D.C. v. Heller Eyewitness - Postgame Highlights #1
Alan Korwin was in the court room for the Supreme's hearing on the Second Amendment in the District of Columbia. He thinks their likely decision bodes well for our right to legally keep and bear arms, though "reasonable restrictions" will survive, through some magic of interpreting "shall no be infringed" to mean "reasonable restrictions". [scopeny]
No such thing as a "reasonable" restriction
Nope. I haven't. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that, exactly as L. Neil Smith succinctly put in The Atlanta Declaration, quoted below and in the right side-bar of every page:
"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission."
-- L. Neil Smith
Reasonable restrictions on gun rights
People, having gone thru the gov't education system, seem to have no clue about what rights really are -- they all have limits. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't allow you to keep a gun after you're convicted of a felony and imprisoned, right? It's a perfectly legal and proper reasonable restriction on the right. There are many such. "Congress shall make no law" respecting free speech allows rules against treason, libel, slander, threats, much more, and rightly so. Of course, this is the slipperiest slope, easily abused, cause for concern, in need of careful watching. But to say "shall not be infringed" has no limitation is to show your ignorance. apparently, many people have plenty to show, I keep seeing it at every turn. Alan.
Actually, I believe that if
Actually, I believe that if you can't be trusted to possess tools of self defense, then you have no business being out of prison. The best cure for those who use arms to hurt people or rob them of their property is to be shot dead by their intended victims at the scene of their intended crimes. And that goes double for revenuers (today's agents of the IRS and BATFE).
There should be no limits on the keeping or bearing of arms. There are, of course, limits on the use of those arms. They may only be used for defense against aggression. And that goes double for governments.
Previous Posts:
An Investment Better Than Gold?
Living by the Sword
HeartStart Home Defibrillator
Spitzer and the Laws that Brought Him Down
What's the True Source of our Right to Bear Arms?
The Global Warming Creed
The Last Test of Democracy: Part Four
An Inconvenient Silence
Satchmo & Danny Kaye March In the Saints
The Last Test of Democracy: Part Three
Reasonable restrictions?
I have yet to see any restriction I view as "reasonable", how about you?
Edit comment