Spring Break
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:Gun ownership is an absolute right not an abstract concept
Letters to the Editor | 5/1/07
Posted online at 11:02 PM EST on 4/30/07
/ Last updated at 10:00 AM EST on 4/30/07
CORRECTION APPENDED: See Bottom
To the Editor:
Ellen Smolyar's column "Safety should trump the abstract right to own guns" (April 24 issue) completely misses the point. There is no such thing as an "abstract right to own guns," just as there is no such thing as an abstract right to free speech or an abstract right to have a trial by jury; these are all concrete and very much central to the notion of liberty in this country.
Smolyar makes a muddled argument that, on the one hand, belittles gun owners with a straw-man scenario about a British invasion, but on the other accepts the individual rights portion of the Second Amendment, provided that it is strictly curtailed in the name of the "public good." Anything can be justified provided it serves the "public good." However, Smolyar forgets that the Bill of Rights exists precisely to prevent anyone with vague ideas about the "public good" from simply overriding essential American freedoms. Perhaps she would agree to strict curtailment of her freedom of the press so that we are spared more frivolous justifications in the future?
Finally, Smolyar never makes it clear how she reconciles the need to uphold safety with her strict gun control agenda. Is she saying that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with safety? She should tell that to the New Orleans residents caught in the middle of the looting and chaos following Hurricane Katrina or to the two million Americans who use their personal firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones every year. On her misguided quest to secure the "public good," the author should remember Benjamin Franklin's warning that one who sacrifices freedom for security does not deserve and will not receive either.
-Dmitry Vilner '08
Correction: Due to a production error, the writer's name was misspelled. It is Dmitry Vilner, not Dimitry.
To the Editor:
Ellen Smolyar's column "Safety should trump the abstract right to own guns" (April 24 issue) completely misses the point. There is no such thing as an "abstract right to own guns," just as there is no such thing as an abstract right to free speech or an abstract right to have a trial by jury; these are all concrete and very much central to the notion of liberty in this country.
Smolyar makes a muddled argument that, on the one hand, belittles gun owners with a straw-man scenario about a British invasion, but on the other accepts the individual rights portion of the Second Amendment, provided that it is strictly curtailed in the name of the "public good." Anything can be justified provided it serves the "public good." However, Smolyar forgets that the Bill of Rights exists precisely to prevent anyone with vague ideas about the "public good" from simply overriding essential American freedoms. Perhaps she would agree to strict curtailment of her freedom of the press so that we are spared more frivolous justifications in the future?
Finally, Smolyar never makes it clear how she reconciles the need to uphold safety with her strict gun control agenda. Is she saying that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with safety? She should tell that to the New Orleans residents caught in the middle of the looting and chaos following Hurricane Katrina or to the two million Americans who use their personal firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones every year. On her misguided quest to secure the "public good," the author should remember Benjamin Franklin's warning that one who sacrifices freedom for security does not deserve and will not receive either.
-Dmitry Vilner '08
Correction: Due to a production error, the writer's name was misspelled. It is Dmitry Vilner, not Dimitry.
Be the first to comment on this story