In his letter, Erling Landsverk says, “The Second Amendment refers to owning a firearm in a well regulated militia.”
The U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia V. Heller, ruled unambiguously that the Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The majority cites Blackstone’s “Natural right of resistance and self-preservation.”
Then, in McDonald V. Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court went further and ruled the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.
Sorry, Erling.
Landsverk then says, “If only one life is saved . . . it is worth this legislation.”
I love this liberal line, because it’s so easy to carry this logic to its natural conclusion.
If only one life is saved we should: pass laws to make cars incapable of speeds over 60 mph; pass laws to move the legal driving age to 21; enact curfew laws to prevent folks moving about and getting in trouble after 10 p.m.; reenact the prohibition of alcohol; ban cellphones; require all knives have blunt ends; allow police to listen to any phone conservations to prevent criminal conspiracy; require anyone over 250 pounds to go on a diet; outlaw race cars; allow police to stop and frisk anyone who looks suspicious . . .
Each of the above laws would save many lives not just one life, so why don’t we pass them?
Are we heartless, selfish monsters?
Liberals always say they just want “common sense gun controls.”
What does that mean?
It appears common sense gun laws means anything you can get passed, any time you can pass it and then later come back asking for more.
Last I heard more than 76,000 firearm purchases were denied by the federal instant check system.
Of these, only 44 resulted in actual prosecutions of those attempting to obtain firearms.
It would be nice if government used the thousands of gun laws already on the books to go after criminals.
To me, that’s common sense.