(no subject)

[somedaybitch]

Randy Barnett on the Heller decision.

the individual right to bear arms was not gifted to The People solely for their personal protection from violence, nor their potential participation in a milita that was expected to provide its own weapon; it was gifted to The People so that they could protect themselves from the government.

an unarmed populace is how a place like Burma suddenly becomes Myanmar.

self defense is an added benefit.

total gun bans, like Heller, serve only to unarm the law-abiding populace. criminals don't acquire their guns through lawful means. it's telling, and interestingly ignored, that D.C. - a city with the strictest gun ban in the nation - has the highest crime rate in the nation. when a bad guy's got a 50-50 chance of getting his head blown off by a potential victim, it gives pause; which is as it should be.

Comments

[kernezelda]

I totally agree.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

:::clings:::

[arthurfrdent.livejournal.com]

I'd just look at individual protection implicitly as protection from everyone else, including a government... so I gets your drift... ;)

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

i've always viewed it that way, myself, but i think it's helpful for folks to consider context. the Founding Fathers were afraid of the government, and for good reason. lots of folks, remarkably, forget how we started.

[hossgal.livejournal.com]

Amen.

(Not that a place with an armed populace can't *slowly* become a Myanmar, but that is always a risk, for a variety of reasons. It's the rapid transitions that the Founding Fathers were thinking of, IMO.)

(I am myself iffy on licensing - if it were simply a means of ensuring public safety, the way driver's licenses are, I'd be much happier with it. As it is, all I've seen shooter's licenses and gun registration used for is to make it easier to round up the guns at some later point.)

- hg