JohnMitchell 14
Recommended Posts
Don't forget Senator Diane Fienstein, who, while trying to disarm all of America, had a California Concealed Pistol License and was packing a .38 in her purse. When asked about this by reporters, she said that she needed to be able to protect herself. As if the rest of us aren't worthy of that right.Quote
Indeed. These are the ones who have armed security to protect them, a la Rosie McDonnell.
Exactly the annointed liberal standard. "I need a gun for protection, because I am important. You peasants don't need protection. Who'd go after you?"
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 1,672
Quote***
In general I believe in the right of each state to pass any laws they so choose. Yes, people can be "forced to move" to Nevada if they don't want to pay California income tax, and a hardworking prostitute can be "forced to move" there as well to find legal work. ("Forced to move" is in quotes because they are not, of course, forced to do anything. They can choose to move, or choose not to.)
/reply]how about a state passing laws restricting Free Speech, or the right to worship freely, or the right to due process of law? If you don't like that, then F&#@in' move, buddy! We are talking about a Constitutional Amendment Right, to own firearms and to protect ourselves with them. The founding fathers recognized self defense as one of the most basic, undeniable, inherent rights of man. How could anyone deny that right, to self defense?
No-one was denied the right to self-defense. If a Wilmette resident wished to have two loaded shotguns in every room of the house and another six in the garage, that was OK. On the whole, a shotgun is a better home defense weapon than a handgun anyway.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,465
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>how about a state passing laws restricting Free Speech . . .
There are such laws. You cannot protest where you choose in Washington, DC; they confine anti-government protesters to certain areas. Parades, even parades for political causes, need permits in many cities, and such permits are often denied. You are not permitted to yell "fire!" in a movie theatre, even if you feel it is your god-given free speech right to yell fire wherever you want. These are all restrictions on free speech. If you feel your rights are truly being trampled upon by such laws, your options are to a) move or b) take it to the courts. Both are good options.
>or the right to due process of law?
Don't know if you noticed this, but that's not an absolute law of the land any more. You can be arrested and held indefinitely for no reason; it's happened. The war on terror and all. That's a bigger problem because it's harder to 'just move.' Option b) is a better choice there, and it's being debated in the courts right now.
>We are talking about a Constitutional Amendment Right, to own
> firearms and to protect ourselves with them.
I agree that any state that banned the private ownership of guns would be in direct contradiction of the second amendment, and I would hope that a court challenge to that law would quickly be mounted. A great many states have restrictions on what you can and can't own, who can sell guns, how long you have to wait for them, what permits you need etc. Some are good laws, some aren't. Again, the best two approaches to that are to a) move or b) challenge it in court.
There are such laws. You cannot protest where you choose in Washington, DC; they confine anti-government protesters to certain areas. Parades, even parades for political causes, need permits in many cities, and such permits are often denied. You are not permitted to yell "fire!" in a movie theatre, even if you feel it is your god-given free speech right to yell fire wherever you want. These are all restrictions on free speech. If you feel your rights are truly being trampled upon by such laws, your options are to a) move or b) take it to the courts. Both are good options.
>or the right to due process of law?
Don't know if you noticed this, but that's not an absolute law of the land any more. You can be arrested and held indefinitely for no reason; it's happened. The war on terror and all. That's a bigger problem because it's harder to 'just move.' Option b) is a better choice there, and it's being debated in the courts right now.
>We are talking about a Constitutional Amendment Right, to own
> firearms and to protect ourselves with them.
I agree that any state that banned the private ownership of guns would be in direct contradiction of the second amendment, and I would hope that a court challenge to that law would quickly be mounted. A great many states have restrictions on what you can and can't own, who can sell guns, how long you have to wait for them, what permits you need etc. Some are good laws, some aren't. Again, the best two approaches to that are to a) move or b) challenge it in court.
JohnMitchell 14
/***No-one was denied the right to self-defense. If a Wilmette resident wished to have two loaded shotguns in every room of the house and another six in the garage, that was OK. On the whole, a shotgun is a better home defense weapon than a handgun anyway.
As usual, a well thought out reply from you. Although I own both, I prefer a handgun for self-defense over a shotgun, but that's a whole 'nother debate. The banning of one weapon is often a prelude to the banning of the next, and the next, and the next. Soon, you're right there with New York City and Washington DC, in a total victim disarmanent zone. And no town council should have that kind of power over what's in my gun safe, or where I worship, or what kind of politics I espouse. That's my dogma, and I'm sticking to it.
