Our friend and fellow blogger Tom G. Palmer has helped score a legal victory in defense of constitutional freedoms, specifically the right to own a gun for self-protection. The case concerns our nation's capital, where adult citizens are barred from legally owning or possessing firearms. No licensing, no background checks, a total ban. Reports the Washington Post:
Palmer, 50, said that his gun rescued him 25 years ago when he was approached by a group of men in San Jose. Palmer, who is gay, said he believed the men were targeting him because of his sexual orientation. He said he and a friend started to run away, but then he took action.
"I turned around and showed them the business side of my gun and told them if they took another step, I'd shoot," he said, adding that that ended the confrontation.
Palmer moved to [Washington, D.C.] in 1975 and lives in the U Street NW corridor, where police have struggled lately to curb assaults and other crimes.
Many believe the state alone should have a monopoly on all protective weaponry. Apart from denying free individuals the right to defend life and property (including equalizing the terms with gay bashers when the cops don't happen to be around!), legal gun ownership serves as the founders intended, as a barrier to the government ever veering too close to tyranny (one of the first laws Hitler passed was to bar German Jews from owning guns). It's a right worth fighting for.
More. Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, law prof. Eugene Volokh takes on the meaning of "militia" as used in the Second Amendment, noting that the Supreme Court has ruled:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
Yet much of the liberal media pretend as if the founders, anachronistically, were pre-visioning something akin to the contemporary National Guard. But why rely on facts when confusion serves the political purpose so much better?
24 Comments for “A Right Worth Defending.”
posted by JimG on
Stephen,
I agree with everything you said. I do have a question for you though. What do you think the Founders meant by the phrase, “a well regulated militia”, which begins the statement of the second amendment. Thanks.
posted by Ray Eckhart on
“a well regulated militia”
JimG,
Best write up I’ve seen on that subject is here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051601.shtml
posted by kitynboi on
I wish the Pink Pistols could grow and gun ownership was more widely accepted among gays. I think the argument could be won and many gays could be convinced of the benefits of gun ownership, but not many people are doing much to make the argument.
I would like to see a gay group that promotes gun rights and self defense in general become large and powerful.
I would also love to see a gay citizens militia.
And I would REALLY love to see the right wing struggle to come up with a coherent response to this. I think some right wingers would do a 180 on gun rights if the majority of gays started using guns to fend off bashers.
posted by Bobby on
Most liberal gays oppose anything rightwingers support, it’s almost by instinct.
I can’t wait for the liberal response on this story.
“Oh, confronting gay bashers only increases homophobia.”
“Oh, then the gay bashers are gonna be angrier and beat up another gay.”
“Oh, violence is never the answer, we need more education.”
Gun control is the basher’s best friend.
But a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen it’s a great equalizer. It empowers the old against the young, the weak agains’t the strong, and the minority againsn’t the majority.
Not that anyone cares, the NAACP supports gun control even though blacks were the first victims of gun control during slavery. In some southern states, even free slaves were not allowed to bear arms.
So I’ll let the liberals destroy each other, conservatives are the only ones fighting for the second amendment.
posted by Alex on
I do not own a gun. I do not want to own a gun. I believe the statistics that show owning a gun increases one’s liklihood of dying by gun violence.
That said, I have no issue with people possessing protective weaponry. Current laws, adequately enforced, should be sufficient.
I draw the line at the “need” for automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, automatic approval for concealed weapon permits, etc.
posted by Doug on
Thank you, Alex, for a voice of sanity in this argument.
posted by kittynboi on
Too many gays have bought in to the lefts peacenik views of the world. Education can prevent the creation of future bashers, but does nothing to existing bashers. Those people will only understand force when it comes to stopping them.
The only way to keep current bashers from bothering us is to make them too scared to come near us. If gays had a reputation as people who will shoot you if you try to bash them, then the bashers will run the other way.
If the majority of gays own guns, then bashings will drop by a huge number.
posted by PCT on
I’m with you, Alex and Doug. I think it’s pretty clear that members of families who own guns are more likely to die by gun violence than those who don’t own them. Here’s one study with some evidence in that regard: http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=471
However, I have to admit fantasizing sometimes about pulling out a .357 when some twenty something punk wants to mess with me and my guy. I would love to see the look on his face as he pees his pants and turns and runs.
So, all in all, I think kittynboi is right too.
posted by Bobby on
“The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.
Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned. Yet, since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent; robbery is up 45 percent, and murders up 54 percent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost to its 1993 level.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200508190817.asp
posted by Carl on
Stephen, do you have any comments on Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying homosexuality is “immoral” and that’s why Don’t Ask Don’t Tell should be kept around?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201420.html
“”I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,”
Silly me, I thought serving in the military was about serving your country, not about having sex with other people.
Once again we see that these people put their own hatred ahead of America’s welfare.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Silly me, I thought serving in the military was about serving your country, not about having sex with other people.
Well, he remembers last week, when you decided to be obsessed with Matt Sanchez having sex with other people rather than his serving his country.
That’s why homophobes don’t really have to work too hard, Carl; you and yours tend to give them all the material they need as a nice outgrowth of your never-ending quest for vengeance.
posted by Antaeus on
Guns are fine. Tom Palmer is not.
posted by Brian Miller on
A good decision all around by the federal court.
