The Glenn and Helen Show: The Supreme Court and the DC Gun Ban
The Supreme Court has decided to hear an appeal on the D.C. gun-ban case, meaning that the question of whether the Second Amendment protects a right to arms will be squarely before it. The suit was brought by Bob Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, and Glenn Reynolds and Helen Smith talked to him about the case, the law, and what may come next.
November 21, 2007 - 12:15 am
The Glenn and Helen Show: Bob Levy on the Supreme Court and the DC Gun Ban Case
The simple fact that these arguments invariably begin with the statement that Americans need to defend themselves from each other pretty much sums up the underlying mentality in relation to the entire issue.
Having said that, I understand the global population, having grown exponentially during the last 100 years, is on the verge of an unsustainable explosion. So just let Americans arm themselves to the teeth so they can continue the business of population control in earnest.
The issue of self-defense as an inalienable human right cannot be ignored in a world when so many are injured or killed daily because they have no effective means to support that right, or any other rights not granted them by their oppressors, organized or local.
The vast majority of killings are not by suddenly non-law-abiding people, but by criminals who ignore most law anyway. So more gun controls invariably fail to control violent crime, they just make it safer for criminals.
If someone does not wish to take an active role in his self-defense, there is always 911. That person will discover that when seconds count, the police are almost invariably just minutes away.
The experiments in the UK, Washington DC and states in the US with well-managed “shall issue” concealed carry programs prove out that criminals will always find guns and bypass controls, and that violent crime of all types increases when criminals are sure their targets are unarmed.
The problem that bothers me is that human rights activists and liberals always want to take guns from people who don’t commit crimes and refuse to sanction the horrible actions of those prone to violence.
Reading the history, the concept underlying the 2A is respect for human life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and protecting these ideals at an individual level. Without the means of effective self-defense, one has no rights someone more powerful cannot take away whenever that person wants.
This issue was on the table before firearms became broadly used, and will be there when firearms become obsolete. The matter is not about guns, but about people and how they can take care of themselves and be free of predation from whatever source.
Anyone who thinks might makes right will support expansive gun controls. Anyone who wants the state to manage citizens’ lives in detail will support expansive gun controls. Mao, Muagabe, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler…they all understood their goals would not be possible in the face of an armed populace.
And look at the results…
How can those who support “human rights” wish to deprive individuals of the means to preserve their freedom?