Topic: Gun Control
The Right to Defend against the Common As the Supreme Court takes arguments over whether the District of Columbia's ban on guns is constitutional, an 81 year old Georgia man defends himself against a common thug.by EJ Moosa
(libertarian)
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Had the 81 year old man and his 78 year old wife lived in the District of Columbia rather than in Tucker, Georgia, he and his wife would certainly have been robbed, and possibly dead this morning. Instead, he defended himself and his wife against a common thug, shooting the thug dead. (Read the story here)
By coincidence, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller yesterday. The belief that anyone is safer by not having the right to defend themselves is a lesson in insanity. The only person that would have been safer under such a scenario are those that seek to attack the innocent.
The Anti-Gun groups want to take the statement "to provide for a common defense", and say that it was meant for the militia. I suggest that it was meant to say that we would always have the right to defend ourselves against common threats of that time and of the common threats we have today.
The most common defense we as individuals face today is the threat of armed robbery or attack. We as individuals have the inalienable right to protect ourselves because we have the right to life. Taking away the right to defend ourselves will take away our right to life and give it to those that are willing to attack us.
Here in the state of Georgia, we have had several recent murders of women who were the victims of individuals who have no respect for human life. Two college students from Georgia have been killed in the last two weeks. Lauren Burk and Eve Marie Clarke were both murdered in the same week. Meredith Emerson was murdered after hiking in the North Georgia mountains. And several years ago, Jennifer Ewing was brutally murdered on the Silver Comet bike trail in 2006.
The results of this are that women in the state of Georgia are applying for permits to carry concealed weapons, they are taking self-defense courses, and are learning how to shoot and protect themselves. Fortunately, they live in a state that understands they have a right to protect themselves. Recently at the finger printing location for applicants in North Fulton County during the 15 minutes I was present, four of the five applicants were female and three of those applicants were 60 or over. Criminals should take note that these women are not going to be easy victims any longer.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will restore the rights of all of the citizens of the District of Columbia to defend themselves. The decision is to be delivered by June, 2008. Most importantly, this decision will affirm or deny our right to defend ourselves for decades to come. Let's hope they use common sense and allow us to defend ourselves legally.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 21 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of EJ Moosa only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. EJ Moosa is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
A gun is only as dangerous as the person carrying it. Our culture of jailing non-violent "criminals" is a heinous offense to civil liberties, aimed primarily at the socioeconomic lower class. Toss this right in there with the "war on drugs".
Two things to rember about the bill of rights. The first is that the amendments were written by Congressmen who, like their current counterparts, sometimes worded laws to create "unintended consequences." The second is that more than one hundred proposed amendments to protect the rihts of "the people" and the states were introduced, and before the amendments were send to the states, a number of proposals might be combined into a single measure. The First Amendment is the that is in most clearly the combination of a number of similar proposals intended to protect individual and group rights. The second and the tenth amendments appear to be less happy combinations. In the case of the second amendment, since the constitution granted to the central government the right to create and man a standing army, the states were anxioux to guarantee that this would not be the sole armed force in the country. At the same time, and for the same reason, the individual's right to bear arms was also important. (In Europe at that times the only people who could be armed legally were those who had been granted coats of arms==that is, the nobility). Unfortunate, the combination of the protection of individual rights and the state's right to have it's own army was unskillfully done, and has mad possible the deliberate (and unhistoric) confusion we have today.
The Second Amendment is not confusing at all if you study what the founding fathers originally intended. Or knowing that the Bill of Rights were restrictions on the power of government.
This republic was founded on the principle of division of power, between the judiciary, the executive and the legislative. Yet, the fourth division is the people themselves and the Second Amendment assures that the people will not long tolerate abuse by the other branches.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
