Of course, their answer is that we don't have enough guns in the country. If we just allowed concealed weapons at schools, nursing homes, work, bars, airports and just about anywhere else you can imagine, then we would have less gun violence. Yes, maybe in bizzaro world, but in this world the more guns we have had in this country the more people have been shot ... with guns.
The Washington case is a good example. Would that father really have been able to kill his four young daughters and his young son without a shotgun? Maybe, it's happened before. But it would have been a hell of a lot harder and hell of a lot less likely. And what would have been the NRA alternative fix here - arm the kids?
With mild sarcasm, Uygur makes a good point, one with which I am in total agreement. The more guns there are, the more gun violence there is. To claim anything other than that to me violates basic common sense and logic.
"It's madness that almost anyone can stroll into a Wal-Mart and walk out with a deadly weapon. Guns should be the hardest things to get in America, not the easiest," says Uygur. Do you think that's true, or is he exaggerating? Surely one can't walk into just any Wal-Mart and do that. Does he mean in certain states? Do you agree with the point, though, that it's too easy to get guns in America?
What's your opinion? Please feel free to leave a comment.
"How many shootings do there have to be in the news before we wonder about the wisdom of allowing just about anyone to get a gun in America?"
ReplyDeleteSeeing as most of the shooters were NOT allowed to have guns in America, that's a logical fallacy!
"The more guns there are, the more gun violence there is. To claim anything other than that to me violates basic common sense and logic."
That would makes sense, but it isn't true. You see your logical fallacy is that #1. People committing gun violence are "Average Gun Owners". Of course this is untrue. Most are prohibited persons, the majority are underage gang members. The average gun owner commits no crimes, so the number of guns in their posession is irrelevent.
#2. There's a reason why you NEVER admit that defensive gun uses both exist and are quite prevalent. It blows this theory to SHREDS. Not only do guns often are not used to commit crimes, but they are often used to STOP crimes.
#3. That somehow gun control laws (Like the ones in existence in California and New York) would somehow keep guns out of the bad people's hands. Instead it takes guns away from people in #2, but allows more ease for the people in #1.
#4. You seem to care only about GUN crime, but not at all about crime. As a matter of fact many such as myself note the double-standard you have where you show sympathy to criminals who are proven GUILTY of violent crime, but yet spout accusations for lawful gun owners. You don't post about violent crimes not using guns, you somehow prefer a raped woman bleed to death from a cut throat rather than a bullet hole.
Also you disregard the rising crime rate in places like the UK, Australia, and Germany as they ban their guns, and the massive violent crime rate in Eastern Europe despite that no man alive remembers when a lawful citizen could own a defensive arm inside of the law.
So not only am I calling you a liar, Mike, but I'm proving your lies.
Worse yet, you've heard it all before, hell you may even screen it in your fascist little comments screening.
Why do you continue to spread information you know is untrue?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteLets try it a different way:
How many drownings do there have to be in the news before we wonder about the wisdom of allowing just about woman to have a child in America?"
Time after time we hear of mothers killing their children, are we going to start testing women before we allow them to have children?
Or despite the grisly risk, are we going to let people be free?
Maybe, it's happened before. But it would have been a hell of a lot harder and hell of a lot less likely. And what would have been the NRA alternative fix here - arm the kids?
So, it's okay with you and this jerk if a person kills someone or many people as long as they have to work at it????
Any proof at all that it would be LESS LIKELY or is that just a personal opinion of his you agree with?
By the way, you know what they say about opinions? They are like assholes, everybody has one and they usually stink.
"It's madness that almost anyone can stroll into a Wal-Mart and walk out with a deadly weapon.
Gee, if by "almost anyone" , you mean people who haven't been convicted of a crime, who haven't been adjudged mentally ill and several other prohibition....I guess it is a shame that PEOPLE HAVE FREEDOM.
Why do you want to take away our rights, our liberty?
No one calls for you to loose your rights; your right to free speech. Your right to call for the restriction on our rights.
MikeB, I have a novel FRAKKIN idea. Instead of asking questions, hearing answers you won't listen to....try this LEARN the LAWS.
Spend a few minutes researching something for a post. Learn what the frak you are talking about then tell us if "almost anyone" can walk into Walmart.
