This is taken from a comment on my blog from Tuesday...
"Isn't this the same kind of "logic" we hear from gun owners who decry: "They're going to take my guns!" every time a 'liberal' candidate is on a ballot? I have not yet me a gunowner who's gotten so much as a knock on the door"
Knock knock...
Isn't it interesting that those who subscribe to the notion of "states' rights" don't adhear to the same notion when it comes to this issue. There was an outcry from conservative federal judges like Posner, who called foul on Justice Scalia after last year's D.C. gun ownership case for not sticking to his firmly-held belief that legislatures--and not the judiciary--should be given latitude when it comes to localities and states--even when it applies to guns.
ReplyDeleteBut that's a little off-topic. To the point of the video from the lovely Lou Dobbs--who brings us such tantalizing daily questions as "Do you think America is a good country?"--my comment was speaking to the 25+ years I've heard people say "they're going to take my guns!" and none of them has EVER had a gun taken from them (if the blog's author would like to dispute this, I would be more than happy to hear about it). Laws that ALREADY restrict or prohibit certain types of weapons, i.e. handguns, in a particular jurisdiction when a person moves there doesn't count as "someone took my gun!"
Imagine that, gun-toting conservatives in bed with the 9th Circuit (those fruity and nutty Californians). Strange bedfellows indeed...
I deeple appreciate your comments and discussion on this and other topics as I have mentioned before and there are certainly issues in which you and I will never come to an agreement. But, you must agree that the Bill of Rights explicity states that the 2nd Ammendment allows people to bear arms (certainly not a states right issue as spelled out in the 10th). That would be like saying the 19th ammendment is a states right issue. Now, certain states would be able to prohibit women from voting (which of course is absurd). The point I am making is not that people have taken guns directly out of our hands, but that (even republican controlled) Congress continues to erode the Constitution to fit its own agenda.
ReplyDeleteI mispoke - instead of 'Congress continues' I would say 'lawmakers' to encompass not only state law but also judicial appointees and those that interpret law continue to make decisions based on arguments that appear to be expressly against what the Framers intended...
ReplyDeleteI certainly do agree that the 2nd Amendment says exactly what it says:
ReplyDelete"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Are you telling me that you can read that statement without ambiguity?
If we agree that "Militia" as used therein would be equivalent to National Guard today, then the context would certainly seem to apply only thereto. And what of the term "well-regulated" ? Could that not be subject to a multitude of interpretation? And what kind of arms? Certainly you'd concede that it doesn't specify; as such, should individuals with the means be allowed to own F-18 fighter jets? Tanks? Is there no limit? If not, then what does well-regulated mean?
I will concede that I am inclined to agree with the 9th Circuit, that an outright ban is probably unconstitutional, as I told you last summer amidst the D.C. ban case. But my point is a not about the ruling--it's about the knocks at the door I've been hearing about for 25 years that have never materialized.
But this is all way off-topic, as your original post was about economics, and I apologize for not being more direct.
I was analogizing what I've heard about gun ownership to your assertion of government control of private industry. I am still waiting for some sort of example of "control" as expressed in your comments.
I will be happy to discuss and debate gun law if you make that a blog topic, I promise.
Seriously speaking, I don't give a damn about the Founders' intent. This is your blog; as such, I'm interested in YOUR ideas, how you derive them, and your approach in defending them. Just because you're not a Founder, it doesn't mean you can't have wisdom on this subject, or even an opinion on their wisdom.