Kneejerking the Supreme Court Gun Ruling
John Cole draws analogies to Roe v. Wade. I’m no scholar of the court, but that seems fitting.
I’ve been trying to wrap my head around what it will mean since I first saw the headline this morning. Okay, it is now absolutely legal to keep firearms in your home as a means to self-defense. I’m fine with that. Should someone intrude or invade your privacy, I guess you should have the right to blow holes in their kneecaps. I’m not too terribly concerned with that.
And, considering thugs who already carry guns around in public, no law will abate such behavior, criminal or not. Thugz will be thugz, yo.
What I am concerned with (again, on a kneejerk basis) is the wanton recklessness this could lead to.
Could it really get worse than it already is?, you ask.
Yes, I fear.
I am afraid of the slippery slope leading from “self-defense,” in the “home,” to the use of firearms anywhere one so chooses. Someone cuts you off in traffic? Bam! They’re dead, or at least hurt bad. Someone picks up your newspaper by accident (antiquated example?), sorry, suckah! Boss fires you for what you consider to be no real reason at all? “Fire” his ass, just like that!
I know, i know, these things already happen. I guess I just worry about a more-permissive atmosphere for them to happen in. I worry about the spread of guns. I worry about increased usage.
Tell me, should I quit worrying?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:50 am
This is completely baffling. There is absolutely nothing in the decision that has anything to do with what you are afraid of. Furthermore, there is absolutely no means of which that this ruling can have that result. I hardly think that a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling sets a hugely sweeping precedent that will soon mandate mandatory firearm ownership. The ’slippery slope’ argument makes no sense whatsoever.
Tell me, what is the next point in this slippery slope. The underlying current of a slippery slope is that we are one step closer to an extreme and undesirable result, thus the fear and concern over an issue that the case doesn’t even address turns into a categorical rejection of anything in the case.
Seriously, unless your fear looks something like this sequence of events:
SCOTUS Ruling 2009: Supreme Court strengthens 2008 Miller v DC case ruling allowing conceal and carry as a constitutional right.
SCOTUS Ruling 2012: In a stunning decision, the supreme court struck down a wide restrictions, permits, waiting periods, and regulations on gun sales, allowing easier access for everyone to gun markets and more powerful firearms.
SCOTUS Ruling 2014: In spite of recently increasing gun crimes, the Supreme Court has mandated that every citizen carry a gun at all times.
The point is, while the first example is plausible, however unlikely, the slippery slope is not. It simply doesn’t make sense.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
edgefigaro,
First, thanks for commenting.
Also, thanks for reassuring me here. I’ve done what I can to read up on the language Scalia used in the decision, and I see that you’re right. That, on the merits of the actual finding of the court, there is nothing that would lead any reasonable person to believe that the Wild West is upon us.
As I tried to make clear in the title of the post, this was merely a rapid-fire reaction to what the decision could mean, not to scholars and judges and politicians, but to people who don’t follow the events of the Supreme Court, let alone know what the court is. Elitist of me? I don’t really care. People are what matter here.
I’m just afraid that some will abuse this ruling to their own liking. We already see gun-rights advocates outside the court, just today, with banners displaying machine guns and reading “Come and take it.” Shall I dismiss these people as the fringe? If so, the fringe have machine guns, and I’m still not sure why.