Return of the Nuremberg Files
Is Glenn Reynolds being willfully obtuse here or does he really think this is a decent analogy?
ANDREW SULLIVAN ASKS: “If gun rights are civil rights, why would anyone feel the need to hide the fact that they own one?”…But I’ll turn the question around: If abortion is a civil right, why would anyone object to having a newspaper publish a searchable database of people who’ve had one?
Ummmm…I’m pretty sure it has something to do with the fact that there have been dozens of violent attacks by abortion opponents, including shootings, bombings, arson, and a stabbing.
6 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
My medical history is no one’s business except my own. That was a pretty stupid statement for Sullivan to make. Everyone who is in favor of his idea should first come clean on their own embarrassing medical problems, bonehead mistakes, peccadillos and entanglements. Let’s start with Andy.
Comment by Becky — May 8, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Well, I consider gun ownership to be a civil right. As much as I enjoy the exercise of that right, I don’t care to advertise the fact that I have guns in my house for the same reason that I wouldn’t brag about having a Picasso or a Faberge egg in my living room — I can’t be certain that no one will steal them when I’m not there (no, I do not feel the need to walk around armed, thank you).
As far as the whole issue of the newspaper putting a list of local gun owners on-line, well, it’s public information. Medical records aren’t. I think you’ll find that the public outcry over the whole “Tennessean” controversy really boiled down to gun owners objecting to having to register their guns in the first place.
In following these links, Glenn Reynolds serves up some more really lame strawmen. He quotes someone else as saying “No gun owner wants the criminals to know who has firearms and the ability to carry them legally…” While I can’t be sure that the original writer didn’t exclude police officers from this statement, it’s still fallacious. Gun ownership is a civil right because you have a basic human right to defend yourself and your property. Pretending that you lack the ability to do so elimintes any potential deterent and thus serves no purpose.
Comment by Chris — May 8, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
Sullivan’s facetious question is as idiotic as Reynolds’ swaggering response.
A conceal permit isn’t about “hiding the fact that they own” a gun, nor is it really about the element of surprise that the Perfesser describes. It strikes me as a matter of decency: a visible sidearm can be a disruptive presence in a public setting, so keep it covered.
But Sullivan of all people should know that just because something is a “civil right” doesn’t mean you want to advertise it. Wouldn’t he agree that we have a civil right to our own sexual orientations, as well as a right to our privacy concerning them? I can’t blame an asshole like Reynolds for firing off an asshole response, because the original statement was such an easy target.
Sullivan’s use of the phrase “civil right” was stupid in the first place. Chris is right: the crux of the matter is not whether gun ownership is a civil right, it’s whether it’s a matter of public record.
Comment by Cris — May 9, 2007 @ 8:37 am
I think it would be great to have a searchable public database for all medical information.
Why would Glenn Reynolds or Andrew Sullivan object to the public knowing if he’s had a hemorrhoidectomy, or whether he’s always been a perfect asshole.
Moreover, since voting is a civil right, shouldn’t we be able to see how individual voters cast their ballots?
The Supreme Court has upheld the fundamental right to reproduce. Is there a searchable database to let the public know who’s exercising that right? How often? By what position?
Comment by Ereshkigal — May 9, 2007 @ 9:59 am
He is both willfully obtuse and a dumb fuck.
(This has been another edition …)
Comment by Cakesniffer — May 9, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Roe v Wade was based on an implied Right to Privacy in the Constitution. That’s all that needs to be said about that.
I can’t stop myself from pointing out that the people who inveigh against “activist judges” are claiming that a right to privacy does not exist in the Constitution, so when Roe goes, so does the idea that anything about your life is out of bounds for the government to snoop on and to regulate.
Lawyers say “hard cases make bad law”, but in today’s climate, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find anything that doesn’t make Bad Law.
Comment by de Selby — May 20, 2007 @ 3:18 pm