Let me, um, be perfectly clear. Gilbert Arenas is an idiot. And what he did wasn't just stupid, it was criminal. I'm not so much talking about being in Washington D.C. with a gun licensed in Virginia. After all, unless you are unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights, or you're a statist true believer, you know that the laws in D.C. are unconstitutional, and have snared countless, otherwise law-abiding citizens, in a disgusting trap that is a stain on this country and what it purports to stand for.
What Arenas did was use his weapon to intimidate others when there was no threat to his life. Nothing else matters. That is the crime, and that is what we should be focusing on. It shouldn't matter that he had his gun in the sports arena, or in D.C., or that it was loaded, or whatever other silliness the media has been focused on. This isn't a gun issue. This is a Gilbert Arenas issue.
ESPN was asking whether it was shocking that a survey says 75% of NBA players carry a firearm. It's not shocking, it's common sense. Frankly, I'm shocked about the other 25% but I hope they're just lying. Consider that just in the last couple of years alone, NFL's Sean Taylor was murdered in his home by intruders, NY Giant Steven Smith was robbed in his driveway after being dropped off by a chauffer at his townhome, Oakland's Jevon Walker was robbed and beaten unconscious in Las Vegas, Jacksonville Jaguars Richard Collier was left paralyzed below the waist, and lost his leg after being shot while waiting on the street for his date, just to name a few. The simple fact is it's a dangerous world especially if you are famous.
Those of us who understand that not all conflicts can be swayed with happy talk know how it goes. The fact is that we're all targets for crime. But professional athletes, wildly rich beyond dreams, with an aura of invincibility, provide both an economic and reputational attraction to criminals. After all, it's one thing to be known as the tough guy in the hood, but to be the guy who robbed a professional linebacker is like winning the Nobel for muggers. All the 17 year olds in Brooklyn with .380s in their pockets know exactly what I'm talking about. Lastly, bear in mind that, the Police aren't there to protect you, their job is to enforce the law (which has to be broken first).
So when I heard that Plaxico Burress, another victim of non-constitutional gun control laws, this time in New York, was denied work release, I was very sad. Plax's crime, accidentally shooting himself in a nightclub with a gun he was legally allowed to own in Florida, but not licensed in New York, was stupid, no doubt. But being sentenced to two years is a penalty way out of proportion. He shot himself. I'd be the first to agree that maybe he shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm again, at least without some serious training in appropriate carry methods and gun saftey. But I think it's safe to say he probably wouldn't make this mistake again. And while what he did belied a lack of basic gun training, it wasn't the type of evil criminal behavior Arenas displayed. Yet society will treat both as the same – gun crime. And an otherwise good person, a superbowl hero, with no prior criminal record, sits in jail due to a flawed, liberal notion of government mandated personal insecurity for all, in New York that is.
There will be some who say that Jevon Walker shouldn't have been out on the street that night, or that Burress should not have been in a nightclub where trouble can occur. Why not? Why shouldn't these guys be able to do anything any one of us has the right to do, without being at the mercy of predatory criminals and with no way to protect themselves? And for that matter why shouldn't the rest of us be able to have the right to defend ourselves? The fact is that in over 40 states in this country, we do. It's just in a few states, like New York, Chicago, New Jersey and California, as well as the District of Columbia, where the right to protect oneself is unconstitutionally against the law.
It's no coincidence that all of these states mentioned above are bastions of extremely liberal Democratic rule, and these states also have plenty of crime despite their strict gun control laws. And while even I might support some common sense gun laws, the absurdly restrictive gun laws in these states is a testament of the kind of gun control the left is really after. States rights you say? Sure, EXCEPT for what's defined in the bill of rights. The right to keep and bear arms is not one that should be infringed upon by any state law. Unless of course, like many Democrats, you don't really believe in all that constitutional jazz. Militia you say? Well the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.
If you're still not convinced, try this nifty excersize — replace the second ammendment with any of the other amendments in our Bill of Rights and see how the gun control argument sounds. Would it fly if I suggested that our fourth amendment protections from illegal search and seizure apply only to citizens who do not have a history of mental illness? How about being protected from double jeapordy, but only if you've passed a background check first? I actually like the idea of allowing freedom of press, but only after a 5 day waiting period. But seriously, none of this sounds quite like America, does it? Yet we've allowed the left diminish our second amendment constitutional rights in several very highly populated states, as well as create a matrix of byzantine state by state laws and federal restrictions that don't stop crime but do land plenty of good people in jail. Meanwhile, the liberal media has succeeded in creating the impression that gun owners are some unstable fringe group of hunters out in a compound in Utah somewhere. See, the second amendment (notice it's not like, the 8th, it comes right after the freedom of speech) is a crucial element to having freedom. What the founding fathers understood, and what still eludes the left, is that God made man but Colt made them equal.
Yet Liberals, using all manner of dubious statistical numerology, love to claim that owning a gun puts you more at risk. The criminal will just take the gun from you and you'll be even worse off, is the common line. Or you'll accidentally, or in a fit of rage use it against yourself or someone dear. It's better to go along with an attacker, abide by their demands and hopefully they'll leave you alone, this unconventional wisdom goes. Please. From the moment the very first single celled animals tracked their slime across this planet, self defense was not just an option but a survival imperative. Throughout history animals and humans have survived based solely on their ability to protect the one thing that we all hold dear – our very lives. We may have come a long way since life first sprouted on our planet, but things haven't changed that much that we should have no regard for protecting ourselves. While the left touts their surveys, there are plenty of other surveys that show exactly the opposite – that victims of crime who are armed fair better at protecting themselves than those who arent. And you don't have to think too hard about it to realize that one set of statistics is a bit odd and counterintuitive, while the other makes perfect, obvious sense.
While legally, Arenas is guilty of a number of crimes due to the backwards laws in D.C., his only real crime, for which there is both a law, and a victim, is the only one he should face justice for. And he should be penalized fully. But the rest of us shouldn't have our constitutional rights to defend ourselves continuously chipped away because of it, nor have to endure the nonsensical musings of liberal media and their followers determined that we all submit to the criminal element only too happy to take advantage of those who are vulnerable.Powered by Sidelines