I started a bit of a debate with my comments regarding the new Nebraska concealed carry law. It has spilled over to The Smallest Minority and Captain of a Crew of One.
I'm going to address this further and in detail, but within the confines of some very real and pressing restrictions on my time--which means I'll post on this when I can.
I stipulate right up front that mine is not the popular view--by far. I don't go into this with any illusions that the vast majority of "gun rights" supporters will agree with me. Still, so far, I haven't seen anyone specifically demonstrate where any claim I made in my post is wrong. All the arguments seem to be that "absolutists" are immature and impatient, and even enemies, and that only by trading rights for privileges can one be considered "pragmatic." Incrementalism is what got us here, and only incrementalism will save us.
I reject these assumptions, and will explore them in more depth in the coming days. Just please be patient. And please post comments with an eye toward generating light, not heat.
I don't know David. I get pretty hot when told that we should accept less than is ours. I figure if those so-called gun rights advocates haven't seen the light by now, they're not going to see it.
ReplyDeleteI would like to make them the same deal on their cars or homes and let them buy them back a little at a time; just as they tell us is the proper way to proceed in regards to something much more important than any car or home. Our rights as free men and the power to ensure our liberty.
I make an offer right now to any of those gun rights activists of like stripe. Surrender your home to me, not all at once, let's keep this apples and apples. Move out one room at a time as I move in. When you are off the property I will rent you privileges to visit it under strict rules. As we go along I will let you pay more and more for more access, until such time as I decide, then I will change the rules to suit me.
Any takers? If not, why not? That is the way you bargained away your liberty, which is a Hell of a lot more important than your house.
Surely some of you mature and pragmatic advocates out there are ready to jump all over this. Isn't that what you are recommending regarding the second amendment?
Be mature and pragmatic, just do it. Show us, you're not just too scared to demand your rights. That you really believe what you told us. The offer is open.
Incrementalism is defintely going to do us in. Heard on Fox News about an hour ago that the Senate has come up with a "compromise" bill that essentially, is amnesty, is going to speed up rather than slow down illegal immigration, and is a virtual slap in the face to all of us that play by the rules,pay taxes,and vote. We are headed for France,only expect when Illegals and other Hispanics and whoever are burning our cities,raping the women and leading away surviving males in chains for the slave coffel,for the Democrats,Rinos' and leftists running things to tell us not to be racists and resist. It's for our own good. Yah.
ReplyDeleteAnd what straightarrow said is right. I'll stand by him and David.
ReplyDeleteSean said:
ReplyDelete"for the Democrats,Rinos' and leftists running things to tell us not to be racists and resist. It's for our own good. Yah."
I do not mean to be insulting, but please take the blinds off your eyes.
The majority in Congress & the Senate are not Dems & Rinos & Leftists. They are the "mainstream" Republicans, and THEY are the ones selling you out.
This country will never get back on it's feet until people break the chain of Party Worship. Do not have any allegiance to the political parties, only to the Constitution.
Both the Dems & Reps have destroyed this country, but in the end it is the people's fault because we elected people who promised us the most from the public largesse.
What is the difference between a Dem. union member who votes for the politician who promises him higher wages and less work at taxpayers expense and the Rep. conservative farmer who votes for the politician who promises him more farm subsidies? NOTHING. They are both evil, but since one is a Rep, I guess that makes it OK.
"I don't go into this with any illusions that the vast majority of "gun rights" supporters will agree with me."
ReplyDeleteThat's my point. When even the people who own guns don't agree with you, then the right you assert is, in effect, the illusion.
Actually, David, I agree that the right to carry should be unfettered. However, I am a realist in that I understand that it's not - and being an absolutist will not change that. In fact, being belligerent about it will be detrimental to the fight to, at a minimum, reduce said restrictions.
A "right" is what the majority in a society agrees it is. Period
If you are unable to exercise the right without legal sanction, then it might as well not exist. That's the pragmatic fact. And until you can convince a majority that what you believe is right, then your right to do anything does not, pragmatically, exist.
You admit that you are in the distinct minority, yet you denigrate those who have worked very hard to convince more and more people that the right to arms (even if restricted) really is a right they ought to be concerned about.
That's not helpful.
To me, it is the equivalent of stamping one's feet in a temper-tantrum.
I hope that comment was light, and not heat.