"It's madness that almost anyone can stroll into a Wal-Mart and walk out with a deadly weapon. Guns should be the hardest things to get in America, not the easiest," says Uygur. Do you think that's true, or is he exaggerating?
ReplyDeleteThat is the dumbest statement of all time. Guns are far from the "easiest" thing to get. In fact, guns are the most regulated product in the United States.
Some states have more strict procedures than others but the truth is the minimum that anyone would go through to buy a gun at Wal-Mart or any other dealer would require the FBI's permission first.
Cenk Uygur obviously does not have a clue what he is talking about.
Why is it mike that you continue to repeat things that you KNOW to be UNTRUE?
ReplyDeleteAs far as "allowing just about anyone to get a gun."
There's this thing called freedom Mike. We prohibit certain people from owning guns because of prior violent acts. We DO NOT prohibit those with no such prior records from exercizing their Constitutional Rights.
I mean hell, maybe we shouldn't allow just anyone to speak freely, since history has shown that dangereous ideas promulgated by masterful orators can lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people.....
"How many shootings do there have to be in the news before we wonder about the wisdom of allowing just about anyone to get a gun in America?"
ReplyDeleteAnswer: never enough to tamp down the passionate pro-gun lobby. After all, they have the right [divine?] to 'protect' themselves from the other gun-carriers who, apparently, do not know right from wrong.
It's a clever argument that, in fact, causes one to reach for the Dramamine.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteJust noticed something. It seems that you are a little two sided about "inanimate objects". (not that that is a surprise
One of the problems with tasers is that they invite the trigger-happy tendencies of the policemen who carry them. What better toy could the sadistic power-drunk law enforcer have on his utility belt than this one?
Notice how you are focusing on the policemen and the "sadistic power drunk law enforcer" in the case of the taser...but in the case of firearms you don't talk about the "power drunk CRIMINAL". Do you?
Nope you talk about the firearm.
Why the double standard?
Mud,
ReplyDeletePartially correct
After all, they have the right [divine?] to 'protect' themselves from the other gun-carriers who, apparently, do not know right from wrong
It is a divine right, or inherent right if you prefer. It is the right of self defense, look it up.
Now the problem just the people who "do now know right from wrong" it is also the people who know right from wrong but are still willing to do wrong.
Taking away the rights, inherent/divine or otherwise, because some people won't obey the rules is how a nanny state - totalitarian government treats it's subjects. In America, we are free people, We are citizens.
We have that right, our ancestors fought for that right. I have served our country to protect that right. I, not you or the government, get to decide how I protect my family and myself.
It is a free country. You are not required to believe the same things I do. You just aren't allowed to let your beliefs override my rights.
Ain't America Grand!
Real Inventory management systems must be enforced for all arms manufactures.
ReplyDeleteArms dealers must be controlled as a matter of national security.
The sale of assault weapons must be unequivocably banned.
Private citizens cannot be allowed to build up private arsenals and must be held accountable for the conditions of access to the guns in their possession.
In other words, if you own guns, it is your responsiblity to maintain them secure and account for them.
I do not dispute your right to own weapons. I do not dispute the right of weapon manufacturers to make weapons.
I do not want to shut down all gun dealers, but there has to be more control over the licensing and revocation of licenses and the ability to get a license by a dealer who's license has been revoked.
I have said it before, one of the main problems with guns in America is the dishonesty and loop holes in the system from the manufacturer to the street.
That said, I would like to mention to Bob S. in his demand that it was up to me to prove that the FEMA Concentration Camps did not exist.
First, if you make insane claims, it's my perogative to ask you for proof.
You mentioning of the FEMA Camp claim came in a discussion mentioning Glenn Beck's paranoiac rantings.
In the wake of the revelations regarding Richard Poplawski, the Pittsburgh Cop Killer, Beck completely refuted his claims and disproved them on his show.
It seems that Poplawski had posted videos of Beck's FEMA Concetration Camp rants on an extreme Aryan power web site and in a few other places.
Your ssources of information are now engaged in serious spin control.
I like how Muddy is commenting on the futility of the 2nd Amendment arguments....meanwhile he's never made anything even remotely close to an argument or a rebuttal to his side.
ReplyDeleteHas called a lot of name tho!
Keep that up, Sparky!
