One More Example: Gun Control Only Disarms the Victims
A horrific attack on a family in Port Moresby has prompted calls for Papua New Guineans to be granted the right to arm themselves against murderers and rapists.
In an incident that shocked a city accustomed to a high level of violence, 10 drunken bandits last week attacked a family home, murdering a man who tried to protect his wife and two daughters, aged nine and 13.
The woman and her daughters were forced to watch as their father was shot and chopped up with an axe.
The three were then dragged outside and pack-raped.
The wife said the criminals then placed her husband’s body in their bed and set fire to the house.
“…to be granted the right to arm themselves….”
In 1857 the Supreme Court of the U.S. said that, among the “privileges and immunities” of American citizens was the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.” But that decision said that blacks therefore couldn’t be citizens.
The right to be armed for “lawful purpose” was, as the Supreme Court said in its U.S. v Cruikshank decision of 1875: “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” But that decision made it perfectly legal for the states to strip certain American citizens of that right, because it left: “the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes….”. Our fellow citizens didn’t protect that right, and neither did our Federal courts.
That right was never protected in Australia or any of its possessions, and now the people there are seeing the result of having that right legally stripped. As AlphaPatriot remarks, the attackers didn’t need a gun. They had overwhelming force on their side even without one.
BUT THEY HAD A GUN, AND THEIR VICTIMS DIDN’T.
The law-abiding have a snowball’s chance of getting “the right to arm themselves against murderers and rapists” back if they’re going to wait on the State to give it to them.