In light of
the double murder in a prominent California city where two 16-year-old
thugs with baseball bat and knife bludgeoned an elderly couple to
death after first robbing them in the hopes of acquiring more money
for their frequent marijuana habits, I wonder if this tragedy may
have been avoided had the victims used a gun to protect themselves.
Many crime victims are also victims to our society’s undying
trust that if we are law-abiding others around us will be also,
and those who are not will be dealt with swiftly by law enforcement.
Such is nave, impossible, and a great American myth.
The above is
played out frequently in every major city in America. Those who
have and use a gun on an intruder survive and are, in fact, praised
by law enforcement. Bad guys perish, leave with a wound, are frightened
away and rarely return, or are held until police finally arrive.
Last year a ninety-seven-year-old potential victim held her intruder
at bay for several minutes until police could arrive.
Even with faith
in the police it remains impossible for them to be on a crime scene
until notified of one and even then it will take several minutes
for them to actually arrive. In the meantime you are dead. This
is why most crazy gunman in shopping centers or McDonald are initially
taken out by off-duty police officers or concealed weapons permit
holders instead of on-duty police officers. Schools are different.
No one has a gun so the killing continues until law enforcement
This is why
you must preserve your right of self-defense and why the recent
Supreme Court decision, McDonald v. City of Chicago, is so important
to you. Some cities like New York, Washington D.C. and Chicago are
more nave than others and have actually prohibited their residents
from having handguns in their homes for self-defense, thus making
their citizens hostage to the thugs and murders around them. That
ended June 28, 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v.
Chicago that “the Right to keep and Bear Arms, guaranteed by
the Second Amendment, extends to every city and state in America
(“Victory in Chicago,” America’s 1st Freedom, Sept.
2010, pp. 32–36).”
assumptions prevailed in this decision. Self-defense has always
been seen as a basic human right of preservation – more especially
in England and America – “long before our country existed.”
Due Process, which emanated from the 14th Amendment, gives preference
to that which is fundamental and deeply rooted in history and tradition
which self-defense clearly is. Moreover, the “right to keep
and bear arms was also clearly recognized when the 14th Amendment
was adopted” and one of the purposes of adoption was to “protect
the freedmen after the Civil War. Descendents of ex-slaves should
be overwhelmingly in support of their right to defend themselves.
Finally, the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable in
all the states whereas before it was a prohibition of the Federal
Government denying such basic rights, now it was a prohibition to
the states from doing so as well.
Justices were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens,
and Sonia Sotomayor, recently appointed to the Court, arguing that
The Second Amendment was not a fundamental right. Some justices
unconstitutionally attempted to bring to bear international law
in their deliberation to which Justice Scalia brilliantly answered,
“I care not a whit what passes as ‘civilized’ in
England or New Zealand; let their citizens seek their own path toward
freedom. In America, we have the Constitution.” I agree.
justices would be more sympathetic to the right of self-defense
if they had a burglar downstairs in their homes.
with permission from Liberty
Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated
his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and
applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history
and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at