Supreme Court gets it right for a change

I disagreed with their ruling earlier this week forbidding the death penalty for crimes other than murder and treason, but they’re back on track striking down the D.C. handgun ban as unconstitutional. I’m still frustrated by the opposition arguing stupidly, though.

Elilta “Lily” Habtu, however, told the high court that she supports the handgun ban, and tighter gun control in general. Habtu was in a Virginia Tech classroom in April 2007 when fellow student Seung-Hui Cho burst in and began shooting. She survived bullets to the head and arm.

“There has to be tighter gun control; we can’t let another Virginia Tech to happen,” she told the court.

This, despite the fact that Virginia Tech has a complete ban on handguns, and despite the fact that D.C. with a handgun ban had 143 gun-related murders last year compared to 135 the year before the ban went into effect. Why are people so blind to facts? I’m glad that 5 out of 9 supreme court justices saw the truth. Still, that’s an awfully slim margin for something that should be clear cut. The second amendment to the Constitution is only confusing to people with a poor grasp of the English language. It very clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What comes before that is merely the reason why the right of the people is to be protected. In my opinion, it’s an outdated reason… but defense of self, family, and home is a far better reason.

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Stephen  On June 26, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Is there a line in the sand you’d draw? Would it be outrageous for individuals to have nuclear weapons? Napalm? Dynamite? Automatic weapons? It seems the line has to be drawn somewhere.

    OK, dynamite is good for geology, mining and construction. There was talk of using nuclear bombs for big canal projects. Maybe no line has to be drawn.

    One state i lived in required that you belong to a gun club, or have other training. Seems reasonable, but i doubt it’s constitutional.

  • wolfger  On June 26, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    Well, obviously weapons of mass destruction (nukes, biological weapons, etc) should not be used by individuals. There’s simply no point to those weapons on the small scale. They are weapons of war, purely. Aside from that, I can’t think of any bans I would support. Licensing is a good thing. Requiring safety classes is a good thing. Should my neighbor be able to own a fully funtional tank? Well, assuming he has someplace to park it, I don’t see why not. It’s not a road-legal vehicle, so if he ever starts it up, I’ll be on the phone to the local air base… But it basically comes down to a matter of money and common sense. My neighbor can’t afford a tank, and if he could it’s highly unlikely he’d buy one, because there’s no point to having it. Can’t hunt with it, can’t defend his house with it, it’s a very expensive toy. People with that much money to spend on toys seldom go on killing sprees, so I don’t see a problem if he does buy it, but he could kill more people in a much less noticable fashion with an automatic rifle.

    But that’s all a bit far away from the issue at hand, which was a ban on handguns, which are extremely well-suited towards personal and home defense. One handgun in the right hands could have severely reduced the body count at Virginia Tech. Where you have a ban on firearms (school, work) you have lambs waiting for the slaughter (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Kentucky plastics plant). You never see news headlines about a bloodbath at a gun show… Mass murders always occur in places where unarmed people congregate.

  • Jay  On June 26, 2008 at 7:53 pm

    Am I the only person against both sides of this issue?

    First, the DC law is dumb. Even if you walled off the DC, removed every handgun and searched everyone entering, it wouldn’t prevent handguns from getting into the city. Look at Britain.

    Second, the Second Amendment clearly pertains only to militias and people who disagree with this simply ignore the first half of it aka confirmation bias. What I don’t understand is why the vast majority of pro-gun people don’t pass a clearer Amendment.

    ‘Scalia said a citizen may prefer may prefer a handgun for home defense because “it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.”‘ This is so ridiculous it isn’t even funny. A shotgun is far superior for self defense and as for calling the police, that’s easy, shoot the burglar then call the police.

    I think rifles, shotguns and handguns have their place. Tanks(?!) and machine guns are made for one thing, killing lots of people, period. They have no place in individuals private hands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: