In yet another 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court has confirmed the plain meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The above quotation is the last two paragraphs of the Court’s decision as written by Justice Antonin Scalia. If you read the entire decision, you’ll find that it is likewise brilliantly written with logic and reason which is unassailable. In contrast, read this portion of Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent:
The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy.
Hey, Stevens: The entire Constitution places limits on the tools elected officials possess to regulate and otherwise control the lives of the people. I find it hard to believe that this guy can say this and still be taken seriously as a judge on the Supreme Court. If he doesn’t understand what the Constitution is, how in the hell can he be charged with interpreting it?
As for the gun ban itself, it never accomplished what it was supposed to:
Although studies through the decades have reached conflicting conclusions, this much is clear: The ban, passed with strong public support in 1976, has not accomplished everything the mayor and council of that era wanted it to.
Over the years, gun violence has continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times.
…
In 1977, the first full year of the ban, the city recorded 192 homicides. The total rose to 223 in 1981, then fell to 147 in 1985 - the lowest annual homicide toll in the District since 1966. At the time, the rate for the country also was trending down.
Which turned out to be the calm before the slaughter.
The advent of the crack market and the unprecedented street violence it unleashed nationwide sent homicide rates soaring in the latter half of the 1980s. Not only did the number of killings surge in the District, the homicide rates here also far exceeded the rates in crack-ridden cities where handguns had not been banned.
In the peak year, 1991, the District reported 482 homicides.
Almost as sharply as violence in the District increased, it declined through the 1990s, a drop researchers attributed to the burning out and aging of a generation of crack dealers and users. Again, the shift reflected national trends.
Yet the gun culture on the city’s mean streets during the crack epidemic has not abated, police statistics show. Even as the homicide toll declined in D.C. after 1991, the percentage of killings committed with firearms remained far higher than it was when the ban was passed.
Guns were used in 63 percent of the city’s 188 slayings in 1976. Last year, out of 169 homicides, 81 percent were shootings.
Reading the above article you’ll find that the amount of gun-related crime was influenced by factors other than how many guns were available. In fact, it seems that the factor most responsible for the amount of violence was the number of crack dealers and users. Further proof that it is people who kill people, not inanimate objects.
As logic suggests, gun bans do not stop criminals from using guns, nor does it stop gun violence. All gun bans do is leave the law-abiding defenseless against a group of criminals who know that their prey will have no way to defend themselves. Until the gun-grabbers realize that people are responsible for violence and crime, not inanimate objects, they’ll probably never understand. I’ll bet a lot of these “brain surgeons” blame their pencil every time they misspell a word.
So, fellow citizens, it is time to rejoice. In a time of uncertainty and apprehension, one of your most basic freedoms and rights has been affirmed and protected, the right to protect yourself and your family from those who would do you harm.
