Cherry Picking Constitutional Rights
Dzhokhnar Tsamaev, the alleged Boston Marathon bomber, is being held by the FBI and apparently has not been Mirandized. Just as the Second Amendment gives American Citizens the right to bear arms, the Constitution provides rights for those accused of a crime. They have the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney. The right to bear arms is interpreted literally by those opposing legislation intended to curb gun violence. The right to remain silent and the right to an attorney is treated more liberally. If public safety is involved, these Miranda rights can be waived in an effort to get information from the accused. This smells of hypocrisy. Massacres involving guns do not warrant the passage of legislation limiting the right to bear arms. Massacres involving bombs do warrant a delay in reading the accused his rights. If limiting the rights of an accused American citizen in the interest of public safety is justified, why is it not justified to implement meaningful background checks in order to reduce gun violence in the interest of public safety? Was the Boston Marathon massacre anymore heinous than the Newtown massacre? It made more noise, but that is hardly a reason for it receiving more attention. The Newtown dead are as dead as the Boston dead. Picking and choosing what rights we are willing to compromise is a dangerous game. I do not disagree with delaying Miranda rights to gain information on the source of bomb materials and the whereabouts of possibly additional bombs. I do not agree that the right to bear arms is infringed by efforts to limit their possession to responsible citizens.