Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The following is an opinion piece written by a friend of mine who is very active on the Libertarian front......
CHICAGO GUN CASE A BITTERSWEET VICTORY FOR LIBERTY--BUT JUSTICE THOMAS' FINEST HOUR--For the fatalistic libertarian, we are happy when there is either an incremental increase in liberty or at least not a loss. As Thomas Jefferson said, " the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
In the Supreme Court today there was a net loss of liberty, despite the holding in McDonald v. City of Chicago(gun case)— ruling that the Second Amendment does apply to the states, and their political subdivisions. http://bit.ly/ck4Lfc And the First Amendment right of free association and expression took a beating in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez http://bit.ly/9A6gwk
The ruling in McDonald was not unexpected, and it was not unexpected that the Supreme Court would adopt the reasoning of the National Rifle Association, rather than than of the plaintiff The Court Restores a Fundamental Right | Cato @ Liberty
But, it could have been a whole lot better. Those of us who treasure liberty, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, had hoped the court would restore the “privileges and immunities” clause to its original meaning. That would have been a major victory for liberty.
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
“ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ”
Finally, Jefferson's assertion in the first line of the Declaration of Independence was made real—no government (state, federal or local) could abridge a citizen's inalienable rights—no matter who they were, what they were, and where they lived.
But alas the country was not ready for unfettered liberty— at least the ruling elite. In 1873 the Supreme Court essentially rendered the immunities and privileges clause meaningless in the Slaughterhouse Cases See Brian Doherty's article “Killing Slaughterhouse” Killing Slaughterhouse - Reason Magazine for a good explanation in simple,non-legalise language what this dispute is all about—because it is really about a lot more than guns:
As the plaintiff's attorney wrote in his brief:
“In 1868, the ‘privileges’ and ‘immunities’ of American citizenship were popularly understood to include a broad array of pre-existent natural rights believed secured by all free governments, as well as the personal rights memorialized in the Bill of Rights” Petitioner's Brief filed in McDonald v Chicago
The intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment was to not only insure personal rights, but economic rights. As Damon Root has said:
“The 14th Amendment was specifically designed and ratified to protect a sweepingly libertarian idea of self-ownership. That idea includes the right to acquire property, run a business, and buy and sell labor without unnecessary or improper interference by the government.” Restoring the Privileges or Immunities Clause - Reason Magazine
Both the left and the right fears this unleashing of unfettered fundamental rights. The left fears economic liberty. The right fears personal liberties —such things as same sex marriage.
So, to no surprise the only Justice who argued for restoration of the privileges and immunities clause was Justice Clarence Thomas—who wrote a separate partial concurrence in McDonald. http://bit.ly/ck4Lfc In showing again his libertarian compass, Justice Clarence cites libertarian stalwarts Frederick Douglass and Lysander Spooner in his concurrence.
This would have the perfect case to rid our country of the Slaughterhouse travesty.
The reality is no matter what government says arm yourself, legally or illegally either way if you need the gun jail time will be the least of your worries. A gun is for protection of crimes.
What if the government is the criminals.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" Jeffferson
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Gandhi
The reality is no matter what government says arm yourself, legally or illegally either way if you need the gun jail time will be the least of your worries. A gun is for protection of crimes.
What if the government is the criminals.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" Jeffferson
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Gandhi
Which is why I love the old soviet styled weapons. Unlike an AR, you can bury these suckers in the event they're banned, should the day come (God forbid) when you need them to use against those in the government who would actually do you harm.
Which is why I love the old soviet styled weapons. Unlike an AR, you can bury these suckers in the event they're banned, should the day come (God forbid) when you need them to use against those in the government who would actually do you harm.
Plus, the Mosin Nagant is multi-functional--also usable as a club, anchor, hammer, and firewood.
The following is an opinion piece written by a friend of mine who is very active on the Libertarian front......
CHICAGO GUN CASE A BITTERSWEET VICTORY FOR LIBERTY--BUT JUSTICE THOMAS' FINEST HOUR--For the fatalistic libertarian, we are happy when there is either an incremental increase in liberty or at least not a loss. As Thomas Jefferson said, " the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
In the Supreme Court today there was a net loss of liberty, despite the holding in McDonald v. City of Chicago(gun case)— ruling that the Second Amendment does apply to the states, and their political subdivisions. http://bit.ly/ck4Lfc And the First Amendment right of free association and expression took a beating in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez http://bit.ly/9A6gwk
The ruling in McDonald was not unexpected, and it was not unexpected that the Supreme Court would adopt the reasoning of the National Rifle Association, rather than than of the plaintiff The Court Restores a Fundamental Right | Cato @ Liberty
But, it could have been a whole lot better. Those of us who treasure liberty, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, had hoped the court would restore the “privileges and immunities” clause to its original meaning. That would have been a major victory for liberty.
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
“ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ”
Finally, Jefferson's assertion in the first line of the Declaration of Independence was made real—no government (state, federal or local) could abridge a citizen's inalienable rights—no matter who they were, what they were, and where they lived.
But alas the country was not ready for unfettered liberty— at least the ruling elite. In 1873 the Supreme Court essentially rendered the immunities and privileges clause meaningless in the Slaughterhouse Cases See Brian Doherty's article “Killing Slaughterhouse” Killing Slaughterhouse - Reason Magazine for a good explanation in simple,non-legalise language what this dispute is all about—because it is really about a lot more than guns:
As the plaintiff's attorney wrote in his brief:
“In 1868, the ‘privileges’ and ‘immunities’ of American citizenship were popularly understood to include a broad array of pre-existent natural rights believed secured by all free governments, as well as the personal rights memorialized in the Bill of Rights” Petitioner's Brief filed in McDonald v Chicago
The intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment was to not only insure personal rights, but economic rights. As Damon Root has said:
“The 14th Amendment was specifically designed and ratified to protect a sweepingly libertarian idea of self-ownership. That idea includes the right to acquire property, run a business, and buy and sell labor without unnecessary or improper interference by the government.” Restoring the Privileges or Immunities Clause - Reason Magazine
Both the left and the right fears this unleashing of unfettered fundamental rights. The left fears economic liberty. The right fears personal liberties —such things as same sex marriage.
So, to no surprise the only Justice who argued for restoration of the privileges and immunities clause was Justice Clarence Thomas—who wrote a separate partial concurrence in McDonald. http://bit.ly/ck4Lfc In showing again his libertarian compass, Justice Clarence cites libertarian stalwarts Frederick Douglass and Lysander Spooner in his concurrence.
This would have the perfect case to rid our country of the Slaughterhouse travesty.
Sir you are clearly a democrat trying to pass yourself off as a libertarian
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
