An anti-gun article entitled “Ready, Fire, Aim…….” was recently published by the Dunfermline Press. This article, written by an author identified as “Across the Pond,” is filled with anti-gun misinformation. Various quotes from the article, and my responses, can be seen below:
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, The Bill of Rights guarantees the Right to Bear Arms. This was the days of course when ‘Arms’ referred to muskets and flintlock pistols. I don’t think the authors of the US Constitution could have foreseen how weapons would have evolved.
Here, the author suggests that the 2nd Amendment should only protect the types of firearms that were in existence when the Second Amendment was ratified. This argument is a non-starter for a few reasons. Firstly, the framers chose the word “arms,” rather than a more narrow term such as “musket,” and there is nothing to suggest this was an accident. Instead, one of the Second Amendment’s purposes is to allow the citizenry to have the weapons necessary to resist tyranny – whether that threat be external or internal. Given that fact, it would undercut the whole purpose of the Second Amendment if it were interpreted to mean only obsolete weapons. Secondly, interpreting the Second Amendment to only protect the arms that existed when the Second Amendment was ratified would be contrary to the established principles of constitutional interpretation. For example, the Fourth Amendment protects the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Nothing in the text of the Fourth Amendment mentions the right to be free from having one’s phone tapped without a warrant. Indeed, telephones didn’t exist when the Fourth Amendment was ratified – yet the Fourth Amendment clearly protects the right to be free from a warrantless wiretap. Similarly, the Second Amendment protects both the arms that existed when it was ratified, as well as modern arms. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment in both D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago as protecting modern firearms, including handguns. Against that weight of legal authority, the opinions of the anti-gun author are rather unpersuasive.
Unless you live in Beirut, Baghdad or SE Washington DC I don’t advocate owning a gun for home protection. I have watchful neighbors and a hefty door lock, both of which make for good security.
Neither watchful neighbors nor a “hefty door lock” are a substitute for armed self defense. Even the most watchful unarmed neighbors can do little more than call the police, meaning that help will – at best – be minutes away while it takes just seconds for a criminal to kill. No r are “hefty door locks,” the solution, as just about any door can be breached by a determined criminal. Moreover, windows and other points of entry remain vulnerable, no matter how secure one’s doors may be. But, even assuming that all points of entry to a home could be perfectly secured, that security becomes meaningless the second one opens the door to enter/exit/allow in a friend/get a pizza delivered, etc.
I have no desire to shoot some bungling burglar over a laptop or television set.
Armed self defense is not about protecting a computer or a TV from theft. It is about protecting your life, and the lives of your loved ones, from criminals who would do them harm. There are many criminals who break in with the goal of causing bodily harm, rather than stealing property (e.g. rapists). Additionally, even those criminals who entered with the intent of stealing may become violent when they realize someone is home, when the discover there isn’t enough money to steal, as a means of trying to get the homeowner to produce additional valuables, or simply for the fun of it.
Gun Control is one of the sacred cows in Congress. Guns are big business and business has never been better.
Guns are “big business” simply because a sizable portion of the American public recognizes the value of gun ownership. Likewise, the NRA is able to wield such political power not because of some shadowy conspiracy, but rather because it is made up of millions of ordinary Americans who have banded together to have their voices heard.
We have a fringe conspiracy movement here called ‘Birthers’. These wing nut theorists are convinced that President Obama is not a US Citizen and therefore is President and Commander in Chief illegally. For some bizarre reason, 25% of American residents actually believe this, or have doubts on his place of birth. This data comes from credible polls taken.
Mentioning this unrelated ‘Birthers’ matter doesn’t seem to be logically related to the gun rights issue that the author set out to discuss. Indeed, it seems that the only purpose of mentioning it was to try and (erroneously) connect gun rights supporters with a conspiracy theory, so as to discredit the gun rights movement. Sadly, this sort of tactic is nothing new.