Are We Headed Towards a Nation Unconstrained by Gun Laws?
September 30, 2009
Comments
5 Responses to “Are We Headed Towards a Nation Unconstrained by Gun Laws?”
Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.
“Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon,” wrote Easterbrook
This statement is on the face of it , completely ridiculous and seems to have emmananted from the stomach of judge Easterbrook. It is totally without merit, as a statement, and proof that judges should be replaced by computers.
One thing you should remember about the Wild West (well, two things): Firstly, that it was extremely unusual for abusers of the right to bear arms to survive very long; Jesse James was the exception, not the rule; and secondly, that most of what modern Americans (and for that matter, foreigners) “know” about the Wild West is pure fiction.
I wish it were so … a nation unconstrained by gun laws.
But that is probably an over-reaching prediction. At any rate, it would be nice to see us concentrate on rule of law, justice for the innocent, and punishment for the guilty, instead of chasing off to try to control this object or that … in the false hope that doing so might change people’s behavior.
In the end, it is bad people who behave unlawfully.
Easterbrook is surely already regretting that “older and more deeply rooted tradition” quote. He must have losers for clerks. If he only had read the Heller opinion, there was great discussion on how the right to arms predates our American concept of Federalism.
PS: As a matter of fact, gun owners don’t believe that the constitution bestows us the right to arms. We know that it predates the constitution and arises out of the natural law of self-preservation. The second amendment simply commands that the right shall not be infringed. If you learn only one thing today … let it be that.
Methinks that you doth protest too much. Most of the United States already have very liberal (as in liberty, not statist Liberals) laws regarding gun ownership and carry. The number of states in which you (presuming that you are a law abiding person without a criminal record or mental issues) cannot get a permit to carry a concealed weapon can be counted on one hand. A ruling by the Supreme Court will likely only apply what is the norm in the majority of the nation to those aberrant locales such as Chicago (where I live).
Chicago’s laws are abhorrent. When this city is prepared to assign each resident a personal police body guard for 24×7 protection, perhaps it can justify a total ban. When the city is willing to accept specific liability for protecting our safety and property — meaning we can sue and win damages when the city does not prevent a mugging, robbery, rape, battery, assault, murder, or other crime against an individual — then it can maybe justify prohibiting residents from possessing the means to self defense. Until the city and police are responsible and liable for preventing crime, not merely investigating, putting up tape and drawing chalk lines, there can be no justification for the ban.
If SCOTUS guts the gun laws, Congress needs to tax the hell out of guns and bullets. Tax them and use the revenue to fund police, gun victim survivors and GSW emergency room visits. Use the same principle for weapons as they do for cigarettes.