What Are They Smoking

NRO ^ | 10/28/2003 | Deroy Murdock

[robertpaulsen]

The 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. You are correct in that the federal government cannot ban guns in Massachusetts.

But the Massachusetts state legislature could, if they did away with Article XVII of the state constitution.

[Trailerpark Badass]

What about that little thing called the 2nd Amendment?

The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated into the 14th, and as such, it does not restrict the states.

[robertpaulsen]

Ah. But there's a "conservative" view of human nature, and there's a "conservative's" view of human nature. There is a difference.

I felt that HG was referring to a conservative's (ie, as opposed to liberal) principles of individual rights, individual liberties. Was I wrong? Did he mean simply a conservative principle?

Well, if he did, then I read it wrong. And if he did, then I don't know how to answer it. I don't know what a conservative principle is when used that way.

Just like I don't know what the heck a "conservative view of human nature" is. What is that, cautious?

[Just another Joe]

But the Massachusetts state legislature could, if they did away with Article XVII of the state constitution.

I aknowledge your argument, however, I'm not sure that I agree with it.
I'm not sure that I agree that a state, county, or municipality can legally ban guns. I know that some have done so but I'm not sure that it's legal.

I see nothing included in the 14th amendment that says the states can abridge the second.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

It's called a "reasonable" restriction. Why do people have such a problem with this concept?

Gets back to that metrics question. Without metrics, how can you even begin to define reasonable?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

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.

Quite frankly, I think the terms conservative and liberal are wholly reflective terms: politically, they define a stance only in relation to another stance. I used the term in my question, however, because most people on this site would identify as a "conservative" vice a "liberal," or a "republican" or "libertarian" vice a "democrat" or a "socialist," etc.

Most people here, I think (I guess, I estimate) would claim the reflective point about which they use the term would be the ideology of the Revolution, the Founding Fathers. It's easy to see the differences in terms when you think of it that way: liberals are more likely to stray from conservatives, in that they are more likely to stray from the ideals of the Revolution than are conservatives. This, in any event, is how I define my conservatism: in keeping with the ideals of the Revolution.

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.

Okay, then: how do you define your conservatism?

[1Old Pro]

The war on marijuana was ridiculous from the very outset and has only gotten wackier as time goes by. Now, you can't even buy a hemp necklace legally because it may contain an infinitesimal amount of THC. Can't take any chances you know.

Even worse, you can't grow hemp for diesel fuel.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Obviously what you have here is an argument of semantics, unless you truly believe that the Framers went through a great deal of effort to incorporate a Bill of Rights into a document without which, it's arguable, that document wouldn't have been ratified----only to give the several states the power to negate each and every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Yeah right.

[MrLeRoy]

"minimum government control or interference into our personal lives"

I'm all in favor of the above. You, on the other hand, prefer NO government control or interference into our personal lives.

False; I support all laws against the initiation of force or fraud.

[MrLeRoy]

Our society. Our values. Our way of life. Our traditions.

All of which are destroyed by making individual rights and individual liberties the foundation for the way we live.

I don't believe in anarchy.

False dichotomy: "making individual rights and individual liberties the foundation for the way we live" is not identical to anarchy.

[Major_Risktaker]

I this pipe illegal? Could I carry it on a plane?

If Tommy Chong can go to jail for sell legal pipes, then someday people will go to jail for selling legal ammunition.

Just a thought....Ooops is kind of thinking illegal?

[BrooklynGOP]

LOL! Nice pipe!

[headsonpikes]

A conservative view of human nature is one which holds that men and women, whether alive now or 2000 years ago, have the same predisposition to behave badly.

Therefore, government must be restrained.

;^)

[MrLeRoy]

Well said.

[headsonpikes]

He brings out a better side of me than some posters. ;^)

[robertpaulsen]

"Gets back to that metrics question. Without metrics, how can you even begin to define reasonable?"

We've managed to do that for decades with the 4th amendment.

[Just another Joe]

We've managed to do that for decades with the 4th amendment.

And look where it's got us.

No-knock raids on wrong living quarters
Raids based on only the word of some informant that may, or may not, have a beef with the person being raided
asset forfeiture without even a charge much less a conviction

Shall I go on?

[robertpaulsen]

"Okay, then: how do you define your conservatism?"

Based on our conversation, I would say that "my" conservatism would be your classic liberalism tempered by reason and the good of society.

I understand that "reason" and "good" are a nebulous concepts, but it's the best I can do.

[MrLeRoy]

What do you think of headsonpikes' definition in post #153?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

We've managed to do that for decades with the 4th amendment.

If you're comfortable with "reasonable" being a no-knock warrant served in the middle of the night by a bunch of Rambo-styled paramilitary police commandos with such bravado and style it literally scared a man to death . . . the basis for the warrant being, of course, the word of a pinched drug addict who'd say anything to keep his ass out of the slammer . . . the search-and-destroy warrant, of course, executed at the wrong residential address . . . I can see how you can make such a ridiculous statement.

Or how about other definitions of reasonable? Former FBI agent J. Paul Rico sending innocent men to die in prison in order to protect his sources? J. Paul Rico helping his sources---I mean his rats---murder a Tulsa businessman to keep them happy? Or how about John Connolly, aiding and abetting a notorious gangster like Whitey Bulger for years because it was "reasonable" to do so in order to dismantle the Italian Mob?