JohnMitchell 14
There are such laws. You cannot protest where you choose in Washington, DC; they confine anti-government protesters to certain areas. Parades, even parades for political causes, need permits in many cities, and such permits are often denied.
>or the right to due process of law?
You can be arrested and held indefinitely for no reason; it's happened. The war on terror and all.
>or the right to due process of law?
You can be arrested and held indefinitely for no reason; it's happened. The war on terror and all.
QuoteTrue enough, and that's a crying shame, too. Those who give up freedom for a little security will have neither and deserve neither.
JohnRich 4
QuoteNo-one was denied the right to self-defense. If a Wilmette resident wished to have two loaded shotguns in every room of the house and another six in the garage, that was OK. On the whole, a shotgun is a better home defense weapon than a handgun anyway.
Which type of firearm is "better" for home defense is a matter of personal opinion and preference.
They shouldn't persecute someone simply because he chose to use a different type of firearm.
And if they trust their residents with shotguns, then there is no reason why they shouldn't also trust them with handguns.
This ordinance is just a knee-jerk response to a bad shooting, which accomplishes nothing, and as we see in this case, causes innocent law-abiding people to suffer. Just like the large majority of gun-control laws on the books.
JohnRich 4
Quote>how about a state passing laws restricting Free Speech . . .
...You are not permitted to yell "fire!" in a movie theatre, even if you feel it is your god-given free speech right to yell fire wherever you want.
That one is a bad analogy.
The person who yelled "fire" was not muzzled when he entered the theater to prevent him from yelling that word. There were no restrictions on his freedom of speech in advance - no "prior restraint", to use the legal terminology. He was only punished after he exhibited irresponsible behavior by yelling "fire", where there was no fire.
On the other hand, in the instant case with handguns, the residents were suffering under prior restraint. Ownership of some guns was denied to them, on the assumption that they will be irresponsible and misuse them, even though no such evidence of dangerous behavior exists. They didn't even have to actually do anything bad with their handguns, just the mere possession was sufficent to be illegal.
So the equivalent example with free speech, would be to require people to have their tongues muzzled when they enter theatres, so that they are incapable of shouting "fire". Just passing a law punishing them if they shout "fire", isn't the same, because that actually requires a bad act to occur, before they are punished. To be comparable with the gun case we're talking about, all theatre patrons would have to have their tongues muzzled as they enter the theatre, regardless of how responsible they might be. They should all be presumed to be dangerous, and denied the use of their tongues. It would be preemptory punishment, rather than after-the-fact.
All those who don't want to be helpless victims: Join the NRA: www.nra.org
billvon 2,465
>On the other hand, in the instant case with handguns, the residents
>were suffering under prior restraint.
Oh, my mistake. I thought we were talking about the story as described in the original post, in which a homeowner was prosecuted only _after_ using the weapon. Was there another story about someone's gun being confiscated before use?
>were suffering under prior restraint.
Oh, my mistake. I thought we were talking about the story as described in the original post, in which a homeowner was prosecuted only _after_ using the weapon. Was there another story about someone's gun being confiscated before use?
kallend 1,672
QuoteQuoteNo-one was denied the right to self-defense. If a Wilmette resident wished to have two loaded shotguns in every room of the house and another six in the garage, that was OK. On the whole, a shotgun is a better home defense weapon than a handgun anyway.
Which type of firearm is "better" for home defense is a matter of personal opinion and preference.
They shouldn't persecute someone simply because he chose to use a different type of firearm.
And if they trust their residents with shotguns, then there is no reason why they shouldn't also trust them with handguns.
This ordinance is just a knee-jerk response to a bad shooting, which accomplishes nothing, and as we see in this case, causes innocent law-abiding people to suffer. Just like the large majority of gun-control laws on the books.
I don't disagree with you, but the ordinance was passed decades ago, the citizens haven't thrown out the bums who passed it despite several opportunities, and it has been upheld in the courts.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
In general I believe in the right of each state to pass any laws they so choose. Yes, people can be "forced to move" to Nevada if they don't want to pay California income tax, and a hardworking prostitute can be "forced to move" there as well to find legal work. ("Forced to move" is in quotes because they are not, of course, forced to do anything. They can choose to move, or choose not to.)
/reply]how about a state passing laws restricting Free Speech, or the right to worship freely, or the right to due process of law? If you don't like that, then F&#@in' move, buddy! We are talking about a Constitutional Amendment Right, to own firearms and to protect ourselves with them. The founding fathers recognized self defense as one of the most basic, undeniable, inherent rights of man. How could anyone deny that right, to self defense?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites