As a former member of the NRA and the ACLU (I resigned from the NRA when they endorsed cop-killer bullets, over-the-counter machine guns, and guns without child safety locks when children were present, and I resigned from the ACLU when they represented too many Nazis while ignoring more meritorious causes), I was glad to see the Supreme Court put meat on Second Amendment bones. The opinion itself was as intellectually dishonest as many watershed decisions, e.g., Roe v. Wade, but no matter, individual rights were expanded. Shocked I would drag Roe through the mud? Just because I'm a progressive doesn't mean I have to be a hypocrite! Liberals take notice, examine your own hypocrisies:
Political and social conservatives have railed against unelected judges legislating from the bench, substituting their judgment for the legislative process. While conservatives would narrowly construe the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, somehow their "pet" Second Amendment escapes strict constructionist scrutiny. Their silence is no less deafening than the indoor report of a 44 magnum.
2 comments:
Where does a constitutionally protected right to individuals 'bearing arms' end, and common sense begin? I doubt anyone would argue for the right to carry a loaded gun onto a commercial airplane (although the NRA might point out that 'guns (or manicure scissors) don't hijack planes, people do.' While many honest responsible citizens may be able to own guns without resorting to senseless violence or crime, mere citizenship offers no such assurances. If the population were all responsible gun owners, there would not be any debate on the topic. Rights carry responsibilities and have limits - as our airports make obvious. Owning a deadly weapon should require higher standards than, say, owning a driving license (where careless driving turns vehicles into unintentional lethal weapons).
It is easy to get emotional about individuals 'rights' and ignore the social consequences of that right. In the UK (where common law comes from), private gun ownership is strictly limited and deaths by guns (accidental or deliberate) are extremely rare. Having limits on lethal weapons (whether guns or cars) is a small price to pay (in individual freedom) for the benefits of increased pubic safely and social cohesion. Why should airports be the only place where the law reduces your chances of getting shot?
The one person who clearly delineated the concept of "individual rights" more clearly than anyone else was Ayn Rand. You can study her theory of rights more fully in several places, but three I would recommend (in proper reading order) are Craig Biddle's book, Loving Life; Ayn Rand's book, The Virtue of Selfishness; and then Tara Smith's fantastic work, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.
Ms Rand said very little, and wrote even less, on the topic of gun control and gun rights for the individual citizen. One somewhat singular exception to this was in an interview where she stated:
"I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say, no, the government shouldn't control guns except in very marginal forms. I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection."
I hope this is helpful and adds to your contemplations! Cheers..
Post a Comment