Who you gonna call?

Having a simplistic understanding of a simpler age, some residents of New Orleans imagined they’d have the need and the right to defend themselves and their property in the wake of Hurricane Gustav, and the effective absence of civil authority.

It’s one of those NRA inspired urban myths, and a gross misreading of the notion of unalienable rights, among these, life ….

I suppose if you were splitting hairs that might entail possessing the means (firearms) to make survival at least a plausible probability.

Recent history, sometimes referred to as experience, teaches us that self-reliance can also be a civic virtue. When we defend ourselves we defend society against the chaos and collapse that capitulation invites.

Stunningly Stupid

Now that the Court has spoken on the Second Amendment, everyone else gets a turn. Prof. Paul Robinson, of the University of Penn Law School has contributed to the clutter and confusion with an OP-ED piece titled “Shoot to Stun”, published in the NYT (7-2-08).

The Professor’s thesis is that whiz-bang weapons technology is about to eclipse the notion and need to use deadly force against an imminent threat. Supposedly a variety of non-lethal alternatives to firearms will “soon” be available. They will have the advantage of incapacitating without injuring. Thus removing a major occupational hazard to the practice of criminality, being killed by your intended victim. Progress of a sort.

As for the twaddle about the D.C. v. Heller decision being reduced to the “status of an odd little opinion”, of pervasive irrelevance, wishful and witless thinking. And a willful mischaracterization.

If Prof. Robinson had any intellectual integrity, he’d fall on his light sword.