CDR: Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state statute?
I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional for the federal gov't to pass such a law, unless you rely on the widely-ignored 10th Amendment. (The Federal gov't has only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution; clearly we, in these enlightened times, need no such constraints on the operations of our benevolent Big Brother.) (And that was sarcasm, for Tim and the other sarcasm-impaired.) The supremes have decided, in their wisdom, that the amendments to the federal constitution apply to the states as well. Thus, the 1st amendment prohibits states as well as the feds from regulating speech.
While I admit it seems like a foolish law (akin to requiring a citizen to vote), I hardly see how it would require 'a killing'.
No, I agree with Tim, they need killing. I'd put them on the list, but below the gun grabbers. No one says the list can't be prioritized. I suppose it's possible that they were simply making a point, with the collusion of the vast majority of their residents.
Also, given their views, killing them may not be as easy as others who are unarmed. ;-)
Heh, not likely to be true. Most or all "public figure" gun grabbers seem to have bodyguards, or special dispensation to carry handguns because of the risks inherent to being a public figure, or whatever. Politicians, of course, are not to be held to the same standards as the little people. In NYC, a fair number of actors and such are able to get the almost-impossible-for-the-common-swine carry permits, for themselves or their associates. I saw a list a couple of years ago, and, no, I don't have a cite. Same for Los Angeles. Need it be pointed out that many of these actors use their fame to rail against the proliferation of guns? In the late 80's, IIRC, a famously anti-gun columnist from Chicago, IIRC, Carl Rowen, IIRC, was found with an unlicensed pistol; he'd heard a late-night disturbance outside his apartment, went outside with gun in hand, and was caught by the cops. He at least had the limited grace to write a column describing the incident and stating that his pubicly-stated position might not be entirely consistent with what he felt was best for himself. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
----- Original Message ----- X-Loop: openpgp.net From: Steven Furlong <sfurlong@acmenet.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <cypherpunks@openpgp.net> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 17:18 PM Subject: Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
While I admit it seems like a foolish law (akin to requiring a
citizen
to vote), I hardly see how it would require 'a killing'.
No, I agree with Tim, they need killing. I'd put them on the list, but below the gun grabbers. No one says the list can't be prioritized.
And anyone who says the list can't be prioritized needs killing B^) Jim Bell
At 20:18 -0500 11/5/00, Steven Furlong wrote:
The supremes have decided, in their wisdom, that the amendments to the federal constitution apply to the states as well. Thus, the 1st amendment prohibits states as well as the feds from regulating speech.
Not a question of wisdom- the 14th basicly says, thou shalt no longer make state laws that ignore the constitution. Note- this didn't happen until the civil war. Prior to this it was well understood that states could pass whatever laws they darn well pleased. Something that many don't realize is just how much the constitution/our government has been molded and changed since it's creation. In it's original form it was very clearly treated as a tool of the states, not the people. It was given just enough strength that it's decisions could be made to stick if a decision went against a particular state (this was the problem with the articles of confederation).
No, I agree with Tim, they need killing. I'd put them on the list, but below the gun grabbers. No one says the list can't be prioritized.
LOL. It's a priority queue, designed for easy distribution of labor when the proverbial sh*t hits the fan. -- "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas ____________________________________________________________________ Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com> ICQ#23758827
participants (3)
-
jim bell
-
Kevin Elliott
-
Steven Furlong