WASHINGTON, February 24, 2018: The argument against the individual rights to bear arms assumes that government agencies like the police, National Guard and the U.S. military, are the only legitimate entities designed to possess them.
And in doing so, protect us.
That assumes the aforementioned authorities are at the right place, at the right time and acting with all deliberate speed.
This is the main argument forwarded by those shrill voices demanding an end to the Constitution’s protection of our unalienable and individual rights to possess firearms in light of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School in Parkland, Florida, last February 14.
When good men do nothing
But it has since come to light that Broward County Sheriff Deputy Scot Peterson hid while alleged shooter Nikolas Cruz murdered 17 people on the high school’s grounds.
Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel told reporters Peterson should have “went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer.”
Would’a, could’a, should’a.
High school football coach and security guard Aaron Feis, died while shielding students with his body. He was unarmed.
Meanwhile, fake-news leader CNN staged a town hall meeting where teenage students and network moderators engaged in rank emotionalism and simpleminded virtue signaling on behalf of gun control.
A student who survived the shooting, Colton Haab, accused CNN of giving him a “scripted question” ahead of the televised meeting.
Weeping and gnashing of teeth
National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch was shouted down by the adolescent mob and called a “murderer!”
Conservative author and documentary filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza even issued a snarky tweet after seeing an Associated Press photo showing distraught students weeping after Florida lawmakers refused to pass a bill banning assault weapons.
“Worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs,” said D’Souza.
He would apologize for his cutting virtue signaling regarding the crying student’s virtue signaling.
It is usually at this point that a thoughtful columnist stops to acknowledge the pain of those who tearfully and sincerely demand we abandon our natural rights, whether it be to bear arms or speak freely.
I am not that columnist.
In fact, I don’t really care how many tears are shed and by whom. That’s because I don’t care what people feel, only what they think.
Reasoning of individual rights over empty emotionalism
The Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights express the ideas of the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason.
That is why the document establishes so many protections of the individual’s rights over that of the voting majority and their duly elected representatives.
The First Amendment protects our free speech, which is why the U.S. Supreme Court declared the McCain/Feingold campaign-finance law unconstitutional in its Citizens United ruling of 2010.
That ruling was predicated on the Federal Election Commission’s attempt to squash a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton.
And the constitutional mechanism of the Electoral College also prevented Hillary Clinton, despite winning the popular vote, from becoming the nation’s 45th president.
So, it’s understandable why, during the last presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton said the Citizens United ruling should be reversed “once and for all, even if it takes a constitutional amendment.”
Clinton also insisted,
“We’ve moved toward one-person, one-vote, that’s how we select winners,” saying the Electoral College “needs to be eliminated. I’d like to see us move beyond it, yes.”
The preservation of individual rights, not those of the group or mob, is the foundational basis upon which our nation was founded.
That may cause a lot of weeping an gnashing of teeth, but rational men and women are well within their rights not to care a whit.