December 27, 2006

"In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed"

Given that the article having this title is hosted on the website for the "Institute for Social Policy and Understanding," an Islamic think tank in Detroit, I thought this was quite an interesting acknowledgement--until I read the article. Contrary to the title, the author doesn't argue that "some rights" must (not "should," MUST) be repealed. He argues that ONE RIGHT must be repealed (not limited, not constricted--REPEALED). Anyone wanna venture a guess as to which one he's convinced we MUST get rid of?

My question is: of all the liberties that are presently being abused, why focus on the Second Amendment as a right that "must" be "repealed?" Are terrorist shootouts really a big concern these days? A halfway clever terrorist could kill as many people with a two-dollar gallon of gasoline or a $50 bag of fertilizer as he could with a $500 rifle. Of all the things we need to fix to defeat terrorism, I don't see how getting rid of legally-owned tools of self-defense fits in the picture. I'm pretty sure, in fact, it'd be counterproductive. I'm sure our friends at the "Institute for Social Policy and Understanding" have the very best intentions of making the world a safer place, but this particular prescription is full of holes.

By Ragnar Danneskjold, Typical Bitter Gun-Clinger at 03:44 PM | Comments |