Posted on 10/28/2003 8:58:48 AM PST by bassmaner
Leave it to you to miss the point.
"As a conservative, I say that society has a right to place reasonable restrictions on individual rights for the good of society."
Fine. "As a conservative, I say that society has a right to may place reasonable restrictions on individual rights for the good of society."
"So rights are something granted by the government?"
Nope. Never said that. Read it again.
"Really, even ban? Even given the 14th Amendment?"
Really. The 2nd was never incorporated into the 14th.
Is he now a Tory, also?
So, the GA General Assembly is full of libertarians? Apparently, irony is not a concept you're familiar with.
What do you mean "Ask a libertarian". I thought I did. Care to answer my question?
I'll tell you what. I'll re-phrase my question so you can answer it.
You called individual rights and individual liberties a conservative position. Then what constitutes a classic liberal's (in the mold of John Locke) position when it comes to rights and liberty?
. . . and you'd still be just as wrong. Words have meaning, obviously: the same words mean different things to different people. Ultimately, this particular element of our discussion is neither here nor there.
Leave it to you to miss the point.
Don't blame me for your propensity for using words you think mean the same thing but don't.
Fine. "As a conservative, I say that society may place reasonable restrictions on individual rights for the good of society."
Acting under the legitimate powers and rules alloted to the government by the people, I agree with you. I ask you yet again, what are your metrics for determining what reasonable restrictions may be placed on individual rights for the good of society?
"Really, even ban? Even given the 14th Amendment?"
Really. The 2nd was never incorporated into the 14th.
So a total gun ban in Massachusetts would pass constitutional muster in your world?
I accused you of acting like an asshole, not being one, because you acted like one. Do you have a problem with that?
I'm not passing judgement here, so don't get so defensive. I'm just setting definitions and explaining the difference between conservatives and libertarians.
I am not a libertarian, no matter how hard you and the other GOP cheerleaders on FR try to "tar" us non-Tories with the term, because I do not believe in the infallibility of the free market system, and as such I do not believe the free market system serves as a model for all human interaction.
A distinction without a difference.
Well, then would a "conservative" in the legislature act differently? Would a "conservative," for example, support Sens. Kennedy and Lautenberg in banning plastic guns, even though they don't exist. Would you support such a notion?
There are no metrics. How does one define "reasonable"? The 4th Amendment protects us from "unreasonable" searches. What are the metrics for that? C'mon.
"So a total gun ban in Massachusetts would pass constitutional muster in your world?"
In my world? What kind of question is that? Quit acting like an ignorant asshole. (Not that you are one, mind you, just acting like one. Feel better?)
A total gun ban in Massachusetts would not be against federal law or the federal constitution, but would violate Article XVII of the Massachusetts State constitution which states, "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."
Now if the people of Massachusetts did away with Article XVII, then, yes, Massachusetts could ban guns.
A conservative would not vote to allow a citizen to carry around a semi- or fully-automatic rifle, though they would allow him to own one and transport it.
It's called a "reasonable" restriction. Why do people have such a problem with this concept?
Are you so insecure that any concession means surrender? Well, let me clue you in on something. Insisting that you have the God-given absolute right to carry around a fully loaded M249 Squad Automatic Weapon everywhere you go doesn't help your cause.
And that advice is coming from a card-carrying contributing member of the NRA and a damn fine shot with a .45 at 15 yards if I do say so myself.
There are no metrics . . . that's simply another way of saying there is no limit. It's undefined. It's nebulous. It's vague. It means whatever anyone wants it to mean.Do you see the inherent problems yet?
In my world? What kind of question is that? Quit acting like an ignorant asshole. (Not that you are one, mind you, just acting like one. Feel better?)
"In your world" = "in your opinion." I apologize if such subtleties escape or insult you.
A total gun ban in Massachusetts would not be against federal law or the federal constitution
Sorry, I side with Black.
But I would not call that a conservative position. So when you frame a question that references "the conservative principles of individual rights, individual liberties, and a smaller, less intrusive government", it's bound to be met with blank stares.
Conservatives do not define their position based on individual rights and individual liberties, even though those exist under reasonable restrictions imposed by society. Individual rights and liberties uber alles is a position taken by libertarians, classical liberals, and objectivists.
Why are you asking me? Ask the legislators. If you want to know why I oppose such laws, it is because they don't do what they are intended to do. Do you think someone will decide on shooting up a 7-11 and then think, "Oh, I better not, since I had my heart set on using my Minimi, and open public carry of that is illegal."?
Are you so insecure that any concession means surrender?
Well, yes, to the degree that adult pot smoking will mean the breakdown of civil order.
What about that little thing called the 2nd Amendment?
IMO, this position best captures the spirit of the American Revolution and its ideological foundations.
I have a hunch your mileage may differ. ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.