"A "right" is what the majority in a society agrees it is. Period"
ReplyDeleteNEGATIVE.
That is what a REPUBLIC is supposed to be ALL bout. So that the MAJORITY CANNOT TRAMPLE THE RIGHTS OF A MINORITY. PERIOD!
I can CONSTITUTIONALLY PROVE my contention. What we have in this country RIGHT NOW - IS NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED. IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY REPUGNANT and therefore NULL and VOID - PERIOD.
That is FACT and there is NO ARGUMENT ABOUT IT!
If YOU want to be a SLAVE, FINE! Be one.
Do NOT consign your FELLOW MAN to the SAME FATE! It is NOT within the Laws of God, Nature nor of The Unted States of America!
We are a REPUBLIC - NOT a democracy! Our RIGHTS have been and are continuing to be TRAMPLED by ILLEGAL and PERVERSE methods.
It MUST be stopped NOW!
Kevin--yeah, that was pretty much light--except you have a disturbing habit of issuing judgments (foot stamping temper tantrums)without addressing any of the contentions I made in my original post and showing where they are not true. I've asked you to do this more than once, and so far, you've avoided it and simply seen fit to dismiss me as an unrealistic malcontent.
ReplyDeleteI have also noted that in order to accept your theory of incrementalism, we must also now cede that rights are not unalienable. If I understand you correctly, just like Al Gore believes in a living Constitution, you believe in a living Bill of Rights, and if we're to be pragmatic, we must accept that, too. And we must also accept that our salvation will lie in mob ru...I mean, "democracy."
I'd like to see you address untrue statements I have made before we proceed to new ground.
Also, and trust me, I will get into this--I will delineate the reasons why I believe your position is anything but pragmatic.
David:
ReplyDeleteLook, I don't know if you've read it, but my beliefs on rights are pretty well spelled out in this essay. It won't fit here as a commentary, even though I was severely space-limited when I originally wrote it. If you want the full thesis, go to my blog and read all seven parts of "The 'Rights' Discussion" linked on the left sidebar.
But to put it bluntly, here's Machiavelli's position on it from 1517:
The way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live, that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation.
I do not abandon what is. I try to change it, incrementally, towards what should be.
Yes, read it--and I'm not the one abandoning "what is"--as I intend to demonstrate as this beast progresses.
ReplyDeleteNow are you going to address those points I've asked you about or not?
I'm not precisely sure what "points" you want me to address, but let's see if I hit any of them here:
ReplyDelete"You are free to license yourself to do whatever you like. Just leave me out of it, because you are creating settled law--binding on me--in a land that makes its judicial decisions based on precedent and stare decisis."
But "no carry," "may issue," and "shall issue" have already been "established law" with stare decisis to back it up well prior to 1986. Therefore licensing - should you decide not to do it - doesn't affect you, if you were "excercising your inalienable, uninfringeable right to carry" prior to a "shall-issue" law being passed where you live. This is a null argument.
"My individual rights are not yours to bargain with, and I will oppose you or anyone else doing so every step of the way."
OUR individual rights were bargained away long before either of us was born. It seems that, from the founding of the nation, some men were created more equal than others, and lawmakers managed to spread that inequality around a bit more liberally in the last 100 years. We're just trying to get them back in the same manner they were taken.
"And as for educating people, sorry you don't see that's what I'm trying to do."
Flies. Vinegar. Honey. Do the experiment.
Oh, right. You are. How's it going again?
"You go ahead and continue believing that it's pragmatic to surrender rights to usurpers because there is some perceived incremental gain--just don't kid yourself--or others--by glossing over the costs."
Again, the right has already been surrendered. As to the "costs" - we'll need to discuss just exactly what those are. I had a nice 2-hour discussion with Publicola about that this evening. He hasn't convinced me that those costs were actually costs. Neither have you.
...you seem to be coming from some sort of Clintonesque all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is /'living Constitution' frame of reference--where words defining unalienable rights are plastic and malleable and shaped over time. 'Shall not be infringed' is simply not that difficult."
Since, essentially from the ratification of the Bill of Rights the "unalienable rights" which "shall not be infringed" has meant "only for some people" then, again, your argument is null. I'm arguing (again) what is vs. what ought to be. You're ignoring what is.
Now, have I addressed your points, or is there more that I missed?