Bob pointed out that I was focusing on the power-abusing policeman when talking about tasers, but whenever it's a question of guns, I only talk about the inanimate object.
ReplyDeleteIs that supposed to be some incisive discovery of my long-suspected hypocrisy?
I've mentioned before that I tend to hold cops to a higher standard than regular folks. Is that wrong? I also inferred in my post about tasers that they should be eliminated from the arsenal of your regular cop because they're too easy to abuse.
So, I guess you could say I was focusing on the cop and not the taser, but I think you'd be stretching it a bit just to make your point.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you defend your position without admitting your bias.
The taser didn't commit the acts of violence any more then the firearms...but you aren't claiming their are too many tasers, are you?
You are claiming that there are too many firearms, without condemning the violent criminals using them. Why?
Firearms don't act on their own any more then the taser.
It isn't a matter of holding the cops to a higher standard, it is a matter of holding everyone to the standard of FOLLOWING THE LAW.
Now there are more laws, more regulations governing police, yes. But that doesn't change the standard, does it?
If everyone followed the law, there would be no mass shootings, there would be no police brutality.
So, why aren't you preaching to the criminal they need to follow the law?
How many times have you condemned the CRIMINAL for the acts instead of just focusing on the weapon used....not many times at all.
You don't want to address the simple fact that it is about violence, regardless of the tool used, it is about the violence.
You don't address at all the 90% of the violent crime that occurs without a firearm.
Why?
If you want to save lives, if you want to prevent injuries wouldn't you focus on the largest chunk of violent crime?
"I have said it before, one of the main problems with guns in America is the dishonesty and loop holes in the system from the manufacturer to the street."
ReplyDeleteYou've said it before, but PROVE IT MUDDY. Discuss the laws, and their inherent shortcomings IN DETAIL. I'd bet you, like MikeB, don't know a damn thing about gun laws in this country or any "loopholes" or lack thereof that exist.
The scary thing is MikeB knows the laws VERY well, yet this is what he says.
ReplyDelete"Worse yet, you've heard it all before, hell you may even screen it in your fascist little comments screening."
ReplyDeleteYeah, Mike. You're just as bad as every newspaper and magazine editor that elects to print some letters and not others. Fascists one and all.
Deciding what does and does not get published on your own blog? Sweet Jesus, what's next, Mike, invading Poland? Incinerating a few million Jews?
"Bob pointed out that I was focusing on the power-abusing policeman when talking about tasers, but whenever it's a question of guns, I only talk about the inanimate object...I also inferred in my post about tasers that they should be eliminated from the arsenal of your regular cop because they're too easy to abuse."
Mike, it was perfectly clear you were questioning whether police officers should carry tasers.
"It is a divine right, or inherent right if you prefer. It is the right of self defense, look it up."
I'd be delighted to "look it up." Could you point me in the direction of a reference cataloging "divine" and/or "inherent" rights?
Is there a "natural law" hornbook on a shelf somewhere? If so, I'd like to give it a read this weekend.
"In America, we are free people, We are citizens...I, not you or the government, get to decide how I protect my family and myself."
Bob, once again, I appreciate you idealism, but come on. Yes, our society recognizes individual rights, but we do live in a democracy, not a free-for-all. There are no unfettered rights. Under our constitutional system, states and localities have broad police powers. There are a thousand things you cannot legally do to "protect" your family and property. You cannot fill your front yard with landmines. You cannot rig your car with explosives that go off when someone other than you tries to start it. You cannot keep exotic predators such as tigers or crocodiles on your property. You cannot own chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The common law rule has long been that a property owner may not use deadly traps to defend their property. And no doubt, local zoning laws prevent you from erecting any number of defensive fortifications within or on the perimeter of your property.
Are the above prohibitions "nanny-statism" or "totalitarianism?" Of course not. As with so many things, there are numerous, reasonable public policy justifications for limiting the ways a person chooses to "defend" themselves and their property. To argue that you have some "divine" or "inherent" right to do whatever you please in the name of home defense, completely free of government regulation, is simply nonsense.
This same principle applies to firearms. As much as you might want an unfettered "right to bear arms," you do not. In a democracy, "we the people" *do* get to set public policy. If you think that supporters of gun laws "hate freedom," is it fair game to say that you "hate democracy?"
"You don't address at all the 90% of the violent crime that occurs without a firearm.
