Sunday, October 21, 2012

University of Miami Law School Seems to Admit Idiots

At least that is the only thing that I can conclude from reading this article written by Christopher Ivory, a 2nd year law student at the University of Miami.  What follows is the reply to the article that I posted in the comments section.

"We have strayed away from the purpose of the Second Amendment. Our founders afforded the right to bear arms to citizens for the purpose of a “well-regulated militia” and to insure the following: locals could organize and defend themselves in the event of an English invasion, and citizens could protect themselves from government officials illegally entering their homes and taking property as the English government had done."
Completely and totally wrong.  The Second Amendment exists to codify a natural right that pre-existed the Constitution. The purpose of the right was to defend against "any" invasion, not just an English 18th Century invasion, as well as to defend against a tyrannical domestic government, and to provide a means for self-defense against criminals.
"Guns were far less dangerous at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. Semi-automatic rifles, uzis and 12-gauge shotguns did not exist. As Michael Moore told Piers Morgan, “There were only one-shot, long rifles back then. Guns couldn’t spray hoards of people like they can today.” "
This is a specious argument.  The flintlock musket of 1780 was a state-of-the-art military grade weapon. To argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear only those weapons is the same as arguing that the 1st Amendment only protect speech that is transmitted via a hand-operated printing press, but not television, radio, or the Internet.
"A study by the Harvard School of Public Health concluded that there tend to be more gun deaths in states and regions where guns are more populous and accessible."
Another specious argument. There tend to be more traffic accident deaths in places that have more roads and automobiles.
"Gun ownership allows the antsy Zimmermans of the world to shoot people when the altercation could be solved without deadly force. It allows the young child to take daddy’s gun to school to scare the kid that has been picking on him or her. It allows the jealous boyfriend to threaten his girlfriend."
The trial of George Zimmerman has yet to take place, so we do not know if his actions are self defense or murder, nor do we know if Zimmerman had any other recourse other than deadly force.  The author of this article simply assumes so. Gun owners have a responsibility to secure their firearms against unauthorized access, and boyfriends do not need firearms to abuse their girlfriends.  More specious arguments. 
"There is logic in the argument that legal gun ownership protects against criminals. However, that we would always have to be armed to be prepared to defend ourselves against criminal activity – bad idea."
So, there is logic to the argument that firearms are useful for self-defense, but there is no logic to the idea that citizens should always be armed in case of confrontation? This is just a swipe at the increasingly common liberalized concealed carry laws that have swept the nation in recent decades.  Millions of concealed weapon permit holders would flatly disagree with Mr. Ivory on this, as would the individuals involved in these 50 incidents of successful armed self-defense:
"As for the protection of our homes, we are safer via alarm systems that trigger lights, sirens and immediately alert local authorities upon a break-in, as opposed to criminal hunting in the dark while panicking under ill-advised, adrenaline inspired judgment."
Firearms are not a self-defense panacea, but rather an additional layer of protection, another option to be used in the gravest extreme. What happens if the "local authorities" do not arrive in time? Is the author of this article aware that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia that despite demonstrated ineptitude and abuse on the part of police that innocent victims are not entitled to police protection, that there is no duty for police to protect any individual?  In essence, each citizen is on their own when confronted with a criminal.  If the author, a 2nd year law student does not know this, then perhaps he should pay better attention in class, or request a refund from the law school.
"In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a Washington D.C. law that banned handgun possession. The court said that lawful handgun possession was constitutionally protected. In disagreement with the majority, Justice Breyer stated that the Second Amendment protects militia-related interests, not self-defense-related interests."
The author, a 2nd year law student, should know that dissenting opinions do not make binding case law.  The Heller decision blasted the militia-service view on the 2nd Amendment into bits.
"This case set the precedent that gun bans in any state or municipality will likely be struck down. Sadly, this means the Second Amendment will probably not be overturned anytime soon, or ever."
Thank God!
"But regardless of what the law says, the proof is in the pudding. Maybe Batman will teach us how to not use guns because we have proved incapable of doing so ourselves."
Why should anyone pay attention to anyone who opens an argument with an appeal to the behavior of a fictional character?
 So much for the quality of education if this is what passes for "critical thinking" in modern academia.

No comments: