Replies

"Your view would seem to be that anything which is not forbidden to government is permitted. This turns the notion of limited government on its head and requires the people at every turn to actively constrain government despite the lack of any explicit authority on their part to act."

This is the function of a state constitution. Then we have a legislature where bills are voted on by representatives of the people. The bill is then signed by the Governor and made law. The law must survive court challenges. What is your problem with that?

I bet you're in favor of the FSP, right? Oh yeah, I bet you are.

I bet you're a big believer in the right of a group of similarly-minded individuals getting together in one state to decide how they will live. If they live the way you want, that is.

But if they decide they want to live in a state without machine guns, oh, watch out. That's not allowed. They must allow that.

I bet you'd like to make it a law that people must own guns. Not that you'd admit it.

robertpaulsen said: But if they decide they want to live in a state without machine guns, oh, watch out. That's not allowed. They must allow that."

Freedom is a real problem for you, I guess.

Are you suggesting that it would be permissible to re-enslave black people if a simple majority of the people decide to do that?

At least finally we see that you are a "majority rules" guy and that arguing for limitations on government control are not to be tolerated. If a legislature passes a law and the courts allow it then that is a good thing.

The serious question which remains is; why are you on FreeRepublic? Who here, besides you, agrees with that philosophy of government which suggests that anything desired by the majority is to be allowed?

What really seems to set you apart is your willingness to tolerate the incorrect ruling of the Miller court despite your own understanding of the grammar of the Second Amendment. You don't seem to know what you think until some court decision tells you what to think.

You have expressed surprise that I might find virtually every court decision flawed regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Why don't you tell us what court decisions you find flawed? Have there been any? Or are you just fine with all decisions, even those in conflict?

You recently agreed that the Miller court SHOULD NOT have constrained the right to keep and bear arms based upon the dependent clause. Don't you see any consequences to the court having ruled in error? Would it not have been preferable for them not to have ruled in error? Would it not be preferable for the present court to correct that error?