The Glenn and Helen Show: The Supreme Court and the DC Gun Ban
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?
