Saturday, November 19, 2011

Rights

There is all this talk about claiming rights which are either natural or god given, which is fairly nonsensical since anyone can claim anything as a right. The real hitch is enforcing that right.

Not to mention the idea that a right represents can change with time, such as the Second Amendment of the US Constitution which is supposed to protect the institution of the Militia, but has been perverted to some personal right to firearms outside the context of that right.

I ask does a similar concept of "gun rights" exist in other common law jurisdictions, yet no one can provide an analogue.

Greg points to state constitutions, but State Constitutions can expand upon the right--they cannot subtract from the right.

I decided to look up The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document contains many interesting rights such as
Article 3's Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25: (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


Article 27: (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.


Article 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

But, despite all the wonderful rights I've mentioned "Gun rights" and "a right to armed self-defence" is conspicuously absent.

Why is this? Is it because those rights do not follow the general scheme of the Declaration:
recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

If we go by this document, the US Constitution allows for the rule of law (if it existed in the US) as a buttress to the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, not arms.The rule of law is fundamental to the western democratic order. Aristotle said more than two thousand years ago, "The rule of law is better than that of any individual." Lord Chief Justice Coke quoting Bracton said in the case of Proclamations (1610) 77 ER 1352
"The King himself ought not to be subject to man, but subject to God and the law, because the law makes him King".

The rule of law in its modern sense owes a great deal to the late Professor AV Dicey. Professor Dicey's writings about the rule of law are of enduring significance.

The essential characteristic of the rule of law are:
i. The supremacy of law, which means that all persons (individuals and government) are subject to law.
ii. A concept of justice which emphasises interpersonal adjudication, law based on standards and the importance of procedures.
iii. Restrictions on the exercise of discretionary power.
iv. The doctrine of judicial precedent.
v. The common law methodology.
vi. Legislation should be prospective and not retrospective.
vii. An independent judiciary.
viii. The exercise by Parliament of the legislative power and restrictions on exercise of legislative power by the executive.
ix. An underlying moral basis for all law.

So, if one claims a right, one needs a source to back up that right and a legal basis for claiming that right. Not to mention for it to truly be effective, that right needs to be enforcable under the legal system.

If we are getting into the Second Amendment, post-Heller, federal and state courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to a wide variety of firearms laws nationwide. As discussed in Section IV below, the majority of Second Amendment challenges have been raised in criminal cases. These challenges have been largely unsuccessful, as courts have found that the Second Amendment is consistent with numerous federal and state criminal laws. Since the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions, the nation’s lower courts have been clogged with a substantial volume of Second Amendment litigation, despite the fact that most, if not all, federal, state and local firearms laws do not prevent a responsible, law-abiding citizen from possessing an operable handgun in the home for self-defense, and thus, would satisfy the Supreme Court’s holdings in those cases.

31 comments:

  1. You acknowledge my right to be secure in my person. We don't disagree that the rule of law is the ideal means of protecting rights, but you are ignoring the fact that some will always disobey the law. At the same time, those who enforce the law are often too far away when a crime is being committed. (Some criminals aren't completely stupid.) Thus the need for personal weapons.

    My principle of rights is that I have the right to do whatever I want to do, so long as it does not prevent you from exercising the same right. My possession of a firearm does not inherently harm you. I can use a firearm in ways that do not harm you.

    But lay all of that aside. You said that the law and its interpretation can change over time. The laws regulating firearms and the interpretation of the Second Amendment fits into that, no? Well, those are both going in my direction. Your side has tried to impose gun control over the years, and you're failing. My side is pleased to be winning for now, but we'll keep watch on any new attempts from you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is an excellent post, Laci, in both addressing the errors of faith and errors of fact regarding rights that are most frequently expressed by the pro-gunners.

    While I found all of this interesting, the part that was of greatest interest to me in relation to the arguments used to try to justify widespread open and concealed carry laws, I found this passage to be absolutely fascinating and on topic:

    The essential characteristic of the rule of law are:
    i. The supremacy of law, which means that all persons (individuals and government) are subject to law.
    ii. A concept of justice which emphasizes interpersonal adjudication, law based on standards and the importance of procedures.


    Given the marked decline of our crime rate, the what if kinda maybe it-could-happen reasoning of Greg and others to justify firearms outside of his home.

    This does NOT allow or approve citizens proceeding as members of society to be anticipating imminent danger to themselves every minute of the day in every possible location.

    Rather, it expects and requires that you should have a reasonable expectation of safety in public WITHOUT being armed to the teeth. It presupposes that law enforcement will give you adequate protection - which is not perfect protection - to participate in society without personal carrying of firearms.

    And given the unreasonable refusal of people like Greg C. to cooperate with sane, safer registration, and background checks, and being able to follow the path of firearm ownership and possession so that the individuals involved in those transfers can be held accountable for keeping those firearms from ending up in the hands of criminals.

    The upshot is Greg, your presumptions are unreasonable that you are realistically going to be in danger of attack such that the police do not provide reasonable safety. You have not made the case successfully that gun violence doesn't correlate strongly to number of guns per capita, and that therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that fewer more regulated firearms will in fact make all of us safer.

    We'd be safer from criminals, and we'd be safer not having to be concerned about the dubious judgment of people like you, or the Anonymous who carries on private property where guns are not allowed, or any of the many individuals who commit domestic abuse with a firearm - either threat or actual violence.

    To put it simply - we don't care that you are afraid, because your fears are not reasonable in justifying everyone having a personal firearm - including YOU.

    Your right is not absolute, all rights are moral rights that are then subsequently expressed as civil rights.

    Slave owners claimed they had an absolute right to their property. They didn't.

    You claim you have an absolute right to your guns. You don't. You have at best limited rights to firearms, no matter how much lipstick you try to put on the face of your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a nice feel-good document but it really doesn't mean anything since it has no real weight or enforcement.

    I can write the FatWhiteMan's Declaration of Rights and it would be worth about as much.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FWM wrote

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a nice feel-good document but it really doesn't mean anything since it has no real weight or enforcement.

    I can write the FatWhiteMan's Declaration of Rights and it would be worth about as much.


    Really? I seriously doubt that anything you've written has become part of a treaty, or another nation's constitution, much less become part of international law, Or can you show me an example where that is also true of a declaration you've made?

    From wikipedia on the Universal Declaration of Rights:

    "It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.[1]"

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. The United Nations is either a talk shop for banana republics or a field of battle for the five permanent members of the Security Council. Treat its proclamations accordingly.

    2. Who said anything about being afraid? As Clint Smith says, I have a handgun. What do I have to be afraid of?

    3. You still can't answer my statement that I am harming no one with my firearms. I refuse to take away rights from anyone who hasn't done anything wrong with them.

    4. Fat White Man's comment is correct in this sense. Name any country that changes its behavior because of the Universal Declaration. Those that care about human rights already were doing what it says, and those that don't either are well armed or have the support of China or Russia. Or us, depending on the period that we're discussing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm surprised that I've been unable to find a discussion of the Right to Carry Act that the House of Representatives just passed, in league with the interests of the NRA. This act goes far beyond the concept of having a gun in the home and tramples on states' rights. In the spirit of turning lemons into lemonade, however, I make the case that the NRA has just laid the groundwork for a national right to marry for the gay community in my blog, The NRA Boosts Gay Rights. http://thepoliticali.blogspot.com/2011/11/nra-boosts-gay-rights.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. GC wrote:
    3. You still can't answer my statement that I am harming no one with my firearms. I refuse to take away rights from anyone who hasn't done anything wrong with them.

    I don't have to be specific to you; nor does anyone else.

    So long as the overall numbers suport that the existence of so many firearms correlate so clearly to gun violence, that is sufficient.

    We don't make speed limit laws different for every person, and give some the right to go faster, until they hurt someone. Rather we make speed limit laws based on road design, and how safe traffic can travel on that road. You are making a false argument, a tactic often referred to as a 'staw man'.

    ReplyDelete
  8. FWM - two countries where the Universal Declaration of Rights has made a difference - Egypt and Tunisia.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Arab Spring countries and others are using the Universal declaration of rights in their drafting of their respective new constitutions. I believe it figured in Iraq's as well, if I recall correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dog Gone,

    In Egypt, at least, the revolution went the way that it did because the military took sides against Mubarak. That situation has yet to be decided, however. In Libya, by contrast, an armed citizenry, with NATO help, overthrew a dictator.

    Perhaps you've never travelled in the south, but we have lots of speed traps around here. Speed limits generally have as much to do with raising money through fines as they do with safety.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Deborah, if it wasn't said/written earlier - welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm all for gay rights, and I'm all against so-called gun rights.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Greg wrote:

    "
    In Egypt, at least, the revolution went the way that it did because the military took sides against Mubarak. That situation has yet to be decided, however. In Libya, by contrast, an armed citizenry, with NATO help, overthrew a dictator."


