In last week’s column I discussed the 2010 Supreme Court ruling (McDONALD ET AL, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS) upholding the Second Amendment. The ruling doesn’t matter to leftists, neither do statistics proving law-abiding citizens with guns deter crime. The Left is determined to shoot the Second Amendment and let innocents become victims to those who will always be able to obtain guns illegally if guns are banned.
What about the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms? According the the Court, the Second Amendment stands as written: We have gun rights.
In 2010, Justice Thomas declared this: “[T]he Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms…recognized in District of Columbia v Heller …fully applicable to the states…” and “The Court is correct in describing the Second Amendment right as ‘fundamental’ to the American scheme of ordered liberty…and deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions…” going on to state the “due process” clause in the Fourteenth Amendment “only speaks of process”… “Rather, the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable is against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by the Fourteenth Amendment which provides inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
Thomas said Constitution Amendments are written in such a plainspoken way, all citizens can understand the law. There is no argument, except by those who do not favor upholding the Constitution.
Justice Alito said of murder rates by violent criminals with guns versus victims without:
Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates or other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.
Justice Stevens dissented with typical mental leftism:
The decision to keep a loaded handgun in the house is often motivated by the desire to protect life, liberty, and property. It is comparable…to decisions about…education and upbringing of one’s children. For it is the kind of decision that may have profound consequences for every member of the family, and…the world beyond…that may result in death or serious injury…that claim borders on the frivolous. Petitioners make no effort to demonstrate that the requirements are unreasonable or that they impose a severe burden on the underlying right they have asserted…
That belief falls in line with Bill Clinton’s anti-gun presidency and Attorney General Janet Reno making the idiotic declaration: “I think it should be at least as hard to get a license to possess a gun as it is to drive an automobile.”
Only progressives consider protecting one’s self and family from harm so frivolous and unreasonable, they place their jackboots in their own mouths by moronically comparing owning guns to something every American is allowed to do by age 21: Drive an automobile!
This so-called reasoning was discussed in 1993 by Time Magazine, which said Australia and Great Britain placed such tough standards on purchasing guns, violent gun crimes were only 22 in the UK and 10 in Australia compared to 10, 567 in the United States. Never mind that in Australia, only business owners and gun club members are allowed to own firearms. Time claimed strict gun enforcement created low death-by-gun crime rates in both countries.
Time’s data was false. UK firearms prevention of non-gun club members has not prevented violent crimes.
According to Dave Workman of the Examiner: in June of 2010, an active British gun club member went on a mass murdering shooting spree, killing “dozens” with “…a sporting shotgun and .22-caliber rifle.” Police investigations reports the man “may have illegally owned those guns…” he used to murder. CCRKB Chairman Alan Gottlieb of Bellevue notes:
American gun prohibitionists have frequently held up the gun laws of Great Britain as their model. They have created the impression that English-style gun laws would prevent outrages in this country. Today’s shooting spree, which apparently left victims in 30 different locations, should forever put the lie to this argument.
English-style gun laws are the reason Americans enacted a Second Amendment: English laws allow the right of self-defense to few, the rest must suffer their victimization. In a law-abiding manner of course!
And progressives never want citizens considering this: If gun restrictions and bans ware removed and all Americans easily own firearms, would criminals think twice before committing crimes against innocents? If criminals knew victims might be armed and on an equal level to attackers, would criminals be willing to commit crimes knowing they might encounter equal resistance?
That question was answered in the 1998 book by Scholar John R. Lott titled More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control. Lott told Chicago University School of Law:
Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent. Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves
Ah, victims in better positions to defend themselves. What an unreasonable and frivolous assumption! Why that would “impose a severe burden on the underlying” entitlement violent criminals assert against whining victims!
As to schools and gun violence, whenever American schools are held hostage by armed, crazed lunatics shooting classmates and teachers, more gun bans are demanded. Yet students involved in violent gun crimes violate every gun restriction:
The Columbine Killers,” Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold illegally purchased 20 firearms. The two teenagers did what all criminals do—purchase weapons without entering gun stores and applying for gun permits. In fact, the two murdered fellow students with one illegally purchased TEC-9 handgun and two shotguns purchased by a girlfriend, with no prior criminal record, who was able to pass all background checks, proving austere gun laws do not preclude violent crimes.
Anti-gun advocates argue against this claim, insisting gun bans will end gun crimes. Not true.
Cato Institute produced research data evidencing waiting periods have been useless—before and after the 1993 enactment of the Brady Bill. Murder and robbery rates have not declined due to wait-listing and background checks. As demonstrated with the Columbine murders, anyone can illegally purchase firearms through any means if so desired.
Gun laws never prevent crimes. Anti-gun laws and severe purchasing restrictions lead to skyrocketing sales of illegal guns as well as aiding and abetting violent crime. The fact is crime is lower in countries where citizens are allowed to own firearms.
Gary Lampo of the Cato Institute notes that statistics asserting other nations have lower gun crime rates is false. Switzerland and Israel offer guns and licenses to all citizens on demand without waiting periods and guns are “easily obtainable in both nations,” where carrying concealed weapons is permitted to all. As a result, Cato reports violent crime is low in both nations where “home firearm ownership… [is]…at least as high as those in the United States.”
Preventing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against criminals escalates violence.
Violent crime and gun bans in the District of Columbia led to the high court ruling for Chicago that forced the Supreme Court to uphold the Second Amendment as the right of the citizens. Never mind, facts will not prevent progressives from assaulting the Second Amendment in order to ban American’s from our right to keep and bear arms.