This editorial is remarkably confused, even for the New York Times, which is way out front on muddling.
As far as I can tell, the structure of the "argument" is this:
1. DC v. Heller was wrongly decided, and 2nd Amendment should not apply to states or cities. Only the federal government, and DC, are prevented by banning guns outright.
2. All of the Bill of Rights should apply to states and cities.
3. There is a Constitutional right for some people to be able to prevent other people from exercising Constitutional rights. In particular, the last sentence says: "There is another right, however, that should not get lost: the right of people, through their elected representatives, to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them against other people’s guns."
Now, #2 directly contradicts #1. And #3...WTF? There ARE laws, against assault with a gun, murder with a gun, robbery with a gun, that sort of thing. No one is saying that we should get rid of laws that punish misuse of guns.
For those so impressed with laws, let me ask this: Why don't those laws "protect us against other people's guns?" Doesn't that mean that the police CANNOT PROTECT US! If the police can't protect us, then shouldn't we be able to protect ourselves, in our own homes, with legally purchased firearms? And wasn't just that the basis of the Heller decision in the first place? I'm SO confused.
The NYTimes has discovered a new constitutional principle: "selective incorpodumbassicity." This means that the stupidity of some voters is incorporated, using a fabricated interpretation of the 14th Amendment, to rewrite the 2nd Amendment so that legitimate gun ownership, by responsible law-abiding citizens, is treated exactly the same way as if you robbed a bank.
Please discuss, in comments.
(Nod to The Chelsea)
3 comments:
1. DC v. Heller was wrongly decided, and 2nd Amendment should not apply to states or cities. Only the federal government, and DC, are prevented by banning guns outright.
Actually, when they claim that DC v. Heller was wrongly decided, they also claim that DC should not be prevented from banning guns outright.
The contradiction is avoided when you realize that they take a hardline "the 2nd Amendment only means that the government can organize a militia if it wants to" viewpoint.
Having rendered the 2nd Amendment a nullity, they then want the rest of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states.
Someone had a great commentary on the Bill of Rights: The founding fathers felt that it was better for 100 guilty men to walk free rather than 1 innocent to be imprisoned, so they gave us the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments. They understood that this _would_ leave a lot of guilty people running free, so they gave us the second amendment to protect ourselves.
I can only think of two reasons people support gun restrictions in light of the fact that places like Chicago and DC still have high rates of gun crime despite bans. First, they believe banning guns stigmatizes them, making people less likely to obtain or use them and therefore lowering crime. In other words, yes, people use guns in crimes even though they're illegal, but even more people would use guns if they were legal because guns would be easier to get and more people would have access to them in the heat of the moment.
The other option I see is that people support restrictive gun laws in order to eventually completely outlaw guns. While countries that ban guns have non zero rates of gun crimes, they certainly have lower rates than the US.
I think the first point probably holds some truth, but far less than those who hold it imagine. Legally owned guns are very rarely used in violent crime already, adding more would be like changing the speed limit from 55 to 65. The second is, hopefully, a pipe dream. Not so much because of my personal opinion of guns, but because of the implications for individual liberty and the wrong headed assumption that the state can somehow make the world safe enough that we don't even deserve the right to take responsibility for our own safety.
What else can be said other than, "right on."
Post a Comment