David Rittgers
Gun Prohibition, R.I.P.
Gun Prohibition, R.I.P. - David Rittgers on National Review Online">The Supreme Court’s new Second Amendment decision is the end of an era.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of Chicago’s handgun ban in McDonald v. City of Chicago is more than a recognition that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. The McDonald decision is a harbinger for the end of gun prohibition as an idea. The simple, undeniable truth is that gun control does not work.
McDonald brings the law up to speed with reality, where advocates of gun control have been wrong since the issue became a national discussion.
Strict gun-control policies have failed to deliver on their essential promise: that denying law-abiding citizens access to the means of self-defense will somehow make them safer. This should come as no surprise, since gun control has always been about control, not guns.
I've mentioned before how I was not concerned when Texas changed it's laws to allow people to carry a pistol in their car without a concealed carry permit. A friend of the force said this would make the streets more dangerous and my response was along the words of "the bad guys are already not obeying the law, they are carrying in their cars and on their persons....that's why they are the bad guys...."
Racism created gun control in America. Confronted with the prospect of armed freedmen who could stand up for their rights, states across the South instituted gun-control regimes that took away the ability of blacks to defend themselves against the depravity of the Klan....
Gee, liberals being racist???? I don't belive it.
...Since the Heller case invalidated the District of Columbia’s handgun ban two years ago, Chicago has served as the gun-control capital of the United States. Not coincidentally, Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally. Local politicians frequently ponder calling out the National Guard to patrol Chicago’s streets.
Three times in the last month, Chicago residents have defended their homes or businesses with “illegal” guns. In the first, an 80-year-old Navy veteran killed a felon who broke into his home. In the second, a man shot and wounded a fugitive who burst into the man’s home while running from the police. In the third, the owner of a pawn shop killed one of three robbers in self-defense, sending the other two running.
The Illinois legislature, confronted with clearly justified shootings like these before, created an affirmative defense for those who violate local gun bans when unregistered guns are used in self-defense. Then–state senator Barack Obama voted against this law, which passed by an overwhelming majority and over then-governor Rod Blagojevich’s veto.
You mean B Hussein Obama doesn't like it when people defend themselves against the bad guys...or just the fact his buddy lawyers couldn't sue afterwards?
In passing this exception, Illinois recognized the basic injustice of the Chicago gun ban. Otherwise law-abiding citizens are victimized at a high rate. Chicagoans cannot depend on the police to defend them, cannot sue the city because the law protects officials from liability for failure to protect them, and are barred from effective means of self-defense.
And a right no man can take from another man...the right of self defense. I won't question there are legitimate restrictions for a "well regulated militia", e.g. limits on the ownership of fully automatic weapons, but telling someone he can't have a 45cal or 12gauge in his house is a threat to the liberty of free men everywhere. But to make another point. To every pusher of gun control...I'll start taking you more seriousely when you don't have armed security watching you. Obama, the Clintons, the Kennedy's like to talk about taking guns from the American people but not themselves. I mean, if the gun is the problem wouldn't they want their guards disarmed for their safety?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment