On Monday, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision that not only affects Chicagoland, but will be felt miles away from the city of the Big Shoulders. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of McDonald, declaring a Chicago prohibition of handgun ownership unconstitutional.
The court ruled that the right to “keep and bear arms,” protected by the Second Amendment, is applied to the states through the Due Process Clause, found in the 14th Amendment. Therefore, state governments are prohibited from infringing on that right, just as the federal government is.
In an age of rapid government growth, this decision is refreshing and comforting. Americans do have the right to defend themselves, despite several attempts to take away this right by many on Capitol Hill and politicians in state capitols and city halls.
This ruling will reawaken a battle that has been a main issue in the past. The war on a basic right, the right to bear arms, is one that incorporates unsound logic and false findings. The soldiers in the war against this fundamental right employ several angles to push forward with their agenda, which in many cases scarily match the plans of history’s most evil rulers.
I heard an argument not too long ago, embraced by the anti-gun lobby, which claimed that when the Second Amendment was penned, the founders did not envision the sophistication of modern firearms. This man claimed the founders meant only muskets when writing the Second Amendment and that anything further is a danger.
Setting aside the fact that a musket of 18th century technology can still inflict fatal damage today, what precedent do such arguments set for modernization? Could blogs and other Internet sites that host opinions be banned, as the founders did not envision this enhancement of free speech when writing the First Amendment? Is this proliferation of free speech too much?
Much like several other government decisions, gun control laws infringe upon the rights of the people for the so-called “good” of the community. We must be aware what intrusions of such liberties can lead us to: the intrusions Hitler, Stalin and Zedong forged.
“Fewer guns, less violence” is common sense in this violation of liberty. Yet, despite the rationale of so many in the anti-gun movement, guns do not kill people. Bad people with guns can kill people. Those who do perform harmful acts with guns are naturally criminals. What is going to make a criminal turn in a gun to authorities when a ban is enacted, when they have no respect for the law or their fellow citizens?
Nonetheless, local governments have repeatedly lumped criminals together with law-abiding citizens who want self-protection. Because of the innate nature of a criminal, no law can keep those who do wrong from doing so.
The logic of gun control and its application also produces an environment prone to more gun violence. If those who are criminals know, because of gun control laws, that law-abiding citizens do not have matching means to protect themselves, what is going to keep criminals from committing crimes?
FBI and CDC data has proven year after year that higher private gun ownership and more states with right-to-carry laws have produced lower gun violence. With gun ownership at an all-time high in 2008, the FBI found that violent crimes were at a 35-year low and murder at a 43-year low.
To further laud law-abiding citizens, in the seven years following the passage of Florida’s right-to-carry legislation in 1987, 221,443 citizens obtained a permit to carry a concealed firearm. In 1998, a study found that not one licensee had ever shot a police officer in Florida, and only one permitted carrier had shot someone following a traffic incident.
The one man who fired upon another after the traffic incident was acquitted by a grand jury after it was ruled self defense. Florida saw handgun homicide rates fall by 41 percent in the nine years after the right-to-carry law passed. In the four years before former President Clinton’s signing of the Assault Weapons Ban, less than 1 percent of homicides were committed with the banned weapons. More children die every year from choking accidents than firearm accidents. The same for fatal fire accidents.
The right to self-defense is embedded in natural law, and our Constitution. Ironically, also found in natural law is the inherent mandate of personal responsibility. Gun owners should be well versed in handling firearms to prevent accidents, for it is their responsibility. Having this right to self-defense, we must cherish it and be responsible.
John Anselmo is a junior majoring in economics.
