Use a Gun, Get Bombed

The United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that the Constitution of the United States guarantees that an individual has an inviolable right to own and use a gun for purposes of self defense. A family in Iraq was just blown up illustrating that principle.

The Court’s radical deconstructionists interpreted the following words,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

. . . to mean that individuals must be allowed to own guns to shoot those they think might threaten their lives. According to Justice Scalia, the Constitution does not allow communities to enact laws to protect their police and citizens if the law includes “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” Some "experts" assure us the decision will have limited practical effect on current laws outside the D.C. case.

In Iraq, however, we just saw a perfect illustration of this principle. From the New York Times:

Hours earlier, an American helicopter fired missiles into a home near Tikrit, killing a family of five, local officials and a relative said.

The episode began when Afar Ahmed Zidan thought he heard thieves prowling near his home in the darkness, a cousin, Hussain al-Azawi, said. Mr. Zidan went outside and fired at them, Mr. Azawi said.

But the men in the darkness turned out to be American infantrymen conducting a search, Mr. Azawi said. They returned fire, wounding Mr. Zidan, who rushed inside and frantically called his cousin to alert him to what had happened, Mr. Azawi said. Then the Americans called in an airstrike that killed Mr. Zidan, his wife and three children, all under 10 years old, Mr. Azawi said.

“The Americans shot two rockets into the house,” he said. The rocket strike also wounded three of Mr. Zidan’s neighbors, who were taken to a hospital, he said.

Officials from the local council in Tikrit, about 100 miles north of Baghdad, said Wednesday that they believed five people had been killed in the American airstrike, and that they had sent a representative to attend the funerals.

The American military confirmed an airstrike had taken place, but said an “Al Qaeda terrorist” had fired at the service members. Soldiers surrounded the building where the man was hiding and called for him to come out, the military said, but after perceiving “hostile intent,” they called in the airstrike.

Is this an unfair analogy? Try substituting the D.C. police on a drug/gang raid for the US Army and a federal S.W.A.T team for the air strike. The resident in a dangerous neighborhood hears the commotion next door. Who can blame the local resident for trying to defend himself and his family? Everyone claims to be justified, functioning under some legal principle, and yet five innocent people are dead. Just an unfortunate mistake? Or a predictable consequence?

John McCain has repeatedly said it’s fine with him if American combat troops continue to occupy Iraq for "a hundred years" as long as there are no US casualties. As best I can tell, the Iraq incident meets his condition, though I doubt our media will notice the connection.

And from Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick:

But I must first pass along this rather brilliant observation from professor Stephen Wermiel from American University, who wonders why none of the dissenters cautioned the majority that today’s decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." (Boumediene, Scalia, J. dissenting.)

Related posts:

1. Who really bombed Pan Am 103?: Evidence The US Bought The Megrahi Conviction
2. On Constitution Day, Celebrate the Rights of People (Not Corporations)
3. US Contractors Held in Iraqi Jail for Green Zone Murder
4. Changing of the Guard: US Troops Withdraw from Iraqi Cities; Maliki Declares “Sovereignty Day”