Big Dogs Weblog

Second Amendment Work Not Quite Done

by Big Dog on Jun 26, 2008 at 19:55 Political

The ruling by the Supreme Court today on the Second Amendment was a good ruling but there is still work to do. Already, proponents of gun control are claiming that the ruling allows them to decide where, when and under what circumstances people may have guns. Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler stated as much today. The reality is, the ruling gave no such restrictions.

The important thing to look at is what the Court was asked to decide. They were asked if gun ownership was an individual right and the case stemmed from a lawsuit over the DC gun ban which makes it a crime to have a functional weapon in one’s own house. The Court ruled that gun ownership is an individual right and that citizens in DC had a right to have them in their homes (in ready to use, functional configuration). That is what they were asked to rule on and that is what they did. There will be future lawsuits to iron out the limit of that individual right.

The reaction from Mayor Fenty of DC and Mayor Daley of Chicago was right out of the liberal playbook. Gavin Newsome of San Francisco also chimed in. They cannot believe the Court ruled this way and wonder how they could have reached such a conclusion. I wonder how any normal person could reach any other conclusion than what the Court did. [My Way News]

All three Mayors cried about the increased violence that would result from the decision and this is just a bunch of crap. These places already have extremely stringent gun laws and look at their murder rates. You see, the people causing those murders are those who are not supposed to have guns or are using them illegally. The Court’s decision deals with law abiding citizens and addresses the ability to deny gun ownership to criminals and the mentally ill.

Gun laws have not stopped the violent crimes in cities where gun control is the most strict. It is simple, criminals do not obey the law. Look at the crime rates in areas where there are strict gun laws and compare them to rural America where gun ownership is widespread (the bitter folks Obama talked about). The reality is, gun control has been a huge failure and has not reduced crime. Crime is reduced in places where the citizenry is armed.

Ask Mayor Daley how is strict gun control has worked out. He had more murders last weekend in his city than my county did all of last year (and this year combined). Ask Mayor Fenty how the decades of gun control in DC has helped his city which is more than the Nation’s Capital, it is the murder Capital. Handgun violence should not exist under the laws that existed there and yet there were countless shootings. Ronald Reagan was shot in DC so the strict gun laws did nothing to prevent that. Ask Gavin Newsome, who wants the justices to visit the housing projects in his city and see the violence, how it is that his city has gun violence with its strict gun laws.

If gun control is the answer and will end violence why do cities with strict gun control allow their police officers to carry guns? If there will be no gun violence there is no need for the police to carry a gun. It is also worth asking why Chicago allows its Aldermen to carry concealed weapons or why gun control advocate Dianne Feinstein of California has a carry permit. Why is it that these people have a Second Amendment right that idiots like Daley, Newsome and Fenty want to deny the rest of us?

We have scratched the surface in this battle but now that the camel has its nose under the tent we will be able to chip away at the unconstitutional gun laws that government has imposed upon its citizens. We will now be able to combat the tyranny of government. We will also be able to instill fear in the liberals. They want your guns so you have no means to resist tyranny. Now that it is decided law that YOU have the right to keep and bear arms (a right I knew I had all the time and will never relinquish) they will have lost a method used to control the citizenry.

If you think liberals are not afraid of gun owners you need to ask why it is the Amendment they attack all the time. Why do they regulate that freedom to death? No other Amendment in the Bill of Rights has the restrictions and impositions on it that the Second Amendment has and that is because it is the very Amendment that allows the average citizen a means of resistance against a tyrannical government.

It would also be interesting to know why liberals immediately attacked this ruling and started interpreting it as a victory for them. Nancy Pelosi said the ruling would not keep DC from regulating guns. Leave it to a liberal to find ways around a law with which he disagrees. Amazingly, whenever the Court makes a ruling that liberals like (abortion, rights for terrorists) it is considered settled by the liberals and not open for debate or discussion. When a ruling affecting the rights of citizens is made in favor of the citizens the liberals immediately fight to get around the right.

So, who are they fighting for? Who do they represent? Why are they so opposed to people having the right affirmed in the Second Amendment.

My prediction is, there will be no blood baths. There will be no increase in gun violence and in places where gun laws are relaxed or repealed there will be a reduction in crime. Professor John Lott has studied this and written about it.

We have won this battle but the war is not over yet.

Tags: gun bans, liberals, rights, Second Amendment, supreme court