Detailed Abstractions

In a close, but what I believe is an ultimately correct decision, the Supreme Court upheld every citizens’ right to defend their homes (via Yahoo News here):

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Supreme Court found Monday a Chicago handgun ban to be unconstitutional in a far-reaching ruling that makes it much harder for states and city governments to limit gun ownership.

In a major victory for gun rights activists, but a bitter blow for those seeking to maintain gun controls in the United States, Justice Samuel Alito said the constitution was clear on the right to bear arms for self-defense.

The 5-4 majority ruling extended to all cities and states the Supreme Court’s 2008 landmark affirmation that Americans have theconstitutional right – as enshrined in the Second Amendment – to own weapons, including handguns….

This is not only a landmark decision as it marks the first SCOTUS decision that wasn’t limited in scope to the municipality the lawsuit was brought against, but for those who believe in freedom – it’s another step forward in a world where we seem to be giving up more and more freedoms.

However, like any freedom, when people think you might use that freedom for things they don’t agree with, they don’t think it’s a freedom anymore. And like any other petty tyrant, Mayor Daley is just going to make other arrangements to ensure Chicago residents don’t enjoy this freedom for long (via CSMonitor here):

…Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said officials were already at work rewriting the city ordinance to adhere to the court ruling while protecting Chicago residents from gun violence….

I guess he forgot to finish his statement – “we want to protect residents from gun violence so long as they aren’t able to protect themselves”…

But either way – for now.  Chicago residents have the right they should have from birth – the right to defend themselves.

Late last week, an Oklahoma resident, was put in the unenviable position of having to defend her life and property with deadly force.  From the transcripts of the 911 operator (here):

RESIDENT – “Oh crap he’s coming around the front…”

911 -  “Is your front door locked?”

RESIDENT – “Yes ma’am but it’s only got a lock on the handle.”

911 – “Okay, do you have a place inside your house and lock yourself in a room?”

RESIDENT -  “Uh, not really.”

911 – “He’s trying to come through the front door.”

RESIDENT – “i’ve got a big shotgun. I’m not going into a tiny bathroom…”

RESIDENT – “He’s walking around the house trying to find a way in…”

RESIDENT – “Oh crap, he’s at the back…”

911 – “Okay , (unintelligible) is advising that you can defend your property if you need to.”

RESIDENT – “Alright he’s at the garage.”

911 – “He’s at the garage? Is it attached to your house?”

RESIDENT – “Nope, he’s at the patio door again.”

911 – “I can hear him banging again.”

RESIDENT – “I don’t want to have to kill this man, but i’ll kill him graveyard dead ma’am.”

911 – “I understand.”

RESIDENT – “Alright.”

RESIDENT – Oh crap he’s breaking in. he’s breaking in now, he’s breaking in now. He’s breaking the window, i’m going to kill him. He’s walking back and forth on the porch. He looks to be an older man, I don’t want to kill him. He’s kicking the door please hurry. He’s going to make it in please hurry ma’am. I think he’s drunk . He doesn’t know where his pickup’s at. God I don’t want to kill this man.”

And the entire horrible ordeal can be listened to here (careful):

While I’m sure nothing I could say would give this women any consolation at all and I do indeed believe that even the justified taking of a life is something we should naturally avoid, I hope that one day she can reach the conclusion that she acted upon her rights as a human being to defend herself.

& just maybe, rabid gun control advocates can use this as well.  Maybe they can use it to question cease the belief  that laws like carry concealed will result in wild west shootouts on the freeway or that gun control can actually saves lives.  Unlike the straw men built by those against concealed carry of the crazy gun totting neighbor,  this woman was sincere and morally torn.

Indeed, unlike many myths about our neighbors, humans simply aren’t as flippant of other human life as some believe.

So for those who tend to fear allowing concealed carry, please take this as an opportunity to understand the real grief law abiding gun owners go through when forced to the ultimate defense.

With that, a quote from Thomas Jefferson on the right to bear arms:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

Gun advocates have long contended the anti-gun lobby is only using guns as a stepping stone to slowly remove other freedoms.  Like the saying, “They first came for the communists, but I wasn’t a communist.”  Indeed, this is truism that writers have told us for centuries: freedom is precious and must be protected.  As Hayek stated:

“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”

Well, not to be ones to go against a historical truth nor stop our descent into statism,  statists moved from guns, to smoking, to obesity.   We’ve seen smoking bans in most states, some so restrictive that it makes illegal smoking in tractor trailers as they are assumed to be a “place of business”, banning handguns in major cities,  to the banning of actual cooking ingredients such as transfats.

It never seems to dawn on any of the proponents, that each of these laws removes one additional freedom.  Nor do statists seem to understand that humans will find ways to behave exactly as they wish regardless.  This is especially true of economic regulations, but also of business regulations meant to influence individual behavior.

For instance, during the recent concentrated attacks on America’s obesity “problem”, many local and state governments have looked into legislating calorie counts and nutritional value be available on the menu itself.  Apparently, having to ask for the nutritional value which is already available was too difficult, hence the reason to further regulate.

It matters little that giving nutritional value by request or forcing it on the menu doesn’t to change behavior.  Than proposed bans on food advertising will have little effect:

George Mason University’s Todd Zywicki noted at a forum last summer that the average American child actually watches less TV than he did 15 years ago. What’s more, children face less exposure to food ads now than they did then, for a variety of reasons. The remote control has made ad-watching optional over the last 20 years, and more recent technology like TiVo may make traditional commercials completely obsolete…

Indeed, the reason also has little to do with good business, such as McDonald’s excelling by giving clients good tasting food at relatively cheap prices very quickly.  Research has shown:

…The economist Tomas Philipson and I have written about the economics of obesity. We have pointed out that the decline in the price of fatty foods, along with the rise in the opportunity cost of physical activity (work is more sedentary than it used to be, so one has to invest extra time to get exercise, and television and video games have increased the utility that people derive from sedentary leisure pursuits), explains the dramatic long-term increase in the percentage of Americans who are seriously overweight….

Same with gun control advocates.  They don’t seem to worry about inconvenient facts like banning handguns in very high crime areas does little to prevent crime, but does a lot in preventing citizens from exercising their freedom to self-defense.  In Chicago:

Far more of the guns seized at crime scenes in Illinois come from Illinois than any other state.

It doesn’t even matter that we can see the slippery slope happening right in front of us.  For instance,  if we can ban smoking in private business establishments, why not private vehicles?  Crazy you say?  It’s already happening in limited fashion as we speak for child custody cases.

No, proponents everywhere of using government force for your own good, don’t seem to be able to see any consequences other than their pet project.  All that seems to matter today, is that enough people think the action is bad and are willing to use government coercion as a means to an end.

For a country with a history of trying to prevent the exploitation of minority groups by the majority, and indeed a Constitution to enshrine that very ideal, we’re moving quickly into tyrannical rule by the majority.  Let’s all remember, that we are a Constitutional Republic, because true Democracy is nothing more than allowing 51% of the population to enslave 49% of the population by simple majority vote.