A right to what, exaclty?
David Kopel asks: What is the right protected in the Heller dissent?
The antis want an individual liberty that guarantees the right to gun laws; or, maybe a right to a cityscape undisturbed by gun stores. What they don't want is you having the right to own a gun. They especially don't want you using that gun to defend yourself or your family from a criminal assault.
Maybe they want to preserve your right to be beaten, raped, and murdered. Silly, you say? The truth is that they really don't mind you dying so long as no one suspects their cowardice. You see, they can't picture themselves doing what many gun owners have steeled themselves to do if, God forbid!, the occasion arises: To use their own arms to defend themselves without the government's help. To them, that's the stuff of action movie heroes, not them. They are convinced of their own cowardice. The last thing they want is a mere mortal like you doing what they fear they cannot. That would draw attention to their own inadequacies. Or so the tortured logic plays out in their minds. Thus, they rage against the very idea of self defense.
Are you saying to yourself "That's sick"? You should. This is what we have been fighting for all of these years. We have been fighting against laws written to cater to the irrational fears of a small, but politically influential, group of people. Now, thank God, the era of "gun control" is drawing to a close.
I have not yet studied the Stevens dissent in depth, but on my initial read, I was confused as what exactly is the scope of the individual right that Justice Stevens thinks the Second Amendment does protect?Of course, as Kopel points out later, no right is protected. Stevens' argument it merely a "continuing repackaing of efforts to deny the validity of the Standard Model." The opinion, and the amici supporting Stevens, are trying to say "not an individual liberty" without using the word "not"; an impossible task. Maybe Bill Clinton could do it, but he's the master at that sort of doublethink; in a class by himself. Others ply his trade at their own peril!
The antis want an individual liberty that guarantees the right to gun laws; or, maybe a right to a cityscape undisturbed by gun stores. What they don't want is you having the right to own a gun. They especially don't want you using that gun to defend yourself or your family from a criminal assault.
Maybe they want to preserve your right to be beaten, raped, and murdered. Silly, you say? The truth is that they really don't mind you dying so long as no one suspects their cowardice. You see, they can't picture themselves doing what many gun owners have steeled themselves to do if, God forbid!, the occasion arises: To use their own arms to defend themselves without the government's help. To them, that's the stuff of action movie heroes, not them. They are convinced of their own cowardice. The last thing they want is a mere mortal like you doing what they fear they cannot. That would draw attention to their own inadequacies. Or so the tortured logic plays out in their minds. Thus, they rage against the very idea of self defense.
Are you saying to yourself "That's sick"? You should. This is what we have been fighting for all of these years. We have been fighting against laws written to cater to the irrational fears of a small, but politically influential, group of people. Now, thank God, the era of "gun control" is drawing to a close.
Labels: Castle Doctrine, parker
posted by Steve at
8:35 PM
0 Comments
