Chicago Now Shows Misunderstanding of Gun Laws and Second Amendment

While the title from an editorial by Stephen Markley for Chicago Now suggests common sense, the argument shows anything but. Markley’s editorial titled “Gun Control Is a Completely Pointless Battle” offers points that are questionable or just completely off the mark. From the get go Markley shows his true colors, writing:

“Any regular reader of this blog will not be surprised that I think firearms in general are stupid, purposeless death traps and that I rolled my eyes when the Supreme(ly Activist) Court struck down Chicago’s handgun ban.”

First, we’re awestruck by the complete and utter weakness in this argument. “Firearms in general are stupid.” No, you’re stupid – that would be the general back and forth of a fourth grade debate team. In an editorial it is nonsense. Not only is it a rather weak argument, it shows a general laziness.

So too is the point that firearms are “purposeless death traps.” Mr. Markley maybe passionate about his cause but his editorial clearly doesn’t show any logic. Simply put guns cannot be death traps. Guns can be used in deathtraps, and the argument of “purposeless” is completely wrong as well. Guns have many purposes – the most notable and simple is to fire bullets. While you might not like that primary purpose, there is a purpose. Guns can be investments, guns be collectibles, guns can be art. All of this is lost on many anti-gun zealots. So too is the fact that guns can be history!

Were this the least of the problems we’d say this is a weak argument. Unfortunately, Mr. Markley is also off the mark on actual facts as well. He states:

“…the gun ban was an acknowledgment that most illegal guns used to commit crimes began their lives as ‘legal’ weapons.”

Do we see a fact check on that point? Do we see the path from legal to illegal guns? We do not, and typically we won’t. This is a common problem with this argument. It is a statement that has been thrown around so many times that the writers actually believe what they are saying, despite the fact that little evidence is given to back it up. Guns are stolen from individuals, guns are stolen from the police and guns are imported illegally. These are sad but true facts. Banning guns will not solved the latter two problems either. As we like to point out private ownership of guns is illegal in China, but criminals have no problems obtaining guns. How many of those ever started out as “legal” guns?

But even worse is that misguided anti-gun zealots such as Markley get worked up to the point that they make very rash statements, such as the author’s statement about the Second Amendment:

“Speaking of the Second Amendment–um, shut up. The Second Amendment was written when the most lethal handheld weapon available was a single shot musket that took about ten minutes to reload. It was enshrined in the Constitution following the Revolutionary War when the use of these muskets had obviously been key in overthrowing an oppressive British system of governance.”

Again, Mr. Markley should get his facts straight before he writes. As he said he thinks guns are stupid and this doesn’t help his case by stating key point that are just untrue. During the era of the smooth bore musket a trained soldier could fire three rounds per minute, which is quite ways off from taking 10 minutes to load. That is simply wrong. We could also argue with you on whether the “most lethal handheld weapon was a single shot musket,” as there were multi-barreled rifles coming into use. There were also long bows and cross bows that were quite deadly, and of course various bladed weapons. Two of the aforementioned items – the long bow and the swords – were arguably deadlier in a trained hand. Are we nitpicking, yes, but it shows that you simply have no idea what you are talking about, and thus shouldn’t talk about this topic.

The other point, is that the Second Amendment was written when even a minor wound from a musket might very well have been a death sentence. This argument is made time and time and time again by anti-gun zealots, but is simply wrong. Consider the wounds that were survivable in World War II, Korea, Vietnam and of course today. Soldiers can survive much worse wounds, whereas in the time before modern medicine a shot to the arm would likely kill you! The Founding Fathers no doubt knew the lethality of muskets, as they saw the carnage of the American Revolution first hand.