Ammo For Sale

« « ATF and Airsoft Again | Home | How the media views the AR-15 » »

Chicago Gun Case Stuff

The AP:

Gun control advocates are hoping they can win by losing when the Supreme Court rules on state and local regulation of firearms.

Like Heller, they’re really going to push this our loss is really a win mythology? I guess since they embraced the collective rights mythology, they’re used to that sort of thing.

And at Newsweek notes the unlikely common cause of some liberals and the NRA:

At the heart of the left-leaning dissenters’ argument is a plea for consistency. For decades, liberals have insisted that the Constitution assumes—even if it does not explicitly spell out—a right to bodily autonomy. This right, long disputed by conservatives, is a basis for arguments in favor of abortion rights and gay rights. Liberals who support gun rights find a similar implied right to own weapons: after all, they say, what is the right to bear arms but the ability to protect your body from criminals as well as the government? “The right to bear arms gives you a mechanism to protect your bodily autonomy from attack,” says Winkler.

My body. My choice.

Shorter version of Henigan and Cornell : It’s OK to disarm everyone as long as it’s done equally.

Henigan keeps referring to it as a new right. I guess he was so invested in the collective rights mythology that he has to keep holding on to it.

4 Responses to “Chicago Gun Case Stuff”

  1. the pistolero Says:

    I guess he was so invested in the collective rights mythology that he has to keep holding on to it.

    One might even say he’s bitterly clinging to it…

  2. Mikee Says:

    Almost as if it were an example of religious faith in gun control, rather than an understanding of the progressive expansion of individual rights after Heller.

  3. Jake Says:

    A) An implied right to own weapons? It’s explicitly stated in it’s own, standalone Amendment! Have they even bothered to read the Constitution?

    B) The bodily autonomy argument doesn’t work with respect to abortion, because there’s more than one person involved, and the other person doesn’t get to choose.

  4. Mikee Says:

    Jake, I have tried this argument:
    The Supreme Court recognizes an unenumerated right to privacy that legalizes prophylactics for use during consensual sex acts, to avoid disease or pregnancy. How can the same court deny the existence of an enumerated right to firearms, for use in self-defense during non-consensual violent acts, to stop an attack?

Used three kinds of generics. I liked the Levitra Pills more, although the others acted quite well. Perhaps it all depends on the characteristics of each organism.