Delta, no insult taken. When I said Rino, I should have been more clear. I consider every damned last one of the Republicans in the Senate, and the House, with the exception of Ron Paul, to be Rinos. I always dig criticism, because it makes me think. You are, of course, correct.
ReplyDeleteIt was to point out any statement I made characterizing ccw permits that is not true.
ReplyDeleteAs for flies honey and vinegar, you're the one throwing out ridiculing characterizations (temper tantrums, tilting at windmills)--and then when someone gores your ox resorting to "eat my shorts."
gentlemen - back to your corner til the bell rings...
ReplyDeleteI should point out that I had two purposes for what turned into the 2 hour chat with Kevin. One is I've been reading his writing since a few weeks after he started & while I disagree with him on some points I respect the hell out of his writing & his thoughts. The 2nd purpose was to try to get a grasp on exactly what the "incrementalist" view was.
Not saying that I was holding back & could have easily convinced him with one Garand tied behind my back, but I was trying to understand more than persuade. Persuasion will hopefully come (at least in part) in writing, where it can be properly mulled over, dissected & cause word counters to tilt. :P
That being said the incrementalists & the absolutist do share some basic goals - it's just the methods of achieving them seem different, & perhaps the end goal itself differs betwixt the two. However even on the common goals we have the problem of some form of cohesive strategy. I mean c'mon - you really think the NRA has a plan beyond the next election? The anti's do - both a strategy & tactics that complement it. It's not a great or even very well engineered one, but it's effective against a herd of untamed cats such as we are.
I agree that CCW permits are more harm than good - over the long run. In the short run they do have some pragmatic benefits for society, but it's still detrimental to the individual IF he truly has principled notions of Right to Carry. Not meaning that those who support CCW are unprincipled, just that they don't have the precise ones that the absolutists tend to (though this is generalization) - or at least are able to swallow their insult & support CCW in spite of their principles.
In any case, what I hope results is that instead of the name calling this is teetering on, it turns into a polite, civilized, knock down drag out that might result in us, oh, I dunno - coming up with a cohesive PLAN to regain acknowledgement for some, if not all, of our Rights. I mean we all want to achieve our goals as quickly & painlessly as possible right? So let's figure out what those goals are, how they can overlap with other goals & how to pull it off.
Ding!!!
Publicola--agreed--if you look at my post, you'll see I called for light, not heat--my last comment was an attempt to point out where this is in danger of derailing. And like you, I've admired a lot of Kevin's work--and said so--and don't expect that to change over this.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to see your reasoning on why you think there are long term problems with CCW. Comment here or--since you have your own blog to maintain, let me know if you post something there so I can link to it.
I posted this over at amendmentii.blogspot.com , but I'll post it here as well. I've gotten it printed in a number of local newspapers, though I think some of the editors were laughing at the crazy gun nut. No problem. Remember the remnant.
ReplyDeleteI think the following expresses the meaning of the Second Amendment as acurately and concisely as is possible, for those who somehow misunderstand "shall not be infringed". Nothing short of this is good enough for me.
The Atlanta Declaration:
"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission." -- L. Neil Smith
.Permits and licenses are the same things. They are rentals of privileges. The privilege being rented by the lessee, is de facto, by the action of the lessee, the rights of the lessor.
ReplyDeleteNo amount of incremental persuasion for more access to the "privilege" will change the ownership of the right, so long as one agrees that it is the lessor's right to charge for it and/or set the boundaries of its exercise.
My offer is still open Kevin. You will move out of your kitchen first as I move in. If you are a good little boy and do as I say and satisfy my requirements, I will permit you to use the kitchen in accordance with rules I lay down. However, you must prepare to move from the dining room next, as we will have set the precedent of my right to what used to be yours. Now pack the Hell up! And get out!
Straightarrow:
ReplyDeleteI assume you carry concealed everywhere you go - even on commercial airliners?
If not, why not?
Oh, and BTW, I'm sure you've heard of "imminent domain"?
ReplyDeleteIt's been in the news a lot lately.
Kevin -
ReplyDeleteWho is the 'Ultimate Legitimate Authority'?
And, who is the 'Natural Guardians of the Constitution'?
The "right absolutist" camp is making very valid points against the idea of us agreeing to give up our rights. The problem is that giving up our rights is not what we "incrementalists" are pursuing.
ReplyDelete"I make an offer right now to any of those gun rights activists of like stripe. Surrender your home to me, not all at once, let's keep this apples and apples. "
But you are NOT arguing apples and apples.
To make your analogy fit life as it exists today, you would have to ALREADY HAVE TAKEN my home. I never owned it at all. It was given away room by room by my father and grandfather. Even though it has been in my family for generations and was promised to me by my forefathers...I have NEVER had it.
If, as in the case of our gun rights, I can regain ownership of my home room by room...that's what I will do. If I persevere, my home will eventually be in the hands of its rightful owner.
If, on the other hand, I demand that you give me the entire home at once and you balk, In all probability, I'll never get any of it back, let alone all of it.
The mistake that David and Straightarrow and E. David are making in their points is that they are all posing their arguments in terms that describe us "incrementalists" as giving something away that we currently have. That is simply not the case. We don't have what is rightfully ours. It was taken from us before we were born and we are trying to get it back in any way that we can.
Our method has been proving itself over the past 20 years or so. Please point out one instance throughout history where, short of revolution, the absolutist method of demanding all or nothing has been effective.
"That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
ReplyDelete"These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They MUST be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the PEOPLE ALONE, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other." - James Madison, Federalist #46
"To the second that is, to the pretended establishment of the common and state law by the Constitution, I answer, that they are expressly made subject "to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same." They are therefore at any moment liable to repeal by the ordinary legislative power, and of course have no constitutional sanction. The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the Revolution. This consequently can be considered as no part of a declaration of rights, which under our constitutions must be intended as LIMITATIONS of the power of the government itself." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84
Kevin - What everyone is trying to portray to you is that they NEVER had the right to TRAMPLE our Rights to begin with. Why play their game? If you start to win, they'll just change the rules again, and guess what? You lose - again!
Is it starting to become any clearer?
By playing their game you give them 'power' and they'll keep abusing it. It's like the shell game, which one is your right under? Wrong! 'We win, you lose - be good and go home, if you know what's good for you'! Or will sic fido on you!
If everyone were to stop playing the game, (as was suggested by Mr. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 26), they would have no one to assume dictitorial rule over. The First Basis of Law is to ALWAYS return to the Fundamental. What the Usurpers did was cast aside the fundamental and set perverse precedent. If it is perverse, it is not true. It has no Constitutional merit and therefore is NULL and VOID.
Lets say every last state in the Union gets restored the way you hold out. That being done, the Usurpers turn around the next time some Columbine or similar incident happens. (Which, being the evil vipers they are, they just might orchestrate themselves). And declare, see we told you so! Give them all back, now!
Where are we then? There is no way to ultimately win if we continue to play by their perverse rules.
INCORRECT WAY:
ReplyDelete"The United States can't be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." - Bill Clinton
(What the moron forgot, was that was the whole intention for setting up our government to begin with - to preserve and protect those Rights).
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton
(Your not taking anything from me witch!)
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." - Diane Feinstein
(Blatantly false and 'feel safe' is not an enumerated Right).
"I don't believe that assault rifles ought to be sold in America." - John Kerry
(It doesn't matter what YOU believe senator, as that is the whole purpose for having a Constitution).
"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!" - Charles Schumer
("We're going to keep USURPING until we get OUR way. When the dangers to our schemes are removed, (second amendment), then we will be your Lord's and Master's and you will be our servants!)
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal." - Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc., New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, pg. 53, (His shoes were filled by Sarah Brady).
That is what we're up against - TRAITORS.
___________________________________
THE CORRECT WAY:
"It is necessary for every American, with becoming energy to endeavor to stop the dissemination of principles evidently destructive of the cause for which they have bled. It must be the combined virtue of the rulers and of the people to do this, and to rescue and save their civil and religious rights from the outstretched arm of tyranny, which may appear under any mode or form of government." - Mercy Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution, 1805
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to ALL positive forms of government." - Alexander Hamilton,
The Federalist #28
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."....
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from ANY who might ATTEMPT to ABUSE THEM, which would include their OWN GOVERNMENT.” - George Washington
Precedents apply ONLY if there is no Basis that has been previously established.
ReplyDeleteAlso, they can only amend the Constitution. They cannot alter the Fundamentals, legally. In order for the Constitution to be altered, EVERY last citizen in the country would have to be in agreement.
Can tell you right now -THAT will NEVER happen.
Sailorcourt,
ReplyDeleteVermont.