    You appear to be unaware of the material - which btw originated in the U.S. - that was the basis for the revolution in Egypt. (I'm guessing you've never been to that part of the world.) But regardless of how the revolution started, the principles that they were promoting and which are being incorporated into their new constitution etc. ARE based on the universal declaration of human rights, at least in part.

    The same is true in other places, like Tunisia, as well as what is being promoted for a new constitution in Libya and elsewhere. It is a template that is adapted, because itis so widely recognized as being useful and valid. The very essence, the premise of a universal declaration of rights is significant and important, as a standard, worldwide.

    And it doesn't include your personal carry in the list.

    Which makes it different than anything from FWM, however nicely he might write something.

    Perhaps you've never travelled in the south, but we have lots of speed traps around here. Speed limits generally have as much to do with raising money through fines as they do with safety. "

    You'd be wrong about the south. I've traveled throughout the south, as well as most of the other 48 states, Canada and Mexico. I've always found southerners to be very pleasant, and never had a problem with a southern speed trap. I always thought that kind of thing happened a bit off the beaten track-- and was not unique to the south by the way.

    I'm sorry you are promoting the stereotype of corrupt southern law enforcement.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Rather we make speed limit laws based on road design, and how safe traffic can travel on that road."

    Then explain why the speed limit on the very same Interstate roads are 65 in Illinois and 75 in Oklahoma and there are no speed limits in Montana.
    Go 65 on the expressways in Chicago and you will be the cause of an accident. Traffic flow is traveling at a minimum of 72 mph.

    Speed limits are a form of government control and revenue.
    But you are probably one of those people who think if we didn't have white lines on the road everyone would be smacking into each other.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "1. The United Nations is either a talk shop for banana republics or a field of battle for the five permanent members of the Security Council. Treat its proclamations accordingly."

    You're an idiot. The United Nations has plenty of members and officials that are idiots as well. You say that they are only capable of two things which only shows the shallowness of your knowledge and the abyssal depth of your indignorance.

    Do you actually think that the U.S. doesn't depend on the U.N. for a lot of cooperation on all sorts of military and diplomatic issues? The U.S. uses its membership in the U.N. as a tool. It appears that you think the entire U.N. is a farce. A lot of other idiots think the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dog gone wrote:

    "While I found all of this interesting, the part that was of greatest interest to me in relation to the arguments used to try to justify widespread open and concealed carry laws, I found this passage to be absolutely fascinating and on topic:

    The essential characteristic of the rule of law are:
    i. The supremacy of law, which means that all persons (individuals and government) are subject to law.
    ii. A concept of justice which emphasizes interpersonal adjudication, law based on standards and the importance of procedures."



    If you're so fascinated by these words, you shoot thank their writer, Dr. Mark Cooray.

    http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap180.htm

    Another case of fair use?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dog Gone,

    There are hundreds of millions of firearms in this country. There are some 300,000 combined deaths and injuries due to firearms per annum. That looks like weak correlation to me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dog Gone,

    Again, you presume that because I point one thing out, I must be unaware of other things. You imply that you're a world traveller and therefore better than the rest of us. (Perhaps, you're part of the 1% after all?) I do know what happened in Egypt, and I'm also aware that the Egyptian people are finding that their military isn't proving too hasty to let go of power. I'm also aware that many people get inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Good for them. It has a lot of good in it. There are other documents, though, unless the United Nations is your secular religion.

    Anonymous,

    Cooray is quoting A. V. Dicey, someone who died in 1922. I suspect that his writings are in the public domain by now.

    ReplyDelete
  19. By the way, Laci the Dog,

    You shouldn't quote me out of context. I did mention state constitutions, but only in your previous article on the question of the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment and only because the analogues that you offered sound a lot like the texts of various actual state constitutions.

    ReplyDelete
  20. GC wrote:

    "You imply that you're a world traveller and therefore better than the rest of us."
    Yes, I have been to the places I've identified as having visited in person. That goes to the subject of how informed one is and the sources of information - you know, primary or first hand information versus secondary / second hand information. The difference between the two is significant. Does that make me a better human being than anyone here? No. Does it in some instances make me a better informed or educated person on specific topics? Yes. Or do you disagree about primary versus secondary sources for information being preferable?

    (Perhaps, you're part of the 1% after all?) If I have given my support to the 99%, does it matter? I don't believe that money equates to superiority; all too often it clearly does not, but rather the opposite.