Why?
If you want to save lives, if you want to prevent injuries wouldn't you focus on the largest chunk of violent crime?"
I suppose, if our goal is to "save lives," our focus should be on violent crimes where life is lost, specifically, homicides. Please remind me, what percentage of homicides involve firearms?
Don,
ReplyDeleteSorry but you are wrong.
Yes, our society recognizes individual rights, but we do live in a democracy, not a free-for-all.
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Do you need a civics lesson on the difference, those differences are pretty substantial?
There are no unfettered rights. Under our constitutional system, states and localities have broad police powers. There are a thousand things you cannot legally do to "protect" your family and property. You cannot fill your front yard with landmines
Wow, imagine that! We have things we cannot do to protect our families...I would have never imagined if there weren't those pesky things called laws that let us know what we can and can not do to defend ourselves.
But that isn't good enough for people like MikeB and apparently you. It seems that you want to take away the existing legal means of self defense.
And people like MikeB want to take away those legal means, not because the PEOPLE DEFENDING THEIR FAMILIES are abusing those rights but because CRIMINALS attacking other people are abusing the tool.
There is a huge difference between protectionary violence and predatory violence. They need to be treated differently. Those laws you mentioned usually have exceptions for self defense, as in "you can't use your firearm to kill someone, UNLESS you are being threatened, hurt, attacked,etc". Imagine that. Existing laws already talking about what we can and can't do with lethal devices.
By the way, those same restrictions apply to just about every device or tool.
I suppose, if our goal is to "save lives," our focus should be on violent crimes where life is lost, specifically, homicides. Please remind me, what percentage of homicides involve firearms?
About 65-75% depending on statistics.
Now how many lives are lost to firearm related homicides each year?
Now how many lives are lost to alcohol related traffic incidents each year?
Could there be about 3 times as many alcohol related deaths as firearm related deaths?
So, if you are wanting to save lifes DUE TO CRIME, shouldn't you focus on that?
And in the mean time, with those 12,000 or so deaths, how many lives are SAVED by the citizenry having access to firearms?
It seems to me that people like you and MikeB are trying to protect the lives of criminals at the cost of the lives of law abiding citizens.
Look up how many homicides occur during or due to the commission of other crimes, criminal lifestyle or activities.
"We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Do you need a civics lesson on the difference, those differences are pretty substantial?"
ReplyDeleteBob, I'm well aware that we do not have a "direct democracy" where the entire population crowds into the town square to debate every issue and cast votes. I use the term "democracy" in the broadest sense, which as I understand it, includes representative forms of government.
"It seems that you want to take away the existing legal means of self defense."
I have never argued for "taking away the existing legal means of self defense." If you want to argue with phantoms, don't let me stop you.
"Wow, imagine that! We have things we cannot do to protect our families...I would have never imagined if there weren't those pesky things called laws that let us know what we can and can not do to defend ourselves."
Indeed. And yet, you continue to make broad, sweeping assertions of "inherent" and "divine" rights beyond the reach of governance. For example, you said:
"I, not you or the government, get to decide how I protect my family and myself.""
Well, that isn't really true, is it? In reality, federal, state and local governments have quite a bit to say about how you may or may not "defend" your family, and such regulation is perfectly constitutional.
"Imagine that. Existing laws already talking about what we can and can't do with lethal devices."
Exactly my point. There is no unfettered right to possess and use lethal devices. There is no unfettered right to "keep and bear arms," either. Hence, my disagreement with your earlier contention that the government can say nothing about what home-defense methods are and are not acceptable.
Where we really disagree is the scope of the "right" to "keep and bear arms." I think you are arguing for a broader right than what actually exists. If you want to argue for concealed carry, or against an assault weapons ban, or against safe storage laws, fine. But these are matters of public policy, properly the subject matter of democratic process.
"And in the mean time, with those 12,000 or so deaths, how many lives are SAVED by the citizenry having access to firearms?
...Look up how many homicides occur during or due to the commission of other crimes, criminal lifestyle or activities."
These are perfectly fine rebuttal points. I'm simply responding to your question about why Mike might want to emphasize gun crime over other violent crime not involving guns. If the majority of homicides involve firearms, as seems to be the case, a rational person might ask if a public policy response is appropriate.
