Replies

You guys simply refuse to understand that in a practical sense the answer to this is a resounding "yes."

OK. Got you pegged now. This one core example of your thought on this decries the very idea that a person has ANY Rights that cannot be taken away by the Majority. This violates everything "unalienable" Rights is about. Either you do, or you don't. It's black and white because, as recent events prove out, incrementalism will destroy a thing like this whenever the hardline stance is not taken.

This shows an extreme amount of cowardice on your part.

As posted to Roscoe, there are several places in the Constitution that apply it to the States. "Supreme Law of the Land" is pretty damn unambiguous, despite what socialists and tyrants legislating from the judicial bench may have decided with their "emmanations and penumbras".

Stanely had the right of the argument. Denver was wrong to even impose such a limit. How many RKBA threads have you seen on FR that espouse this EXACT viewpoint? That all laws that violate RKBA are un-Constitutional?

You really don't get it, do you DC?

I'm all for the RKBA. However, I understand that there are people against it -- enough of them to allow the passage of all sorts of gun control legislation. IOW, gun control more or less has "the consent of the governed." It's a plain political fact.

Now suppose that somehow the LP finds itself in a position to do something about it, but finds itself faced with strong opposition. Will the LP simply force its will on the governed? No: instead, it would be forced to acknowledge the meaning of the term, "politics is the art of the possible."

(Of course, the only way the LP would ever be in that position to begin with is if they actually had people voting for them. In which case the point is moot, because "everybody would just....")

Stanely had the right of the argument. Denver was wrong to even impose such a limit.

I agree. However, Stanley's antics did nothing to highlight what was wrong with the ordinance. Indeed, he probably did a better job of demonstrating why the ordinance is a "good" thing. I'll be honest: based on his behavior, I don't trust Rick Stanley to behave responsibly with a gun.