Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Freedom4US
First of all, I don't believe your contention -- that it is "most likely" a criminal uses a firearm when committing those crimes.

Whatever. I don't see what one has to do with the other. Even if we assume all criminals have firearms or no criminals have firearms, what does that have to do with arming the citizenry?

A community or a city may believe that unarmed citizens are actually safer when facing an armed criminal. Shouldn't they have the right to implement that (assuming, of course, their state constitution allows that)? I didn't realize the constitution was a check on stupidity.

322 posted on 07/10/2007 6:42:12 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies ]


To: y'all
Freedom4US asked:

When the most likely criminal threat faced by a person or persons during burglary, robbery, rape, murder, etc is a criminal with a firearm, how is it that the right of self-defense precludes arms?

And a socialist answered:

So if the citizens of Wilmette, Illinois want to live in a gun free community, they should not have the freedom to make that decision?

"We the People" made that decision about our supreme Law of the Land in the Constitution of the United States.
Part of that supreme law [the 2nd] says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The 14th reiterates that States cannot deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law.
Wilmette's 'law' violates the 14th's due process clause [guns are property used to defend life & liberty] as well as the 2nd.

So no, the socialists in control of Wilmette's government do not have the power to prohibit arms. They are trumped by our Constitution, by our guaranteed right to a Republican Form of Government.

A community or a city may believe that unarmed citizens are actually safer when facing an armed criminal. Shouldn't they have the right to implement that (assuming, of course, their state constitution allows that)? I didn't realize the constitution was a check on stupidity.

Our Constitution is indeed a check on majority rule stupidity.

A community [like the Amish] may believe that unarmed citizens are actually safer when facing an armed criminal, and persuade their members to disarm themselves.
-- They do not have the power to implement that stupidity in local or state law.

325 posted on 07/10/2007 7:36:07 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

I was waiting for that.

OK - would you agree that crime is often committed by criminals with firearms, further - people are often killed or wounded by criminals with firearms. And getting held up or robbed at gunpoint is not a victimless crime.

Let me know what you think.


327 posted on 07/10/2007 8:28:13 AM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson