Touchy-Feely Government: Emotions Support Gun Bans?


Touchy-Feely Government: Emotions Support Gun Bans?

In a lengthy and illogical decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday ruled 2-1 in favor of a ban on “assault weapons” and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

Surrounded by the virtual drone of lengthy legalese was the ultimate reason behind this support: “If a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.”

In other words, any “perceived” sense of security, false or otherwise, makes it okay to deny citizens’ basic human rights.

Not all of the judges were so misguided, though. The third member, judge Daniel A. Manion, dissented with the decision, saying, “To limit self-defense to only those methods acceptable to the government” creates an “enormous transfer of authority from the citizens of this country to the government — a result directly contrary to our constitution and to our political tradition.”

Manion also said, “Outside of weapons deemed dangerous or unusual, there is no historical tradition supporting wholesale prohibitions of entire classes of weapons. The right to self-defense is largely meaningless if it does not include the right to choose the most effective means of defending oneself.”

Unfortunately, Manion’s brain was overruled by the “feelings” of his fellow appellate judges, Frank Easterbrook and Ann Claire Williams.

Read More