The Giant Wedgie Of Gun Control
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 7 months ago
Kurt Hofmann on whether the proposed gun control laws “deserve” a vote up or down:
The only problem is that they do not “deserve a vote,” not really. The Constitution, with its limits on federal power, takes certain policy options off the table–no matter how popular they are. Fundamental human rights are not subject to a popularity contest–they cannot be. When the rights of 49% of the people can be voted away by the other 51% (or even the rights of 10%, by the other 90%), they are not “rights” at all.
Good point, and one made by Jonah Goldberg about democracy in general.
As longtime readers know, I have little passion for pure democracy — a system by which 51 percent of the people can give 49 percent of the people a wedgie. If America were a pure democracy, the citizens of the 10 most populous states could impose their will on the other 40 states.
Read it all at Examiner. But expecting the Senate to understand the constitution is like expecting my dog to do calculus.
On April 11, 2013 at 9:03 am, Mike Pelcher said:
Captain
Surprisingly, this story was in the Chicago Tribune on-line: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0411-20130411,0,7328502,full.column
Chicago store owners aren’t allowed to have a handgun in their store. As a results, this store owner was forced to fight of armed thugs with a baseball bat while dodging 10 rounds fired! In a city with a 3rd world murder rate; law abiding citizens aren’t allowed to protect themselves. This is what Obama, and the rest of the gun control knuckleheads, would like for the rest of the country! Thought you’d find it interesting.
Mike Pelcher
On April 11, 2013 at 11:34 am, John said:
What amazes me is that the people voted into office don’t understand the Constitution, and I wouldn’t be surprised to hear they’ve never even read it.
IMHO, the bill of rights was ratified by each state when those states accepted entry into the union. They have no “states rights” where the bill of rights is concerned, which means they have no legal authority to regulate my 2nd amendment right (much less any other enumerated right).
The framers’ intent is clear. The 2nd amendment was enumerated specifically to enable the people to throw off tyrannical government. It’s not about hunting. It’s not about self defense. According to the Constitution, the right shall not be infringed. Restriction on carry is infringement. Licensing ownership is infringement. Restriction the type of weapon is infringement.Banning magazines of certain sizes is infringement. Unreasonable taxing weapons and or ammunition is infringement. Registration of mere ownership is infringement.Harassment based on firearm support and/or ownership is infringement. Confiscation is infringement.
I refuse to be held accountable and punished because of something that someone else did, or might do. I will not comply, or be compelled, coerced, or convinced to comply with any further attempts to infringe my constitutional rights. This is my line in the sand.