Weer'd, "#1. People committing gun violence are "Average Gun Owners"."
ReplyDeleteYes, in too many cases they are.
Weer'd, "#2. There's a reason why you NEVER admit that defensive gun uses both exist and are quite prevalent."
You mean like that laughing stock Kleck says? No I don't think they're nearly as prevalent as he and you say. But, I never denied they exist.
Weer'd, "#3. That somehow gun control laws (Like the ones in existence in California and New York) would somehow keep guns out of the bad people's hands."
If gun availability were significantly cut down, yes indeed, many instances of gun violence would be eliminated.
Weer'd, "#4. You seem to care only about GUN crime, but not at all about crime."
Actually I care about crime other than gun crime, I care about butterflies too, but on this blog, the discussions have been about guns. Only the frustrated pro-gun commenters keep questioning why.
Don,
ReplyDeleteYou appear to have adopted the MikeB school of arguing; ignore the inconvenient.
Sorry, but I do get to decide how to defend my family. The laws only say that IF I decide to do that, then I face consequence X.
It is like the laws against murder; they don't actually stop murder do they?
Nope, not one. All the laws do is describe the consequences for committing that act.
So, it is once again back on the individual to decide.
What people like MikeB want to do is take away one aspect of that decision process and say - You can't decide for yourself if you want to use a firearm because we aren't going to allow you to have a firearm.
That is wrong, that completely contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. And if you agree with them, and support them then you are also abridging that right. And that is taking away the right to self defense.
It is pretty cut and dried, isn't it?
But these are matters of public policy, properly the subject matter of democratic process
This is where I disagree. My rights, even your rights are not subject to the democratic process. Nobody gets to vote on whether or not I have the right to free speech, the right to assemble or even the right to keep and bear arms.
NOT ONE PERSON, NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE get to tell me if I can defend myself or not.
Couldn't that be the result of the democratic process? A city votes into effect a law that says the victims can not fight back against a criminal?
(And if you don't think it can happen, try looking at England)
It is blatantly wrong, It is unconstitutional. Note those are two separate wrongs. One it interferes with my inherent rights and two it does not agree with the powers and limitations established in the Constitution.
That is the problem with MikeB's attempt to revisualize the 2nd amendment or however he has said it. My rights aren't dependent on the Constitution, just the government's reach is limited.
If you want to argue for concealed carry, or against an assault weapons ban, or against safe storage laws, fine. But these are matters of public policy,
Since you opened the door, could you explain exactly how the public policy has gotten us to the point where an Assault Weapon Ban could even be remotely considered constitutional?
If you know anything about the issue, you will have to agree the laws and court cases are not consistent with the Constitution.
"You appear to have adopted the MikeB school of arguing; ignore the inconvenient.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I do get to decide how to defend my family. The laws only say that IF I decide to do that, then I face consequence X."
I'm not "ignoring" anything. In response to your assertion of "divine" rights, I simply pointed out that local, state, and federal governments have broad power to regulate how people "bear arms," defend themselves, and protect private property. Moreover, most restraints of this kind are perfectly constitutional.
The fact that people may elect to break laws and face the consequences is so obvious (not to mention beside the point), it didn't really occur to me to mention it.
"My rights, even your rights are not subject to the democratic process. Nobody gets to vote on whether or not I have the right to free speech, the right to assemble or even the right to keep and bear arms."
Actually, even this is not true. The Constitution contains an amendment process, so "we the people" could vote away any of the rights you mention. This is unfathomable, of course, but technically possible.
That aside, yes, "whether" you have a right is beyond democratic process, but as we've discussed elsewhere, the *exercise* of rights have always been subject to reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions. For example, there is a right to free speech, but I cannot set up a P.A. system on your front lawn at 2AM to deliver my rebuttal to your comments.
"My rights aren't dependent on the Constitution, just the government's reach is limited."
Your philosophical conception of the scope of human rights does not depend on anything beyond your own convictions.
Do not forget, however, the concept of the social contract. The price of society is "loaning" a portion of our natural rights to government. That is the source of government's legitimacy (in theory, at least).
"A city votes into effect a law that says the victims can not fight back against a criminal?
(And if you don't think it can happen, try looking at England)"
Is that right? A city in England legislated away the common law right of self-defense? That is bizarre.
