On any given day there will be a dozen different articles or opinions posted to major news organizations about guns. Well, not guns, gun rights, well not gun rights, OUR right to self defense.
The arguments are so tired and well worn that in most cases you can discard them within moments.
Militia! What about the Militia!
These are the people that read “A well regulated Militia,” and stop. If the amendment mentions militia it must be about the militia.
These are the same people that say that until 2008 and the Heller decision there was no individual right to keep and bear arms. They might state it a little differently “the individual right to keep and bear arms was not recognized until 2008” They are ignorant or deceitful regarding the facts that until around 1968 it was always considered an individual right.
But what about all the gun violence!
These are the people that are not interested in the law as written. They are interested in the law as interpreted. They believe in a balancing act between the common good and the law. If they believe that the common good is more important than the law then the common good should prevail.
In the past when “for the common good” was applied, you ended up with strange fruit hanging from the lamp posts.
You can hear and read this point of view in the descent to Bruen.
You don’t need a (Fill in the blank)!
Unlike every other right there are people that believe the right to self defense should be limited by need. And need is defined by them, not you. If they don’t think you need an AR-15 then the second amendment doesn’t apply to an AR-15. If they don’t think you need a semi-automatic center fire rifle then the second amendment doesn’t apply to semi-automatic center fire rifles.
By defining and limiting what is covered by the second amendment they are able to reduce the second amendment to a meaningless trope.
That place is to sensitive to have firearms
For some reason they believe that people that carry firearms will lose control and start shooting random people. Now it does happen that evil people shoot others because they are evil. The justification seems to be that by creating a gun free zone that people will be safer within those zones.
The obvious problem with this is that gun free zones are only apply to the law abiding. They do not apply to criminals. In addition, because of the limits on the law abiding they become a place where it is easier for criminals to operate.
If a property owner wishes to only allow criminals with guns into and onto their property, so be it. We should then decide not to enter those places to do business. If a crime then takes place in one of these places the property owner should be liable as they did not provide adequate protection for those on their property.
Years ago we went to Six flags in Maryland. On the way in we had to pass through metal detectors. Bags had to be checked. They got very upset about my Swiss Army Knife. They didn’t notice the large folder that was in my camera bag. They would not have noticed if I had a full size 1911 in that bag.
Criminal Guns Only zones just don’t work without a great deal of effort.
They Only Meant Muskets!
Leaving out the rifles of the time and all the other amazing advancements in firearm technology going on.
They are unable to figure out that if there was a technology restriction on rights they would loose almost all of their other rights.
The Pennsylvania Gazette, the newspaper published by Ben Franklin, published once a week and had a subscriber base smaller than this blog. (It is hard to find circulation numbers, take that last statement with a grain of salt). Yet nobody really thinks that the first amendment doesn’t apply to the Internet, regardless of all the yapping about “hate speech isn’t free speech”.
It is to deadly
Almost everything we do today is faster and has larger impact on more people than what was happening in the 1700’s. Most people didn’t hurl across the earth in contraptions of steel and plastic weight thousands of pounds. Each one of which was capable of destroying most homes of the late 1700’s.
A food processor is significantly more capable than the knives of 1776.
nj.com has a history of unbalanced articles regarding firearm rights. Earlier this week they published a balanced article. It is almost as if they can see where things are going and are making editorial decisions that don’t make them out to be complete fools.
The U.S. high court’s ruling, known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, “opens up the possibility of scrutinizing all modern-era firearms laws, which seem to be preoccupied with banning hardware as opposed to punishing wrongdoers and intervening with people with mental health problems,” said Scott Bach, the head of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs.
There are many more quotes from gun rights advocates in the article. There is one from gun rights inf ringers and none from the usual suspects.
A spokesman for acting state Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who is named as a defendant in the two major suits, declined to comment. But Platkin saw these legal challenges coming.
“The opinion in Bruen (the Supreme Court gun permit case) will encourage individuals to challenge other laws, ranging from our limits on who can buy guns, to our limits on the most dangerous kinds of guns New Jersey residents can buy,” he wrote in an op-ed last week.
It is refreshing to read a news article in such an anti gun outlet in such an anti gun state that is not twisted in the normal ways.