and did not commit a crime.
Also, three people were indicted today for involuntary manslaughter and furnishing guns to minors because an eight-year-old boy accidentally shot himself with an Uzi at a Massachusetts gun show in October. The people indicted are the owner of a gun dealership that cosponsored the show, and two people who let youths at the show handle guns. People are calling for the boy’s father to be indicted as well.
None of these people should be indicted, because no crime occurred. People of all ages have a right to bear arms and to make their own choices. It is tragic that this boy’s decision had such terrible consequences, but it was his decision. No one forced him to use the gun, so his death is no one’s fault. To claim that adults have an obligation to forcibly stop children from doing what they choose to do is ridiculous. Accidents happen, and although they can be tragic, sometimes there is no one to blame.
I completely agree with the Supreme Court’s decision that the Second Amendment protects individuals’ rights to bear arms. In the weeks after the decision, I have read some pretty stupid arguments against the ruling. Some people seem to assume that the right to own a gun is the same as the right to shoot whoever you want with that gun. In an editorial for the Boston Herald, author Mitch Albom writes:
“It means people shooting first and asking questions later. It means domestic arguments now resolved with pistols. It means thousands more guns out there, which means thousands more guns stolen and used for the wrong reasons. It means 4-year-olds finding Daddy’s gun. It means teenagers, angry and misguided, grabbing guns from their parents’ closets. It means workplace violence. It means suicides.”
No, it doesn’t. The Supreme Court’s decision simply means that (basically) anyone who wants can own a gun. It does not mean that people can shoot others without asking questions or commit violence at work or at home. It does not mean (necessarily) that more guns will be stolen, or that kids will misuse guns. Teaching children how guns work and why they are dangerous is a much better way to keep safe than banning guns. Plus, isn’t it a little ageist to call teenagers “angry and misguided”? I’m sure some adults are “angry and misguided” and that some teens are calm and have good judgement.
In a Boston Globe article, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago was quoted as saying,
“If they think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken… Then why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun, and we’ll settle in the streets.”
Again, the Court’s ruling gives people the right to own guns. It doesn’t give people the right to settle their disputes with violence. It doesn’t give people the right to shoot anyone! Why would you want to do away with the court system just because people can own guns?
Additionally, the ruling is not supposed to be an “answer” to anything. I consider myself a deontologist, which means that I judge what is right and wrong based on people’s duties and rights, not on the consequences of actions. It seems like the Supreme Court justices (at least the 5 in the majority) were also being deontologists when they made this ruling.
Here is how my logic goes: Owning a gun is not immoral, and it does not violate anyone else’s rights. Therefore, individuals have a right to own guns, and the government has a corresponding duty to respect that right. Shooting an innocent person, on the other hand, does violate that person’s rights, and that is why that, not owning a gun, is illegal. Laws should be made to protect people’s rights, not to get good consequences. Banning the ownership of handguns would be wrong no matter how many good consequences it had, because it would be violating people’s rights.
I have never fired a gun in my life. Yet because I am a deontologist, I wholeheartedly support the Second Amendment.
