Friday, June 27, 2008
|
|
Gun Rights Mean Self Defense- Or Nothing
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
9:22 AM
|
The logic of the Supreme Court decision on gun rights is simple and unassailable. Yes, the Second Amendment establishes an individual’s right “to keep and bear arms,” the court decided. And this right means nothing, if it doesn’t guarantee the individual’s ability to possess a firearm in his own home for the purposes of self-defense. The Washington D.C. handgun ban made it impossible for a private citizen to own a hand-gun at home, and regulated the storage of rifles in such a way that they could never help with self-defense. It therefore took away the individual’s right “to keep and bear arms.” Senator Obama’s position—that he supports gun bans like Washington’s, but also believes there’s a constitutional right for private gun ownership – has been praised by the media as “nuanced” but counts as almost laughably contradictory. If there is a Second Amendment right to firearms, but it doesn’t protect a right for law-abiding citizens to keep guns in their own homes for self defense, then what, exactly does it guarantee? Don’t expect Obama to provide a meaningful answer to that question.
|
|
|