Noteworthy:
"Question: Did the murder rate really triple under the Washington, DC, gun ban?
Answer: Yes. The murder rate was 26.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 1976, when the ban became law. That would be its lowest rate for the next 30 years. It peaked at 80.6 homicides per 100,000 people in 1991."
It can not be argued that removing firearms from the law abiding equals good law enforcement. Quite the opposite. All this accomplishes is allowing the bad guys to be armed(since what care of law do they have?)and able to prey on the citizens.
ReplyDeleteEven bad guys do not like having high velocity holes punched in them. Private firearm ownership is a powerful anti-dote to criminal activity.
Exactly.
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, you're involved in another pointless argument with those who like to pick and chose which parts of the Constitution are "operative", based upon their worldview and their political/social/economic agendas.
From a practical life standpoint I think that disarming the law abiding citizens while keeping the criminals armed (defacto)is insanity. I want every criminal who thinks of pulling a gun to worry that he might get killed - immediately. I have encouraged all my daughters to pursue getting concealed weapons permits as soon as they are old enough (though I don't own and have never owned a gun).
ReplyDeleteSo I think there OUGHT to be a right to private gun ownership for legitimate self protection. But I have never been able to read this right into the second amendment. I plan to read Scalia's arguments very carefully.
I have always had the notion that the right to own guns and knives and such was merely assumed by the framers. It seems assumed by the second amendment unless we imagine all these unarmed people showing up for militia duty asking "hey, anybody got a gun?". But I have always thought that that assumption (sadly) didn't make it into the wording.
It's not JUST anti gun people who find themselves looking hard at the second amendment for the right for the private/personal bearing of arms. If Scalia has made a compelling argument I will be glad.
Here's the opinion.
ReplyDeleteIt's clear, concise, and irrefutable, despite the moaning and wailing from certain quarters.
Be sure to read the pertinent information that starts at the bottom of PDF page 5 and continues through the top of PDF page 35.