By Tom Hudson
“A ban on assault weapons won’t eliminate gun violence in Highland Park, but it may reduce the overall dangerousness of crime that does occur.”
Read that sentence carefully. This law may reduce the overall dangerousness of crime. What does that mean?
They are okay with violent crime as long as it isn’t done with an AR-15. As long as it’s just street thugs burning cars and throwing rocks and bricks and using less-than-large capacity magazines, then we can live with violent crime. But, what is unacceptable is law-abiding citizens owning a firearm that has one of five randomly selected features.
By the way, my bet is that the vast majority of liberals cannot identify these features on a rifle, nor can they tell you what each feature actually does.
The court writes that since “assault weapons” aren’t specifically allowed by the Second Amendment, they can ban them:
“McDonald holds that the Second Amendment creates individual rights that can be asserted against state and local governments. But neither it nor Heller attempts to define the entire scope of the Second Amendment—to take all questions about which weapons are appropriate for self‐defense out of the people’s hands. Heller and McDonald set limits on the regulation of firearms; but within those limits, they leave matters open. The best way to evaluate the relation among assault weapons, crime, and self‐defense is through the political process and scholarly debate, not by parsing ambiguous passages in the Supreme Court’s opinions. The central role of representative democracy is no less part of the Constitution than is the Second Amendment: when there is no definitive constitutional rule, matters are left to the legislative process.“
These judges feel that it is the right of the legislature to decide what types of guns a citizen can own. The Second Amendment is being brushed aside by these gun-haters as irrelevant and outdated. Their view is that the founding fathers never intended citizens to own “military-style” weapons.
This is laughable simply because when they wrote the Second Amendment, there wasn’t a difference between civilian and military firearms! They didn’t see guns as either military or civilian; they saw guns for what they were—a way to defend oneself from criminals and enemies. They wanted the citizens to be as well armed as they could be.
The dissenting judge gets it. He writes,
“Unlike public life where the cities and states have broad authority to regulate, the ultimate decision for what constitutes the most effective means of defending one’s home, family, and property resides in individual citizens and not in the government. The Heller and McDonald opinions could not be clearer on this matter. Heller, 554 U.S. at 635; McDonald, 561 U.S. at 780. The extent of danger—real or imagined—that a citizen faces at home is a matter only that person can assess in full.”
The government will not defend you, your family, your neighborhood, or even your city when the proverbial excrement hits the fan. Ask the people in Baltimore. When the cops got pelted by rocks and bricks and started taking casualties, they left. Mob rule took over and chaos and violence ensued. Defending one’s property and life became an individual matter. How many people want to be limited to 10 rounds in this situation? I know I don’t.
This case shows what happens when lawmakers and judges go unchecked and sheep are allowed to vote. The people in Illinois are getting what they voted for: Unarmed law abiding citizens and armed street criminals.
But don’t worry, the court has affirmed your right to feel safe. Feeling safe has saved countless lives over the years. When a shooter appears at your child’s school, make sure they tell him that they are feeling safe and that he needs to respect that—I’m sure he will comply.
I like feeling safe as well, and I always feel safe when I’m carrying my G26.
Civics class used to be required in high school. This class taught politics, law, and the history of our system of government. I paid close attention in civics because I liked it and, unlike math class, I was actually good at it. I never remember being told we have a right to be free from fear. Sure, Franklin Roosevelt said that we should be free from fear as part of his 4 freedoms, but that doesn’t mean that this new “right” is real, nor should it supersede the Bill of Rights. But in Illinois, the right to be free from fear trumps the right to keep and bear arms.
Robert B. Young of National Review has written a fantastic article about our nation’s preoccupation with not hurting anyone’s feelings—this includes making sure that people feel safe, even if the feeling is false.
Young’s article and mine are prompted by the recent court decision in Illinois, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, in which a 2-1 decision makes freedom from fear a defend-able right and a reason to infringe on the Second Amendment. Friedman sued the city of Highland Park to get …read more
Via:: Gun News