Back in 2012, I shared a video clip of Ice-T defending the 2nd Amendment, but that video is now dead, so I’m glad to see that Prager University has added his comments as a prologue to this defense of gun rights by Prof. Eugene Volokh.
Ice-T and Prof. Volokh make for a good combination, one dispensing common sense and the other sharing academic analysis.
In the case of Prof. Volokh, he walks through the language of the Constitution and succinctly explains why the 2nd Amendment clearly was designed to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms.
And that’s the view that consistent with the liberty-focused attitude of the Founding Fathers, who correctly saw government as a potential source of tyranny.
But there’s another part of the video that also deserves attention. Shortly before the 4:00 mark of the video, Volokh explains that the Founders gave people – through their legislators – the option of amending the Constitution (the great Thomas Sowell has made the same point).
And that does happen, sometimes with bad consequences.
But there’s been no serious effort to undo the 2nd Amendment for the simple reason that people value their constitutional liberties.
Indeed, states have been taking steps to expand and enshrine gun rights.
P.S. A British writer argued that defending gun rights was akin to defending slavery. In reality, the 2nd Amendment has been especially valuable for blacks.
[…] are some very serious moral, practical, and constitutionalarguments against gun […]
[…] are some very serious moral, practical, and constitutionalarguments against gun […]
[…] are some very serious moral, practical, and constitutionalarguments against gun […]
[…] Back in March, I wrote that the dramatic expansion of concealed-carry laws was the feel-good story of 2022. At least for supporters of the 2nd Amendment. […]
[…] Back in March, I wrote that the dramatic expansion of concealed-carry laws was the feel-good story of 2022. At least for supporters of the 2nd Amendment. […]
[…] are some very serious moral, practical, and constitutionalarguments against gun […]
[…] are some very serious moral, practical, and constitutionalarguments against gun […]
[…] are some very serious moral, practical, and constitutionalarguments against gun […]
[…] are some very serious moral, practical, and constitutionalarguments against gun […]
[…] you read Ms. King’s full column, it’s clear that she hasn’t embraced the full libertarian view on gun ownership. But just as was the case with Charles Blow, I welcome her shift in the correct […]
[…] are some very serious moral, practical, and constitutionalarguments against gun […]
[…] you read Ms. King’s full column, it’s clear that she hasn’t embraced the full libertarian view on gun ownership. But just as was the case with Charles Blow, I welcome her shift in the correct […]
[…] are some very serious moral, practical, and constitutional arguments against gun […]
“This 9-0 SCOTUS Ruling on Guns Shows Just How Extreme (and Dangerous) the Biden Administration Really Is”
BY BRYAN PRESTON MAY 17, 2021
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bryan-preston/2021/05/17/this-9-0-scotus-ruling-on-guns-shows-just-how-extreme-and-dangerous-the-biden-administration-really-is-n1447608
“California Saw Record Gun Confiscations in 2020”
by AWR HAWKINS
“The Los Angeles Times reports “1,285 gun-violence restraining orders were issued by judges in California last year, temporarily removing firearms from people deemed a danger.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/05/10/california-saw-record-gun-confiscations-2020/
“Prosecutor Offers Bizarre Reason Why Red Flag Law Wasn’t Used Against FedEx Shooter”
By Cam Edwards | Apr 19, 2021
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2021/04/19/prosecutor-bizarre-reason-red-flag-law-fedex-shooter-n43798
[…] Source: The 2nd Amendment and the Individual Right to Gun Ownership | International Liberty […]
President Biden and the socialist democrats would love to restrict the private ownership of firearms… but they don’t have the political capital to modify the Constitution… so it appears they will resort to chipping away at private gun ownership by any means possible… at the moment… the biggest threat to gun ownership seems to be from executive orders mandating “red flag” regulations… at some point innocuous sounding acts could well become serious threats to gun ownership… for example medical evaluations of social security recipients… suppose a recipient was judged “impaired” would “red flag” regulations allow the confiscation of that person’s firearms? without due process? or what about a Vet with PTSD? if a person is considered “impaired” by a government agency… could we expect the likes of the Biden administration to use “red flag” regulations to deprive innocent people of their firearms without the law having been violated? would it happen sooner…………….. or later?
[…] The 2nd Amendment and the Individual Right to Gun Ownership […]
Mr Devany seems to be under the falce to fact belief that inanimate objects are able to cause harm. By his belief his computer is responsible for his written idiocy. Who believes this????? NOT I.
Very important article. Sadly, people believe that the Constitution gives them rights and therefore can be changed to withdraw them.
The Constitution of the United States gives nobody any rights, no, not one. The U.S. Constitution with its Bill of Rights simply keeps the Government from usurping rights naturally belonging to the people. This is vastly different from many other constitutions that play God by assigning rights, a prime example being the “United Nation Declaration of Human Rights.”
Just governments cannot assign rights. To do so is the height of arrogance.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
Mandatory Gun Insurance
Good policy should start with compensating the victims and their families. Young people are marching but they don’t understand how economic incentives are at the root of all policy.
Imagine a policy of mandatory gun and ammunition insurance similar to mandatory automobile insurance. Private insurance companies would price the insurance based on the risk of harm of particular weapons and ammunition in the hands of people with specific backgrounds. Insurance companies would be given access to all statistically relevant data, including information that even the government should not be trusted with. Consider it part of the price of better background checks. Insurance companies currently do a good job of keeping our health records private and the same can be expected in regard to our mental and social profiles that need to be periodically reviewed for gun safety.
Over time, safer weapons and people with normal backgrounds and gun safety training would be rated with significantly lower insurance costs. Inexperienced people seeking assault style weapons would be largely priced out of the market.
The insurance system would make gun owners collectively responsible for the harm caused by guns. Victims of uninsured violence would receive some basic compensation just as they do with uninsured motorists.
As technology progresses, every bullet could be marked and linked to its insured owner. Sooner or later, those without insurance will run out of ammo and the price of insurance will go way down. Some gun violence will remain but at least the survivors will be compensated.