Someone Else's Fear
Doesn't Negate My Rights

During oral arguments in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained to the lawyer representing New York state that core individual rights cannot survive if they are to be subjected to the personal judgments of their opponents. "If it's the discretion of an individual officer" that determines whether a person gets a carry permit, Kavanaugh suggested, "that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right."

Kavanaugh was correct: If rights are to mean anything, they must be inoculated against subjectivity. We do not restrict speech because some people are offended by it; we do not deny the accused a fair trial because some people are nervous that there will be an acquittal; we do not inflict cruel and unusual punishments because some people think it is deserved; and we must not limit the Second Amendment because some people are scared of guns. There is a reason that we Americans chose to write down our liberties on paper.

It is, of course, true that firearms can be used to inflict harm. Indeed, it is precisely because they can be used to inflict harm that they are sought after by the tens of millions of Americans who wish to protect themselves from harm. But the important question in a republic such as ours is less whether guns can be used to inflict harm, and more who gets them?

Underpinning the gun-control movement's worldview is the belief that the answer to this question should be "only the government," as if human beings who happen to work for the state are not people, too .....