Posted on 03/03/2007 3:16:02 PM PST by Mr. Brightside
That's going to leave a mark.
"If they are "bad" laws, the citizens will take actions to have them revoked."
In all seriousness, do you think the Supreme Court has the moral and spiritual authority to negate the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
Our inborn rights do not come from laws. Yes, this is a dangerous point of view, but our Founding Fathers used to hold it dear.
And the comparison of Hitler's Nazi Germany to the United States and its Constitution is what?
Sorry, The Constitution is a barrier between me, and the will of the masses, and between me, and the whims of government.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The Constitution created and maintains a republican form of government, ensures the protection of the rights of its citizens, and provides powers to the branches to carry out their functions of insuring the security of the Nation. I'm not sure how that creates a barrier.
My daddy put it this way; "There are only two sources of order in society, individual self discipline, or a police state".
I take it your daddy didn't study much conservatism in his day? So to you, the only good government is no government? Perhaps you have some examples to share of a good anarchy? And if you believe this to be a police state, perhaps you are in sore need of a trip to North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and a number of others before you decide on a model for police state tactics.
NYC suffers from a shortage of the former, so Rudy felt justified to impose the latter, not just on the barbarians, but on everyone. Not much point in self discipline is there?
I don't know as I don't live in NYC. I would say that it is likely that most citizens are a lot happier that they can at least walk outside and that their children are not in the danger they once were. That aside, I somehow doubt that every citizen armed to the teeth with automatic rifles and grenade launchers will somehow be the answer to a content society.
No way is this going to create better citizens, just more barbarians.
I doubt a lot of New Yorkers would agree with you.
There is damned little I agree with "a lot of New Yorkers" on. They can keep their little Mussolini, as long as they keep him at home.
I don't, but that's a separate question from whether they can.
I'm not going to get involved in a citizen uprising about it, no matter what happens. I wouldn't know who to shoot, for one thing.
I don't think there will be anything more than talk about taking away our guns. The worst case scenario, in my opinion, is that they could make getting new ones much harder.
The most important issue here is the legitimacy of government.
Is there proof that gun control is the operative factor in NYC's improved crime statistics? Another way to look at it is from the perspective of a law-abiding citizen who is now forbidden to possess the means to self-defense. Are they truly safer?
But one issue stands above these in my view: convenience and expedience are no justification for violating the rights of New York's citizens to keep and bear arms.
The same justifications could be made in a natural disaster. Consider New Orleans after the hurricane: just when they needed protection that firearms afford, many were disarmed in the name of expedience.
And yes, the Weimar regime which imposed gun control in Germany used many of the same justifications that gun control advocates do today, laying the groundwork for the Nazis who merely strengthened the enforcement of those laws. By then it was too late.
Let's see. Mussolini, Hitler, Nazi, Treasonous cretin....all coming from the moral right.
At the opposite side of the circle, left and right become one.
There is no form of tyranny better than any other.
I am not aware of any definitive studies, though some may exist. I would guess it's a whole host of actions taken through the leadership of the city's then mayor.
Another way to look at it is from the perspective of a law-abiding citizen who is now forbidden to possess the means to self-defense. Are they truly safer?
I wasn't aware they were forbidden. I knew there were permit and registration requirements for hand guns, namely to get the 2 million illegal guns off the street and keep them out of the hands of felons and at risk youth. As far a I know, there are no such requirements for rifles or shotguns. So if I lived there, I could get a gun as I do not have a police record. Therefore I would feel a tad safer.
But one issue stands above these in my view: convenience and expedience are no justification for violating the rights of New York's citizens to keep and bear arms.
That would depend on how extensive you consider that right. The issue is to what extent can a state exercise its powers to preserve safety and security? I imagine one day a USSC opinion will come down on it. No one questions the power of a state to enact laws which infringe on total free speech, nor to enact laws discriminatory to some group or another under certain circumstances.
The same justifications could be made in a natural disaster. Consider New Orleans after the hurricane: just when they needed protection that firearms afford, many were disarmed in the name of expedience.
I recall it. OTOH, how should a state determine who can carry and what type of weapon they can carry?
And yes, the Weimar regime which imposed gun control in Germany used many of the same justifications that gun control advocates do today, laying the groundwork for the Nazis who merely strengthened the enforcement of those laws. By then it was too late.
Once we start being compared to Nazi Germany, there is little room left for intellectual discussion. One assumes that such comparison is somehow meant to justify a complete, unregulated right to keep and bear any arms the citizen wants, no matter the type, or the mental, age, or legal status. It is further assumed by such statements, that the purpose is to ensure that a Nazi like government can be effectively opposed by means of force of arms, which is ludicrous at best.
Actually, I couldn't agree more. Which is why I do what I can to "out" the radical right. But for all the wrongs seen by the social right, the worst would be to permit them to instill a set of laws based on their religious and moral belief system. I'm completely content with a republican form of government that recognizes that the rights of all citizens trump all powers of the state...or of radical groups, either the left or the right.
Somehow the tyranny that fostered and maintained human beings as property and justified by good Christians comes to mind when you mention tyranny. As does the treatment of women and minorities by good white male Christian landowners. So when I hear of the freedoms we enjoy today described as tyranny, because a relatively small group cannot impose its moral and religious philosophy on the rest of us, I wonder what history that person has been reading.
Did not Mr. Giuliani file lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and distributors, with the intention of using court costs to put them out of business? Someone set me straight if I'm confused about that, but such action indicates a desire and willingness to use all available executive power he can get to effectively nullify the Second Amendment nationwide.
How many people are aware that GHWB imposed by executive fiat an "assault weapons" ban that applied to imported firearms rules even more strict than those of the 1994 AWB?
"One assumes that such comparison is somehow meant to justify a complete, unregulated right to keep and bear any arms the citizen wants, no matter the type, or the mental, age, or legal status. It is further assumed by such statements, that the purpose is to ensure that a Nazi like government can be effectively opposed by means of force of arms, which is ludicrous at best."
I'd rather have a candidate that had demonstrated his support for the right of individuals to keep and bear arms than one who has merely claimed to support such right, but either of those is far better than someone who refuses to even do that.
Is there any evidence that the Second Amendment was not written to give any and all free persons the right to make, purchase, or otherwise acquire without theft, any and all such artifacts as might be useful as weapons in a well-functioning citizen army, without interference from the government?
Slaves are not free persons. Prisoners are not free persons. Unemancipated minors are not free persons (they are wards of their parents, and have such freedoms as their parents choose to give them). Committed inmates in lunatic assylums are not free persons. Outlaws are not free persons (since they are subject to capture at any time).
If it is no longer acceptable to give all free persons the right to acquire without restriction any and all such artifacts as could be used as arms in a well-functioning citizen army, then the Constitution should be amended to change that. I would expect that an amendment allowing Congress to restrict private ownership of significant quantities of fissionable materials, for example, could be ratified without too much difficulty if courts held that such an amendment would be required to impose such restrictions. So what's the problem with regarding the Second Amendment as applying absolutely to all free persons?
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.