Charles C. W. Cooke:
In the course of yet another dull, straw-clutching broadside against the right to keep and bear arms, the Atlantic’s David Frum repeats a commonly asserted myth:
That kind of supposedly defensive, actually aggressive, violence has become an even graver risk after today, in an American society that regards personal arsenals to be at least as much of a human right as the rights of free speech and peaceful assembly—and in actual practice, often a more fundamental right.
This is a popular talking point based upon a popular premise: That the Second Amendment is accorded a latitude that is no other. The trouble for Frum is that it’s nonsense. As it should be, the First Amendment is extremely broadly interpreted, to the point at which even sedition is legal unless it is accompanied by incitement to imminent violence. In recent years, the courts have prohibited the government from banning “crush” videos in which kittens are killed with stilettos; they have protected the rights of bigots to protest military funerals; and they have gutted the country’s campaign-finance laws on the (correct) grounds that they can’t be enforced without undermining core political expression. Before that, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, they had outlined speech protections that have no parallel in the history of the world.
Has the same thing happened for the Second, as Frum suggests? Not on your life. Indeed, Second Amendment advocates such as myself could only dream of such a trend. As is clear from his cringeworthy displays on Twitter, Frum does not have even a basic grasp of America’s gun laws, for if he did he’d understand just how ridiculous is his claim.
Sharia law views women like liberals view gun rights (well, except for those gun rights which protect THEM). To Muslims who adhere to Sharia, men are not expected to have any self control. In fact, due to men’s superiority over women, he is not even expected to worry himself with constraining any primal urges he may have.
So, women must be covered up, mutilated, caused to be undesirable. It matters little what pain, suffering or harm is caused to women… they are nothing, anyway.
The same is true of liberals’ view of the rights of others, specifically gun rights. They don’t believe anyone is capable of rational thought or self control, so the temptation to harm with guns (which is inherent IN the guns, as some sort of aura) needs to be removed through the removal of gun ownership and possession.
Liberals don’t believe in self control (that’s the government’s job) and they don’t believe anyone else does, either. Also, without morals, as they are, there is nothing else to keep someone with a gun from just killing everyone around them, on a whim or urge.