    I do know what happened in Egypt, and I'm also aware that the Egyptian people are finding that their military isn't proving too hasty to let go of power. I'm also aware that many people get inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    They are not merely inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are using it as a template, a guide, in writing new constitutions. Our own dear FWM wrote that it was a meaningless document, and that he could write something equivalent in importance or influence. Clearly that is not the case.

    Since I believe one of Laci's law degrees is in international studies, I believe he is better educated don how the Universal Declaration of Rights has been influential internationally, and about what it represents as a consensus of our rights as human beings.

    The document is very significant. So is the absence in it of a right to carry personal lethal weapons everywhere you go.

    I admire what Laci writes, for substance; I would put this post very near the top of the list for that admiration.

    And it disappoints me that you and FWM and presumably others miss the substance, or are so unjustifiably dismissive of it.

    As to Egypt, if the military doesn't let go of at least some of their grip on power, they will again find themselves having to decide if they can as patriots justify shooting a large percentage of their own population, particularly unarmed men women and children. I'm guessing that as much as they dislike letting go of power, they won't make that choice to shoot.

    ReplyDelete
  21. dog gone:

    I don't know that the Egyptian military would be averse to killing its own citizens if push comes to shove. They derive much of their power (not authority) from having gunz. Like most of the gunzloonz they are reluctant to admit that, but it is the case.

    Probably the best thing would be for some people who are brave and principled opponents to the military's oppression of the genuine patriots of Egypt, say a group of actual arabs--like the Taliban or Al Queda--with the means and the will to arm the populace (or at least those who are fervent believers) and ensure that the military's oppression will end.

    It has worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Chad and a number of other countries in the middle east and Africa--the guaranteeing of a free, polite and civil society by killing those with whom one disagrees.

    Perhaps we can next examine how vendettas, blood feuds and honor killings are more effective and economical for dealing with hurt feelings than civil or criminal law?

    ReplyDelete
  22. You deleted the plagiarized part in response to my comment. So dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Democommie,

    "Probably the best thing would be for some people who are brave and principled opponents to the military's oppression of the genuine patriots of Egypt, say a group of actual arabs--like the Taliban or Al Queda--with the means and the will to arm the populace (or at least those who are fervent believers) and ensure that the military's oppression will end."

    Your sentence was complex, but I do believe that you just said that al-Qaeda and the Taliban were genuine Arab patriots.

    Talk about the mask of rationality falling away.

    The Taliban are primarily Pashtuns, a tribe living in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. They are not Arabs, nor do they speak Arabic as a native language.

    As for being patriots, the Taliban did offer a kind of ruthless efficiency in government, but I find it hard to believe that all that many Afghanis supported them, especially women. As Machiavelli told us, fear will earn submission, but surely we here don't praise that.

    Al-Qaeda, though? Al-Qaeda was the delusion and personal plaything of Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, he built it into a genuine force, and he has a lasting influence. That being said, are you unable to recognize an enemy, not just to us, but to the people of every Muslim nation as well?

    I hope that you were being sarcastic, but there are limits even so.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just to be clear Andrew-Rothman-not-Anonymous, since that is who I believe you to be,(known gun nut).

    NO, I never plagiarized ANYTHING. NOT EVER.

    I DID post an obit for Joel Rosenberg with a preface that this might be of interest to some MikeB readers, and then I put clearly in bold, in a color that identified it as a link, "FROM the website of__", and that 'from the website' was also the link to that web site. All of the places where the type face changes from non-bold type to bold, and a color change, where it says 'from xxxx' are links to the original location of any piece, dumbass.

    That obit included the IMPLICIT PERMISSION to cross post with the invitation to please spread this information to anyone who might care, and not one, not two, but FOURTEEN different buttons for methods one could use to copy that obit in its entirety.

    Further, you claim that was copyrighted material. Presumably you mean under the Berne conventions. You have to actually copyright it to sue for any kind of damages in court, as well as prove a number of other things - notably that someone was trying to represent the work as their own.

    Since I don't credit you with the ability to understand any source more complex than Wikipedia, let me quote you this from the section pertaining to the U.S. relating to the Berne convention:
    Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration (note however that when the United States joined the Convention in 1988, it continued to make statutory damages and attorney's fees only available for registered works).

    I'm pretty confident that obit was not formally a registered work. NOR did I ever represent that I was the author of it. In fact, no specific individual author was listed that I can recall. It did show up as 'posted by' at the bottom; but posted by is not :BY', or AUTHORED BY, or WRITTEN by. It is present on anything that a person posts, whether their own writing or on behalf of others - as this was on behalf of others. The link also was for the purpose, btw, of making the site available if anyone was sufficiently interested to follow it; that included for purposes of donations to the family or as a memorium to something else.