If the left wing wants to ban gun ownership, they should push for an amendment to the second amendment and argue out in the open, rather than engage in this ridiculous distortion they’re using to violate the letter and spirit of the Bill of Rights.
I see little difference between so-called “liberals” arguing that our Second Amendment rights can be ignored with a “change in perspective,” and so-called “conservatives” arguing that they can legally indefinitely detain and torture people (also against the constitution) based on “alternative views of founders’ intent.”
The Constitution is not a topsy-turvy, twist-around, bureaucratic document. Our rights — defined as limitations in state power — are written into it in plain, simple language.
Old party politicians continue to “rationalize” away those rights in the name of “security,” but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re breaking the supreme law of the land.
posted by Carl on
–
Well, he remembers last week, when you decided to be obsessed with Matt Sanchez having sex with other people rather than his serving his country.-
Funny how he “remembers” that when he never said any such thing, and when the military is investigating Sanchez, so apparently they are as “obsessed” as any other people who criticized him are.
Sanchez escorted and did gay porn films and then never bothered to tell the military about this. That’s a huge difference from many other gay and lesbian soldiers, and it’s kind of sad that you compare all of them to Matt Sanchez.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s a huge difference from many other gay and lesbian soldiers, and it’s kind of sad that you compare all of them to Matt Sanchez.
Well, Carl, I think that, if you’re so concerned about telling the military about peoples’ private lives, then you should fully support someone sending the military a list of people who have had gay sex in their ranks — since they all obviously lied to the military to get in and/or didn’t bother to tell the military about it.
posted by JimG on
Thank you, Ray Eckhart. I went to the link you provided and found it to be a most interesting article. Especially Mr. Brocki, who when referring to the phrase “a well-regulated militia” states…”The sentence meant that the people are the militia and that the people have the right.”
This has long been my view. But, if that is the case, it also poses the question as to whether it is proper to regulate the “people” and whether just anybody should be allowed to be armed. I am thinking about people who are felons, or individuals with mental instability histories, histories of violence or abuse, etc. etc. I have always been a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I was always a little confused by other supporters and their outrage when it came to, say, having a background check done on prospective buyers to make sure that they were law abiding citizens, etc. When I think of “well-regulated” this is what comes to my mind and I have never been particularly troubled by having to prove one is a law abiding citizen. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
Thanks again.
JimG
posted by Ray Eckhart on
Jim G.
Thanks for asking. I’m personally rather agnostic on the whole subject, but found that Kopel article interesting and persuasive, and I’ve seen nothing from the Brady Bill Bunch that responds to it, beyond cant and assertions that barely acknowledge the existence of the 2nd amendment.
However, Andrew Sullivan, today, links to this post by Gary Rosen referencing an article he wrote for a year 2000 edition of Commentary that’s very much on point. Rosen accepts the individual right to keep and bear arms interpretation, and also acknowledges the concerns you raise:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/rosen/262
Specifically:
“I do not pretend to have a definitive answer to the technical legal question of precisely what kind of ?scrutiny? the judiciary should apply to Second Amendment cases. It does appear to me, though, that any number of public-safety-minded restrictions on how guns are acquired?and even, up to a point, on what kinds of guns are allowed to be sold?are perfectly compatible with the full exercise of Second Amendment rights, just as reasonable limits respecting time, place, and manner are not thought to interfere with constitutionally protected speech.”
posted by Brian Miller on
NDT, if you’re going to persist in your “woe is me” schtick over Sanchez and Misunderstood Gay Republicans, kindly restrict it to relevant threads so the rest of us can skip over it.
Thanks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Mr. Miller, I believe what triggered what you’re calling “off-topic” was this post.
But thanks for demonstrating my point rather convincingly. 🙂
Question: would you have noticed or said anything about Carl’s post had I not responded? Or is he free to post “off-topic” because he’s of your ideology?
posted by Kit in DC on
Mr. Miller,
While realizing that I am in the minority, I hope that this ruling will be overturned upon appeal. I honestly believe that the first words of the second amendment are what this case revolves about and what normally most gun advocates tend to dance around or just ignore: “In order to form a well regulated militia…”. Until such time as this phrase is clearly and legally defined, I think we should take the most cautious route and maintain the gun ban. I have never understood why so many people want to own “killing machines” (for that is all that handguns are). However, I do understand that the gun lobby is very powerful and the die is probably cast. Part of the reason I moved to DC was because guns were illegal and only criminal owned them.
posted by JimG on
Thanks, Ray Eckhart. I appreciate your input. I will check out Mr. Sullivan’s blog.
Best.
posted by Bobby on
Kit, like many people, you don’t get guns, just like many more don’t get homosexuality.
The truth is I don’t need your permission to protect my life from predators.
As for “In order to form a well regulated militia…”. we don’t dance around it, we interpret it the way James Madisson did.
“Who is the militia? The people.” I am the militia, you are the militia, all able bodied men and women are that.
posted by ETJB on
In cities-suburbia, people tend to associate guns with crime. In rural communities people tend to associate guns with hunting.
If you want to change that, name calling or blaming it all on ‘the left’ is not really going to help out.
Yet, the biggest question is why not let D.C. become a state and decide this for itself?
posted by Bill from FL on
One important thing to remember here….if we are going to be pro-gun we also have to push for pro-self defense laws as well….for all of us. Otherwise pulling a gun on a predator can subject you to prosecution!
As screwed up as FL is on stuff, thank god for the “Stand your ground” laws!