Comments on: Dear gun lovers,

By: Dawn Summers

Dawn Summers — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:58:46 +0000

My point, Eric, is that no constitutional right is absolute. I cannot assemble with whoever I want in your living room. I am not free to make a speech calling for the death of elected officials. Each right can be curtailed by laws designed to prevent harms. Whatever you may think of the second amendment, you’d have to be a complete nutjob to think you should be free to keep a gun in your pants while dancing and drinking at a NYC night club with the safety off.

By: Pearatty

Pearatty — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:00:08 +0000

Eric:
I think what Dawn is saying is that bad facts make bad law — if you want to get a right overturned, either by the courts or by follow-up legislation, the best way is to make your poster boy be someone who did something everyone thinks is stupid or egregious. People start saying “why are we protecting that kind of behavior? If that’s the law, how can we change the law so it isn’t protected behavior?”

By: Pearatty

Pearatty — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:57:50 +0000

Gerard:
1. I know a little bit about the U.S.Constitution.
2. I think freedom of speech is an apt comparison. We do not have unlimited freedom of speech, nor do I think we should have. For example, the government can regulate dangerous speech, defamatory speech and commercial speech.
3. You’d better not start suggesting people limit their comments on this blog, or Dawn is going to be pissed.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:33:54 +0000

if plaxico had done everything the same that night â€“except shoot himselfâ€”would we be having this discussion?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say there. That you can exercise your constitutional rights as long as the cops don’t know?

By: Dawn Summers

Dawn Summers — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 02:19:55 +0000

Plaxico was arrested and chsrged because he shot himself in the leg in such a manner that he could have shot someone else — another goes to the club or a worker. ask yourself this: if plaxico had done everything the same that night –except shoot himself—would we be having this discussion?

By: Gerard

Gerard — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:32:54 +0000

Yes, it’s widely debated among people who don’t know anything the Bill of Rights, i.e. individuals such as yourself. I suggest you read the 2nd Amendment. No divination of penumbras or emanations by scholarly, robed seers are necessary.

Tell me, how much freedom of speech do you think is the correct amount?

I think three comments is an excessive number of posts in this context.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:26:49 +0000

Pearatty, nice little bit of bob and weave there. The subject of the post is whether or not Plaxico Burgess is a good poster boy for reasserting the constitution regarding gun rights. As stupid as it is to stuff a loaded gun down your shorts, the guy is having the book thrown at him for possessing a loaded gun in a country with a constitutional right to bear arms. So that makes it a constitutional issue. So please, try to stay on topic.

But on the policy question, don’t you see a little bit of air between “unrestricted access to guns” and NYC’s draconian gun control statutes? Notwithstanding the fact there isn’t any place in the US with “unrestricted access to guns”.

By: Pearatty

Pearatty — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:36:18 +0000

Eric:
Whether or not there’s a Constitutional right to bear arms as defined by the gun lobbies — everybody getting to personally own as many of whatever weapon they want — is one question, which is widely debated.

Whether that’s a good idea is another question.

My statement above was directed to the second issue: that unrestricted access to guns is a bad idea that leads to unnecessary gun violence.

Your response did not address that argument, but addressed an argument I didn’t make regarding the constitutionality of the right to have guns.

Please stay on topic.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:25:21 +0000

Sure, Pearatty, because constitutional rights only apply to abortion and poll taxes. It’s only incorporated if we say it is!

By: Pearatty

Pearatty — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:15:25 +0000

Fair enough. It was foolish of me not to have realized that the solution to intra-family massacres is to make sure that all members of the family are armed.

By: Gerard

Gerard — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:06:00 +0000

Perhaps if his father and neighbors had been armed they wouldn’t have been shot. Ever consider that, Sarah Brady?

By: Pearatty

Pearatty — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:21:07 +0000

Yeah, those poor stupid New Yorkers and their gun control. They should be so lucky to live in a free state like Arizona, where 8-year olds shoot their dads and neighbors.

By: Pokerwolf

Pokerwolf — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:27:46 +0000

Even stupid people have rights. Except in NYC.

Beat me to it. Yes, a rich idiot is the first person that’s going to be prosecuted by that law. But, if the rich idiot’s lawyers can take down the law, then the rest of the New Yorkers won’t have to deal with legal stupidity.

By: Petitedov

Petitedov — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:51:57 +0000

It seems only celebrities and politicians have rights in NYC. He’s an idiot, but I still hope the case goes to the Supreme Court.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:17:11 +0000

Even stupid people have rights. Except in NYC.

By: Gerard

Gerard — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:07:31 +0000

He makes a valid point though.

By: Dawn Summers

Dawn Summers — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:52:27 +0000

That’s ALOT of initials.

By: Gerard

Gerard — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:37:09 +0000

T.I. on the RKBA