"It is blatantly wrong, It is unconstitutional. Note those are two separate wrongs. One it interferes with my inherent rights and two it does not agree with the powers and limitations established in the Constitution."
I've never considered the idea of a law completely negating the common law right of self-defense. I can't imaging such a law passing in any American jurisdiction. As against the federal government, two arguments come to mind. First, self-defense is a right retained "by the people" pursuant to the Ninth Amendment. Second, if I'm a federal judge, I would take the opportunity to hold that the Second Amendment is "incorporated" against the states and protects an implied (albeit limited) right of self-defense.
"If you know anything about the issue, you will have to agree the laws and court cases are not consistent with the Constitution."
I'm not familiar with any litigation regarding the Assault Weapons Ban. I wouldn't mind reading up on those case, though.
What cases do you believe are not consistent with the Constitution? Do you have a few case names or federal reporter cites for me?
Don,
ReplyDeleteActually, even this is not true. The Constitution contains an amendment process, so "we the people" could vote away any of the rights you mention. This is unfathomable, of course, but technically possible.
Please learn a valuable lesson. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not give anyone rights, other then what is needed within our system of government, e.g. the right to vote.
I do not know why some liberals have such a hard time with this.
My right to free speech exists separate and apart from the Constitution. Same with my right to self defense, my right to assembly.
From the Heller Decision:
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.’
Note that even the Supreme Court recognizes that some rights exist outside of the Constitution.
The Constitution contains an amendment process, so "we the people" could vote away any of the rights you mention.
NO, you can't vote away my rights.
This is the 13th amendment:
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
According to you, people could get together, vote to repeal this amendment and institute slavery again...is that your argument?
See how absurd it is?
I've never considered the idea of a law completely negating the common law right of self-defense. I can't imaging such a law passing in any American jurisdiction
Washington D.C. had a functional ban on firearms, a ban on firearms being stored in a condition useful for self defense. Wasn't that law completely negating the right to self defense?
Many people are not capable of fighting back hand to hand...taking away firearm negates their ability to fight back. It is that simple. It has happened, Chicago is another example.
More to come later
"Please learn a valuable lesson. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not give anyone rights, other then what is needed within our system of government, e.g. the right to vote."
ReplyDeleteI understand your natural rights argument. What you cannot seem to understand is the legal distinction between so-called natural rights and rights recognized and protected by the Constitution.
You can insist all day long that you have some natural or divine right to concealed carry, for example, but the Constitution recognizes no such right.
Moreover, these natural rights arguments go nowhere because natural rights are non-empirical. Rather, natural rights are normative value judgments. We might as well be arguing about religion. To illustrate, I say I have a natural right to walk about in public stark naked, just as God made me. Any law that says otherwise violates this divine right, and anyone who supports such restrictions on my liberty is a freedom-hater. "Prove" me wrong.
"According to you, people could get together, vote to repeal this amendment and institute slavery again...is that your argument?
See how absurd it is?"
That is not my "argument," but it is a matter of basic constitutional procedure. Yes, Bob, it is possible to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment and re-institute slavery. It is possible to repeal any portion of the Bill of Rights. It is equally possible to add (or "recognize" if you prefer) additional rights, or expand already existing rights.
Whether you like it or not, the Constitution contains a procedure for amendments.
"Wasn't that law completely negating the right to self defense?"
Only if one believes that self-defense is something that necessarily involves a firearm.
Don,
ReplyDeleteYou can insist all day long that you have some natural or divine right to concealed carry, for example, but the Constitution recognizes no such right.
Wrong,
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just because a right isn't specifically listed as being protected by the Constitution, doesn't mean it isn't protected. Ever read the 9th Amendment?
So between this and the 2nd amendment, I would argue that the right to carry, concealed or not, is fairly well protected.
As for as the nudity, I happen to agree with you. Unless the government can prove an overwhelming public need to restrict nudity, it should be allowed. There is no Constitutional reason for the prohibition of nudity.
it is possible to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment and re-institute slavery. It is possible to repeal any portion of the Bill of Rights. It is equally possible to add (or "recognize" if you prefer) additional rights, or expand already existing rights.
I can't believe that you even tried to argue this. That someone's right to be free depends on a Constitutional amendment?
That is absolutely, patently ABSURD.