On the Second Amendment
Decatur Guy has showed a limited knowledge of both the Constitution and the intent Founding Fathers with the Second Amendment over at Peach Pundit with this post on the Second Amendment and a gun ban in Washington, DC.
The District is arguing that the Second Amendment is a collective right. But one of the judges responses to that is great:
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."I typically enjoy banter with Decatur Guy, but I cannot express into words how wrong he is on the issue of gun ownership. He says he supports gun ownership, but says that this is "good regulation" and somehow believes that if all guns in the District are banned that criminals and drug dealers will stop using them. That is naive.
The Second Amendment is there, not just to keep government in check, but it's for personal protection as well. It grants both the states to keep armed militias and the individual citizens the right to keep arms to guard against threats to their life, liberty and property, whether it be from government or criminal.
Comments
You’re right on Jason. Laws only work on law-abiding people. This is a simple matter of common sense. A criminal willing to threaten, rob or injure another person has already decided to break the law. Adding one more crime to his rap sheet isn’t going to make any difference to him. I read one study that said criminals are more afraid of an armed citizen than they are the police. Banning handguns removes that threat and emboldens the criminal. Even if you decide you don’t want a gun in your house, you still benefit from the second amendment because the criminal doesn’t know who is armed and who isn’t.
Posted by: MyMoney | December 8, 2006 07:08 AM
I have not read the post over at Peach Pundit...but has anyone looked at the crime stats in DC? The gun ban does nothing but hinder law abiding citizens from owning guns.
Posted by: T. Nugent | December 8, 2006 08:41 AM
to focus on the issue of personal protection from criminals (while important) is to lose sight of the real purpose of the amendment (which is clear in its historical context) - the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the citizens right to an armed overthrow of the government. Nothing less.
What infuriates me is the people who want to argue what it means aren't bold enough to propose an amendment to replace the 2nd that has all this 'right to hunt' and 'personal protection' and 'reasonable control' stuff in it. If you are an advocate of gun control then be bold enough to go about it the right way.
Posted by: Green Death | December 8, 2006 08:48 AM
If you are an advocate of gun control then be bold enough to go about it the right way.
Kind of puts that "activist judge" in a whole new light, doesn't it?
Posted by: Jason | December 8, 2006 08:52 AM
I sure was glad to read about the DC court case. I visit once or twice a year, and have been afraid that I might become the test case.
Posted by: Joe | December 8, 2006 12:08 PM
Kind of puts that "activist judge" in a whole new light, doesn't it?
Not making the connection.... what do you mean?
Posted by: Green Death | December 8, 2006 02:06 PM
I prefer trigger control over gun control..........
Posted by: Tyler | December 11, 2006 09:34 AM