Huff and Puff Huffs and Puffs About Guns
Posted by FirearmsTruth on July 1, 2010 · 2 Comments
No surprise that the Huffington Post didn’t care for the SCOTUS ruling, but in writing about the issue Joanne Bamberger asked some flat out stupid questions, clearly missing the point:
“I have to ask — have Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy ever hung out in their Supreme Court neighborhood or other Washington, D.C. inner city neighborhoods after dark? Because if they’ve spent even the least little time doing that, their view of guns might be a little different.”
Well, Ms. Bamberger, what you clearly missed the point on is that the case (McDonald vs. The City of Chicago) wasn’t about some street thugs saying, “we need guns.” It was about an elderly man who wanted a gun in his home to defend himself from said street thugs! Maybe Ms. Bamberger, if Mayor Richard Daley would venture to Mr. McDonald’s neighbor after dark, without his police escort, he could understand why Mr. McDonald sued to get a gun!
But Ms. Bamberger takes it a step further, asking:
“But doesn’t it make sense to look at a provision about owning and carrying guns in the light of when it was penned — in the immediate aftermath of gaining our independence as a direct result of a bloody war and the reasonable fear that the King of England just might be toying with the idea of sending troops again to take back what he believed was rightfully his. If the same men who chimed in to create the Constitution were around today — in the time of ever-increasing senseless gun deaths that haven’t been curbed by owner registration or restrictions — I have to believe that they’d be okay with gun control laws that would keep guns away from those who have no problems with drive-by shootings or taking aim at someone over a cheap bracelet.”
Are the other Constitutional amendments any less relevant today? Couldn’t you argue that the Founding Fathers might be against the freedom of the press arguing that magazines with Lady Gaga on the cover in bubble wrap corrupt our youth? Wouldn’t the Founding Fathers find the pornography on the Internet to be a problem? The simple fact is you cannot judge what they would have thought, because they could not have envisioned it.
But more importantly, this isn’t about senseless gun deaths. As with many in the mainstream media Ms. Bamberger cannot show a link to this ruling and crime. This isn’t about giving guns to criminals, or making it easier for criminals to obtain guns. The fact is that criminals will always find a way to get illegal guns, and the laws are only made to deter law-abiding citizens, such as Mr. McDonald, from having a chance to fight back.
No, I didn’t miss the point. Being able to ask the questions and look at the law from more than one narrow viewpoint is what I do … and I think other people do, as well. In this instance, there’s really only one thing that so many are missing — the provision about people having guns is directly tied to the need to establish a militia. And the last time I checked, no one was doing that — unless you’re a fan of the Posse Comitatus.
Then we must ask how you feel about the First Amendment? It states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Does the press mean the media? Does the press mean radio, TV, magazines or the Internet? It doesn’t say media, it says press. So I don’t know if I agree with your narrow viewpoint on the second amendment.