2nd Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Anti-gun Supreme Court Justice robbed on vacation...

Anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was robbed last week while vacationing on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean by a machete wielding assailant who confronted the 73 year old Justice, his wife and two others and made off with $1000.  This crime happened despite the fact that Supreme Court justices are afforded protective services by both the US State Department and U.S. Marshall service while traveling.

Hmmm?, I wonder if the Justice would of liked to have a firearm to defend himself in this situation?  Given that Nevis is a sovereign nation with its own laws regarding the ownership of firearms aside, I wonder if given the choice, when confronted with an armed intruder with his spouse present, if Justice Breyer would not of preferred to be able to defend himself with a firearm?

Maybe he never foresaw this happening?  I mean he is a respected member of the US Government under its protection, in a country with a high literacy rate (98%), strong economy and with much stricter ownership laws in regards to firearms than the US it would seem that violence would not be an issue while on his vacation (or holiday to you European readers).  Even if the conditions on the island were vastly different would he of still preferred, given the choice, to go unarmed....given that in his dissenting opinion he rendered on the DC vs. Heller ruling stated that

 "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

The simple fact that criminals do not necessarily play by statistics...or reason...or fairness...or any other logic you can think of in many cases.  They operate outside of the boundaries of society and therefore do not obey its laws and regulation by definition. You cannot dictate your safety or need for protection solely on what the "statistics" say about your position on a map or in society in general.  Actually, "statistically" speaking..the inhabitants of "crime-ridden" urban areas" have more to gain from ownership of a firearm to defend themselves than those of us in middle class suburbia or appointed to the United States Supreme Court....yet many Americans in that middle class suburbia and this particular justice find themselves needing one from time to time.

So to Justice Breyer I say God Bless that you, your wife and your guests were able to escape this incident unharmed.  I hope that maybe you take away something from this event to make you rethink your position in regards to the rights of individuals to protect themselves with firearms in this country.  Maybe now instead of seeing yourself as part of a "protected class" of persons making regulations against firearm ownership while being provided armed security on your behalf, you can maybe understand the concerns of the citizenry that you preside over and our need to be self reliant in this regard.

Oh, and Justice Breyer..if you do change your mind and decide you would like to own a firearm after this please contact me, I have a very good S&W .38 in my safe I would be happy to make an offer to you on to provide protection for you and your family.  Of course me being a resident of Ohio and you of your state we will need to conduct the transaction through a valid FFL holder.  You see, unlike the criminals that we seek to protect ourselves from, the vast majority of gun owners like myself do obey all lawful regulations concerning our firearms.


Anonymous said...

That made me smile, one can only hope it opened his eyes. I can just imagine every person he knows who likes guns rubbing it in. Like I said it makes be smile.

Buckeye Chuck said...

"Ironic" was the first thing I thought when I read about this robbery.

However, it won't open his eyes. His eyes are already open; however, he gazes upon a target far different than yours. You look at the Constitution and interprets it as a document defining what government can not do to its citizens. He looks at the same document and interprets it as something to mold according to a system of right and wrong that subjugates individual liberty and personal property rights to some other moral framework. That framework may be based on a morality of outcomes (read: economic justics, social justice, racial justice, whatever); it may be a morality of aesthetics (suffering and inequality are unpleasant and must be done away with); it may be a morality of personal power and avarice. It's nature is useful as an academic curiosity.

I am pleased that Hizzoner was not hurt during the robbery. I would like to see the robber brought to justice and made to pay restitution to Hizzoner, but we all know this won't happen. I would also like to see Justice Breyer change his stance on... everything. But this also will not happen, and one armed robbery is surely ineffective to the cause.

Huey said...

@Buckeye Chuck- wow! That was one well thought out and worded response...next time I go out of town maybe I need to ask you to fill in for me!