    Yes, I deleted it - but not because of plagiarism. I deleted it after MikeB called to my attention that you were making an issue of it being posted here. I didn't want it being posted here to distract from the obit or to cause the Rosenberg any additional grief.

    If you were an honest individual - which you are not - you would also acknowledge that you continued to accuse me of theft after I had posted the STrib obit here instead, with the written permission of the author as an employee and agent of the STrib.

    You made it clear that having that permission didn't matter to you, you continued to accuse me of STEALING the obit from the STrib.

    You Andrew Rothman are an alarmingly irrational individual who is apparently utterly disconnected from objective fact and reality, at least on this issue.

    That you carry a firearm while being such an irrational individual doesn't argue well for carry permits. You are clearly obsessed, and the facts be damned.

    On the basis of these continuing false accusations, be on notice that I will consider suing you for libel for your original claims made elsewhere, and use your making such false statements here to prove that you have malicious intent and a reckless disregard for the facts.

    You are making this easier and easier with each comment like this. You are factually inaccurate, and an ass.

    ReplyDelete
  25. FWM - two countries where the Universal Declaration of Rights has made a difference - Egypt and Tunsia.


    Egypt not so much.....


    Tahrir Square: Egypt Election Looms After Protest Violence [PHOTOS]


    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/252809/20111120/tahrir-square-egypt-election-looms-protest-violence.htm

    ReplyDelete
  26. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.


    Again not so much.....


    Egyptian Christians riot after fatal shooting...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/07/egypt-gunmen-kill-coptic-christmas

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/world/middleeast/coptics-criticize-egypt-government-over-killings.html?pagewanted=all

    http://global.christianpost.com/news/author-calls-killing-of-egypt-coptic-christians-part-of-islamic-tsunami-58328/

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Our own dear FWM wrote that it was a meaningless document, and that he could write something equivalent in importance or influence. Clearly that is not the case."

    We were discussing "rights" and your position that "rights" are no more valid than the extent to which society was willing to enforce them (which I agree with you on) and then the Declaration of Human Rights was brought up.

    Actually, the point I was trying to make was that the Declaration is not enforceable law and that I could write my own declaration that would be worth about as much as it is as far as it being enforceable.

    Since the UN exists at the pleasure and the pocketbook of the U.S., that document is only really as enforceable on other nations to the extent that America wills it to be.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The flip side of the violence that happened to Coptic Christians was this:

    http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/3365.aspx

    from the same site, an interesting update of events:

    Live updates: Thousands chant against SCAF in Tahrir Sunday night after bloody day's casualties, military council issues conciliatory statement

    9:55pm: Crowds in Tahrir demand that military council give up power. "The People want the field marshal out!", "Depart means go! What do you not understand?"

    9:45pm: Egyptian state tv releases the first statement issued by SCAF following the failed attempt of security forces to evacuate protesters from Tahrir in which the council calls on all political parties and youth groups to assist the council in containing the situation in Tahrir.

    9:40pm: Numbers increase in the square. Tens of thousands roar in Tahrir against military council. "Speak up, do not be scared - the council must depart", We will defend the revolution till death" and other chants.

    I'm betting the military DO end up giving up their power to a civilian government.

    AND continue their treaty and truce with Israel after doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Greg Camp:

    Do I have to put emoticons or other symbols after every bit of snark that I type in order for you to understand that I'm being sarcasti or snarky?

    You say my sentece was "complex". Apparently the rest of the comment was typed in invisible ink so that you had no context in which to place it?

    Let me say it in simple words so that you won't be confused.

    Al queda and the Taliban are groups that I think are similar in intent (although not in their methods) to you and your other gunzloonz pals. You are BY GOD endowed with a certain right and you will BY GOD make sure that ALL of society complies with YOUR desire to have an armed and polite society, regardless the death toll. There, is that a little easier for you to understand?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Democommie,

    I see. Rather than being stupid, you were just being an ass.

    Let's see, I've argued repeatedly for individual liberty and choice, but I'm just like the Taliban. Someone else explain this, please.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Greg Camp:

    "I see. Rather than being stupid, you were just being an ass.".

    Actually, you don't see.

    You don't "argue" for CCW and other measures to make this country even less safe than it might currently be, so much as you make assertions--assertions for which you cannot provide convincing artuments. This sort of "arguing", for you, is a feature, not a bug.

    ReplyDelete