I've always accepted the argument that if "the right of the people to peaceably assemble" confers an individual liberty in the First Amendment, and the right of the people to be secure in their homes and their papers confers an individual liberty against government intrusion, then certain tly the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment (written by the same folks at the same time) must obviously recognize an individual liberty as well. After all, in neither of the other cases does the term "the people" recognize a right limited to the state government but not extended to the individual.

In line wih my thinking on that matter, I've always wondered if the anti-gunners are simply folks who are too scared of individual liberty to permit the unrestrained exercise of the rights protected by the Constitution -- or even to permit the crabbed, limited exercise of such rights. But rarely have I seen such a frank and startling admission of this reality by an anti-gunner. But the NY Times' Verlyn Klinkenborg makes it clear that such a fear of liberty is exactly what animates some anti-gunners in today's lament that even "progressive" Minnesota allows for "concealed carry".

Every concealed weapon, with very few exceptions, is a blow against the public safety. The new gun laws in Minnesota take away local discretion over concealed-weapon permits, and they cost the local authorities plenty too.

But there’s a bigger problem. By focusing so obsessively on an individual’s rights — in this case, the purported individual right to bear arms in the library — all other rights are shoved aside. Police departments are forced to grant concealed-weapon permits to individuals who have almost none of the training and certainly none of the restrictions that police officers have.

WhatÂ’s worse, by granting this right to individuals, the law strips the public of its right to occupy public spaces without the threat of being shot. The police are trained to handle guns. The criminals know theyÂ’re not supposed to have them but find them easy to get, thanks to the N.R.A. Let them fight it out. No one is safer if gun-carrying civilians believe their rights entitle them to pretend theyÂ’re cops.

Sometimes I think the N.R.A. isn’t really about guns at all. It’s about making certain that the public — our political and civil society, in other words — has no ability to limit the rights of an individual. That is really what the logic of the “concealed carry” and “shall require” and “shoot first” laws says.

Guns make a perfect test case, because the end result is an armed cohort that is very prickly about its personal rights. The N.R.A. has armed the thousands of Minnesotans who applied for a permit once the “concealed carry” law passed. But it has disarmed the public by making sure that legislators will no longer vote for gun laws that protect the rest of us.

Yeah, you read that right. This NY Times editorialist is upset that the people and their representatives allow for too much freedom. What of the right of the state, we are asked, to crack down upon individual liberty and guarantee that we are not "too free." The same paper that wants to protect the rights of terrorists to plot their assaults on the United States free from effective monitoring is concerned that Americans might have too great a liberty to protect themselves. Those who insist that there is a right to privacy that guarantees an abortion and prevents the state from accessing abortion records to investigate criminal sexual assault of young girls laments the fact that gun-ownership records are not freely open to the general public.

Interestingly enough, what is lacking in this article is evidence of Klinkenborg's purported reason for opposing gun rights -- that the increased availability of guns makes us less safe. The statistics don't show that, so it is merely presumed, assumed, and asserted.

But when it comes down to it, Klinkenborg admits it is about fear of freedom -- and a willingness to restrict the rights protected by the Second Amendment that Knlinkenborg and the Times would never accept if applied to the First Amendment rights of the New York Times.

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 717 words, total size 4 kb.