Alphecca

Idiot of the Day on Gun Rights

That would be Michael Feuerstein, a student at the University of Virginia who in a letter to the student newspaper writes:

When I first read Allan Cruickshanks's column, "Respecting the Second Amendment," (Mar. 14) my initial intention was to recite the litany of crime statistics showing that the D.C. gun ban has in fact served its purpose, but it is a tired argument to which conservatives refuse to listen.

Let's see, DC bans handgun ownership and DC has a higher crime rate than (taken as a whole) any other state in the country. Four times higher. But crime statistics are totally besides the point because the appeals court ruling wasn't about crime, it was about the Bill of Rights and specifically the Second Amendment and whether it is an individual right or not and whether DC residents are protected by the Bill of Rights. If this was a First Amendment question you can guess pretty quickly which side of the debate Feuerstein would have come down on.

He also says:

...Times have changed and the context in which the Second Amendment was written is in no way comparable to today. Those advocating gun control simply disagree with those supporting gun rights as to the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment and its pertinence and application in todays world.

Again, pertinence doesn't enter into the ruling. Either it's a right or it isn't. Even Alan Dershowitz and Lawrence Tribe (both of whom are liberal constitutional scholars who hate guns) concede the 2nd describes an individual right.

Further, applying Feuerstein's logic, the First Amendment was also written in a different time and context and surely the founding fathers could not have seen the advent of TV, radio, movies, and the internet. An argument could be made that if they knew about the spread of pornography, shock radio, religious icons dipped in urine or smeared with dung, and so on they might have inserted a few clauses into that one.

Would Feuestein suggest that we hold a constitutional convention and revisit all of the Bill of Rights, including the 1st? I doubt it. Maybe (and now I'm extropolating, not relating what he actually said,) people like him would say that, "Well yes, but words don't kill." I'd reply to that argument that guns don't, either; criminals using them do. But more than that, words -- speech -- do kill. That's why so many college campuses (and state legislatures) have -- unfortunately -- enacted "hate speech" codes and laws.

It was only last year that a couple cartoons set off deadly riots around the world. The Bible and Koran have been used to justify the slaughter of innocent people and the deprivation of rights for blacks, women, gays, and so on. Words (free speech) can be deadly. That is also besides the point of anything. A right is a right until citizens agree to give it up. Unfortunately, again, many have decided to give up some of their rights. I'm not. Freedom does exact a price but I'd rather pay that than the alternative.

Posted by Jeff Soyer at March 15, 2007 07:27 AM