Their permitless carry is the result of a favorble court decision back in 1902 (or 3 - somewhere in the first half decade of the 20th century).
hey - you said show you one example. :P
In regards to homes, this upsets a lot of people, but do you really "own" something you have to pay rent on? Granted - property taxes have been around a while, but it's still (in principle) based on the idea that the government has the power to control your property.
Again, just pointing those things out. It's the smart ass in me. :D
But to the mroe concrete point - most absolutists see most incrementalists as having the goal of CCW, not as it being used as a step towards permitless carry. There are a few exceptions to this & a bunch of reasons for it as well as the exceptions but that's the danger absolutists see - settling permanently for a permit instead of pushing on towards recognition of a Right. (& "right' to carry" bugs the hell out of us when it's used to describe "shall issue" CCW)
"Kevin - What everyone is trying to portray to you is that they NEVER had the right to TRAMPLE our Rights to begin with. Why play their game? If you start to win, they'll just change the rules again, and guess what? You lose - again!
ReplyDelete"Is it starting to become any clearer?"
Guys, I've done the "Absolute Right" thing with the Anarchists already. I'm tired of it. I live in the real world. My rights have been trampled on, whether the tramplers had the "right" to or not. It's a done deal.
I'm not going to get my rights back via a quantum leap in the intellectual understanding of the Bill of Rights by the hoi polloi. I won't be convincing my neighbors by doing things they consider dangerous and asocial, not to mention illegal. "THE PEOPLE" have approved the infringement of their own rights. I repeat myself: A right is what your neighbors will actually stand up and defend. If they won't, it might as well not exist.
THEREFORE it is necessary to CONVINCE as many of your neighbors of the rightness of your position. You don't do that by telling them they're somehow less than human for holding an opinion you disagree with.
Quoting the Federalist Papers at them isn't real convincing to most either.
You ain't helping.
And I'm done with this conversation.
Vermont.
ReplyDeleteTheir permitless carry is the result of a favorble court decision back in 1902 (or 3 - somewhere in the first half decade of the 20th century).
It was May of 1903 and your point is well taken. I would point out, however, that this was not the a case of the public demanding a restoration of rights, it was a case of the Supreme Court doing its job and upholding the State Constitution in the first place. To my knowledge, this was the first such case to reach the Vermont Supreme Court and they ruled correctly the first time...setting to precedent for Vermont to the present day.
In other words, the rights were never actually infringed. The laws that infringed the right were unconstitutional, were never valid and were vacated BECAUSE they were unconstitutional.
The laws infringing the Second Amendment at both the State and Federal level throughout the rest of the country are no more constitutional than the City Ordnance vacated in the Vermont Supreme Court ruling. The only difference is that the rest of the laws have NOT been vacated and are assumed to be perfectly legitimate by the majority of the populace.
We don't have the weight of precedent and court rulings to rely on...therefore, we must use the art of persuasion...which works best when applied gently but persistently.
Unless, of course, you are advocating revolution.
There are a few exceptions to this & a bunch of reasons for it as well as the exceptions but that's the danger absolutists see - settling permanently for a permit instead of pushing on towards recognition of a Right. (& "right' to carry" bugs the hell out of us when it's used to describe "shall issue" CCW)
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, permits are simply a stepping stone.
One other thing to consider. In Virginia, there is no proscription against carrying openly and never has been. That is because the right to keep and bear arms is outlined in the Virginia Constitution (as in most others...even Texas' I would bet).
There is the argument (and the courts in Virginia agree) that requiring a permit for concealed carry is not an infringement of the right as long as people still have the unfettered right to keep and bear arms openly. Such anti-concealed carry laws do not prevent bearing arms, only regulate the manner in which they may be worn.
Texas doesn't ALLOW open carry. I consider this a much more egregious infringement than requiring a permit for concealed carry.
Before I am burnt at the stake I would like to point out that I am NOT a proponent of the contention that open carry is good enough. I consider the prevention, licensing, permitting of concealed carry to be an "infringement", I am only pointing out that the argument exists and is considered meritorious by the courts in Virginia.
But sailorcurt, I am talking apples and apples. Your counter point is merely about timing. The principles are the same.
ReplyDeleteIf your incremental approach to regaining access to all the rooms of your former home worked, but still relied on my permission, how does that return possession of your home to you? It would still be mine if you must satisfy me to be "allowed" access to it. The point is that you cannot regain 'ownership'of your home that way. You can only exercise the privilege of access if I allow it. That does not equal ownership.
