1. Individual Gun Rights: This is a big deal in DC right now, because Congress and the courts are very involved in overturning DC's longtime handgun ban. I'm not invested in this issue, since I don't live in DC, but I am not anti-gun. Crime is not noticeably low in the District, even with a handgun ban. Anyway, the theory as presented by many conservative politicians and the NRA is that every adult should have the right to protect himself and his family with a handgun. Fine, whatever. Seems a little fear oriented and unreasonably optimistic, but fine. (Optimistic: your regular Joe Schlub will keep his wits and react with cool precision as his home is invaded and stop the bad guys with kill shots to the the body or head, with no collateral damage inside or outside the home.)(Plus, Joe Schlub's gun is loaded and ready to stop aforementioned bad guys when they break in, and he doesn't have to run around the house looking for the key to the gun safe.)
2. The Government Doesn't Need a Warrant for Terrorism Cases: The idea here being that when apprehending terrorism suspects, the Fed can knock down the door without a by your leave, so the bad guys don't have time to arm themselves, run away or destroy evidence. All fine and good until... they get the wrong house. Or the wrong guy. This is not beyond the realm of possibility. (Also please remember that many people maintain that the govt can't do anything right. These seem to be the same people who want to enable the govt to break into anyone's house on suspicion, because they'll always be correct about the targets.)
If you are innocent Joe Schlub, sitting in your house enjoying a little Keith Olbermann and a cold craft beer, and a pack of jack-booted thugs burst into your house with guns and yelling and associated nonsense, do you not reach for your gun? Isn't this when you are empowered by the 2nd amendment to protect your home and family? In fact, the fiercest supporters of the 2nd have always said that personal arms are necessary to protect against tyrannical govt, which is well represented by thugs knocking down your door without warning or warrant. So when Joe Schlub gets his gun, the Feds either a) shoot him or b) get shot. If they get shot, is Joe in trouble because he assaulted (unidentified, yelling, home-invading) law officers? Are all the people in favor of guns going to defend Joe for shooting some cops, when he didn't know they were cops? Or are they going to call for his head? After all, he's obviously guilty of something, or else his home wouldn't have been invaded.
This question is causing me some anxiety.
2 comments:
Thing is - we are told, with good reason, that if we have firearms they are supposed to be unloaded and locked away and therefore no use against jack booted thugs of any stripe. (There was a little guy about two who was killed around here last year because he shot himself in the face with Daddy's gun on the night stand.) I'm not sure the source, but there is a broadly held statistic that you are much more likely to be injured accidentally with a gun in your home than to stop a crime. Even gun advocates (ie Will) will tell you that if you have a gun you need to be prepared to use it lethally, because otherwise the bad guy is just going to take it away and shoot you with it.
All this said, it is wrong wrong wrong for the feds to storm into your house because you happen to wear a turban, have a swarthy complexion, took the wrong book out of the library, have the same name as someone else who has done any of these things and so on. There is a legal system with due process and warrants for a reason, MR. CHENEY.
Side note - watched "Taxi to the Dark Side" the other night. Illuminating and scary.
I think it's worse than that: the Feds will be rushing in for what they think is a good reason but they will have failed to check the address, to make sure that the person they are after still lives there, and to announce themselves. Then the person whose home is invaded can't even say to themselves, "Oh right, the Feds are upset because I'm named Mohammed, and even though I am mild-mannered and peaceful, I thoughtlessly checked out that book from the library about cheap bomb-making. I better just play it cool and wait for them to stop shouting so I can explain that I was doing research for my work at The Institute of Peace and Public Policy in Asia." Instead, Betty from Arkansas will be knitting baby hats for the local hospital, and will be so startled at the invasion of her home for absolutely zero reason that she can think of, and will pull her Glock out of the knitting bag and pop the first Fed through the door. Then she'll get killed, the baby hats will be ruined, and she'll never know the Feds were there for Mohammed who moved out 3 months ago to move to a town with a larger variety of tahini, and filed a change of address with the Post office.
I agree with the gun safe thing by the way. There is a definite conflict between keeping your gun safely in the home and having it ready to protect against a sudden incursion. Of course, if you have a little time, you can go get it from the safe and load it. This is where training and reflexes kick in, and lacking both of these, one of the reasons why I don't have a gun in the house.
Post a Comment