In other words, State constitutions can grant expanded rights, but they cannot restrict the right. Thus, state constitutions can offer "individual rights" to arms in their constitution while the Federal Constitution explicitly limits the right to a "well-reguilated militia".
But, that is an aside, You do not have rights against private entities. Go to a Walmart and pass out Union Literature and find out what happens if you think I'm wrong. In fact, for all you people who dislike the state, realise that non-governmental bodies can tell you to go fuck yourself as far as rights go.
That said, GE Capital, the huge financing arm of General Electric Co., has made it a policy to stop making loans to gun shops:
"As a responsible lender, we regularly review our lending policies and products to meet changing conditions and requirements. In 2008, we adopted a policy to cease providing consumer financing programs to merchants whose primary business is to sell firearms. Recently, we implemented a more rigorous audit process in our sporting goods segment in light of industry changes, new legislation and tragic events that have caused widespread reexamination of policies on firearms. This process has affected less than 75 retailers (approx. .001% of all gun retailers) and an immaterial part of our sales volume."The move marks the latest effort by the corporate and investment worlds to take a stand on guns. It could have a significant effect on the powerful and sprawling gun industry if the financing dries up for the firearms industry.
Also, that would also have an effect if people exercise their right NOT to have you armed on their property.
To be quite frank, the "pro-gun" stance isn't very "pro-gun". People running around armed and irresponsible doesn't place gun owners in a very positive light.
Or as John Lennon said:
"If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
In this case, those elite people you dislike have realised that money makes the world go around. And they have the money to make it turn the way they want it to.
Laci, I miss the days when you weren't coming around here any more.
ReplyDelete1. The Federal Constitution doesn't limit the right to members of the militia. Why do you keep repeating that nonsense?
2. Businesses should not be allowed to limit passive expression of rights. In other words, while handing out tracts about Jesus may be banned in Wal-Mart (unlikely), the wearing of a cross on a necklace should be protected.
3. In the same way, it makes no sense to allow GE to refuse services to a legal company. Businesses operate in the public sphere, and that being the case, must treat all customers equally.
4. In addition, given the profitability of gun makers these days, it makes no financial sense to stop dealing with them. Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders, not to promote social policy.
5. I don't care how you see us.
Fool.
DeleteGee, Laci opens this up with an aside that rebroadcasts his foolishness and inability to understand plain English by again saying that the constitution says that the right of the militia shall not be infringed, when the text itself says the right of the people.
ReplyDeleteHe also shows his statist bent by talking about the "granting" of rights. If the government grants us rights, it can revoke them at will. Historically, we have viewed rights as preexisting, inherent things that the constitution merely recognized and told the government to keep its hands off of.
But then Laci gets on to the main body of his post and tells us that the Constitution only protects us against infringement of our rights by state actors.
Congratulations, Laci, you finally got something correct! Your days in law school were not 100% wasted!
If you want to try to make us pariahs and to fight us in a capital war, by all means, bring it on. You have your opinions, we have ours, and we will see how it turns out. It will be a nice change from your constant attempts to have the government take away our rights.
It is an absurd and mendacious notion to imply that mere individuals have ascertained certain "rights", as expressed under provisions of the current Federal Constitution, which have been deemed to be enforceable against the legislatures of the several States, by the illusory and mystic text of the Fourteenth Amendment. The provisions enshrined in the hallowed sheets of ink-stained sheepskin do not afford any protection against legislative acts by State of municipal entities, merely affording State despots (invalid) guarantees against infringement by Federal entities.
DeleteEven in your home State of Tennessee, (in honor of which you bear the Treasonous moniker "Tennessean") a suitably backwatered mountainous enclave of social undesirables, the "redneck" or "cracker" phenomenon which persists in North American culture, (to which a documentary, Deliverance, was made on the likes of you), the tribal customs enshrined in the State constitution also do not provide any individual "right" (a concept alien to civilized life) to "keep and bear" certain "arms".
Section XXVI of the Tennessee Constitution does establish a collective right to "keep and bear arms", as necessary for the effective performance duties and obligations of State actors. The text reads:
"That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."
However this may appear to provide non-State actors with a right, enforceable against the State, to possess and proliferate (but not carry) Firearms, Section XXVI does limit such a right to the context of "common defense", meaning official use by State entities, the context of such is clarified in Sections XXIV and XXVIII respectively, which plainly express the purpose of such a collective right:
Section XXIV
"That the sure and certain defense of a free people, is a well regulated militia; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to freedom, they ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and safety of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil authority."
Section XXVIII
"That no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law."
Therefore, as you, a mere person, who has no rights under the Federal Constitution, and has no enforceable right to arms under the constitution of your State, you have no basis on which to utter any erroneous statement on a "right to arms" in a simian attempt to support your depraved goals of individual liberty.
Seriously, E.N. Most of the time you just copy and paste the same old rehashed garbage. But now, you actually spent some time, did some research, and managed to cock up the interpretation of the Tennessee State constitution worse than Laci does the federal one.
DeleteThat is some dedicated trolling.
E.N./Specop/Jadegold all appear to be the same person.
DeleteNow that is rude. I have never referred to you as "Bigbubba USA".
DeleteWhy would you refer to someone as being one of your sockpuppets?
DeleteYou forget, Goldilocks, when you comment on someone's blog, that leaves a record. You should have stayed away.
DeleteGreg, didn't you used to accuse EN and Ian and Laci of being the same?
DeleteMikeb, in the past, I was going solely by the evidence of linguistic characteristics and the nature of the "arguments" presented. But now I have direct evidence regarding the identity of E.N., Specop, and Jadegold. If you wish, I'll present it.
DeleteWould that mean that he really believes his drivel as E.N.? Because that's a terrifying idea.
DeleteI am reasonably confident that Mikeb is not E.N., since I now know the IP address of both E.N. and Specop--one in the same. Given that their location also happens to be where Jadegold lives and works, if my information is correct, I'm guessing they're his sock puppets.
DeleteThat is a terrifying proposition.
DeleteWhy would I eat my own dog food?
I am not unutterably asinine enough to practice what I preach.
It is admittedly hilarious to match Greg chase the bone that I threw, but seeing as I harbor no genuine ill will towards him, and don't wish to burden others with the impending flame war, it may be a good idea if Greg would refrain from tying me to Jadegold's tail and attracting his undesirable attention yet again.
But then again it would be rather amusing to watch Jadeboy's reaction to being "outdone" by a pseudo-troll who doesn't really believe in this crap anyway.
Greg, why do you care so much to spend time on it? What's the difference?
DeleteHow about sheer entertainment value? I'm upset to learn that Gecko isn't the real Gecko--he must have permanently retired from trolling, but it's entertaining to know that one person is behind all of these sock puppets.
DeleteDoesn't sound like proof that it's Jade, and I wouldn't think it would be him since most of the puppets lampoon your and his side, but seeing Greg be able to link the puppets, and then seeing them turn on each other, has some definite value.
There was more than one troll on Glocktalk besides Gecko45. Look at my name.
DeleteSome Asian gangs still cringe at the slightest mention of me, in remembrance of their fallen comrades in the great battle of the Mortal Combat Game Unit. Alas I remember such days fondly, having since moved upwards from tactical retail perimeter security duty.
Mikeb, this is why I care. Jadegold is known on many sites as a disruptive troll. He dives in, makes inane comments about how right and superior he is, and goes on and on like a petulant child whenever anyone tries to show him reason.
DeleteWhat I've seen, based on comments made on my blog, is that Jadegold may very well be E.N., et al. That surprises me not in the least. E.N./BigBubba/Doc/Koba/Blackcap/Progenitor/and-on-and-on are all sock puppets of likely one person. Their comments are designed to derail the conversation. I don't see them as taking a position that they genuinely believe, especially since they merely copy and paste comments much of the time.
I'm happy to discuss the important issues of our day with people who take the conversation seriously. These sock puppets who seek to disrupt that conversation aren't trying to participate. They're trying to stop the process altogether.
Laci - should GE, as a private entity, be allowed to not make loans to African Americans if they think it is in their best interest not to?
ReplyDeleteGE has some very large hypocrisy-filled cajones. GE has had a hands in millions of civilian deaths through its Pentagon contracts. They truly are a Merchant of Death.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Much has been made of Djokhar Tsarnaev's M-4 that he was found with, and the questions of how he came to have such a weapon.
ReplyDeleteNow we know! He didn't have one! There was no gun found with him--the cops had lied about that to cover the fact that they just lit up the boat he was hiding in rather than trying to drag him out.
It is plain English, you have a right to own a gun, if you are a member of a government militia.
ReplyDeletePlain English? Where did you learn the language? We've been over this ground so many times, but remind me who is identified as having the right.
DeleteYour English comprehension is as poor as Laci's. I would recommend remedial classes, but I think this is a level of stupid that can't be fixed.
DeleteLaci: "The move marks the latest effort by the corporate and investment worlds to take a stand on guns. It could have a significant effect on the powerful and sprawling gun industry if the financing dries up for the firearms industry."
ReplyDeleteFrom the article: This process has affected less than 75 retailers (approx. .001% of all gun retailers) and an immaterial part of our sales volume.
Ouch, that 0.001% has got to hurt. But what's the message here anyway? Do you want to stop gun sales to good people? This isn't consistent with Obama's message that they're only after the bad guys. Of course pushing AWBs and half the other things he says isn’t consistent with that message either.
It is plain English, you have a right to own a gun.
ReplyDeleteThere, fixed it for you.