Kevin said...
Straightarrow:
I assume you carry concealed everywhere you go - even on commercial airliners?
If not, why not?
Actually I don't carry anywhere. There was a time, a good long time, I did. On my own authority, and everywhere I went. The circumstances that existed for me then do not now, and I don't carry. If for some reason I deem it necessary again, I will. And I won't ask permission.
Talking about airliners. Pistols should be issued with seat assignments to be gathered at destination. That is if we really wanted to make air travel safe. We don't. We just want to make passengers "feel" safe so they will keep buying tickets.
Of course, we know that isn't going to happen. The next best thing, don't fly anywhere. Don't go to the airport, don't drop passengers at the airport. If the only way to go is to fly, don't go.
If we can get people to do that, you would be amazed at how quickly the absolutist stance would suddenly be acceptable.
If they don't want you on the plane as a full person, don't get on the plane. Let them pay their leases without passengers. Where is the pressure to force them to honor our rights if all we do is grumble, but still hand over our money and acquiesce to their demeaning demands?
Eminent Domain. Yes, I have heard of the right of eminent domain. I have never agreed with it, by the way. But guess what? It is allowed in the constitution for public works that benefit all the individuals of the society. So, even though, I think it is theft morally, it is constitutional legally and therefore I must accept it, unless of course, we amend the constitution to disallow it.
ReplyDeleteIt has been in the news a lot lately. Kelo v. New London is an abominable decision and is wrong even under the constitutional right of eminent domain. The taking was not for public works. It was merely theft of property from one private individual to give to another, because the recipient had promised the thieves money. A lot more money than the real owner was obliged to pay them.
I suppose you don't believe some absolutists would have been handy in this case. You know, someone that didn't equate "public good" which is ephemeral, at best (often decided by campaign contributions and remittance to government coffers, and not principle or law or good) with public works, such as a bridge or road or waterworks that served every "one".
Because we had only pragmatists that dealt with what "is" instead of what "should be" the right to private property was once again outlawed. Not for the first time, either. RICO and all the baby RICO and No-Knock Warrants were the first real assaults repealing private property rights. But we wouldn't want to be absolutist about it, would we?
Will it be a victory for Ms. Kelo if she can visit the business office center that will be standing on her used to be property? I mean an incremental victory, of course.
Interesting blog.
ReplyDeleteI have lived in Texas all my life, with the exception of my time in the Army and a few years when I was a small child.
"Back in the good ol' days", when I was a teen, I belonged to a "Fast Draw" club and performed at a local "Frontier Town", called Rimrock City.
I carried my 45 Army to all the meets, practices and to Rimrock City, where I would shoot the bad guys and sometimes get shot myself (blanks of course). This was in the mid sixtys, I was young, first car (pickup) and got stopped three or four times with my sidearm in my pickup. I always carried it laying on the seat, in the holster, unloaded. I never was arrested, was always asked " What's with the pistol?" and always told the truth.
Now, when I am stopped (four times in the last few years or so), I still have a 45 on my seat, unloaded and I lie, I tell them I am taking it to be repaired or if at night I tell them I am "traveling out of town". So far I have not been arrested.
I sometimes carry my 12ga in my pickup, on a floor mount in front of the dash on the passenger side. (kinda like the cops carry theirs) Funny thing I have never been stopped when I had it in the truck. I guess that is because its legal.
Yes, it's wrong that I have to lie, but I have to work within the laws in order to protect myself NOW.
If and when the laws change, I will adapt.
I do not have a carry permit or intend to get one. That is my choice.
BTW, when the west started getting civilized, the women folk and merchants got tired of getting there towns shot up and moping up the blood and told the Sheriff to take them guns from them stupid people coming into town and not give them back until they left.
Yes, I know things have changed, but people haven't changed all that much. My favorite drinking place, has a rule, no guns, no knives other than pocket knives, no brassnuks and no billyclubs, and a warning that any one breaking the rules will be thrown out and not allowed to return.
The owner has a couple of guns behind the bar and a bat and he has used both.
He also has a sign that reads: "No Virgins allowed in this establishment".
So I leave my my weapons in my pickup, and I don't worry about vigins or not anymore...at my age I can't be picky.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA