My personal opinion is that this is a storm in a teacup, and Codrea needs to take a Valium or something.Why, Kim?
I didn't invent the guns in space angle, I merely reported it, and I even commented on how stated administration policy could be used to establish regulations without invoking any change in Second Amendment interpretation. If they had simply done this, not many gun owners would have even noticed the new regs, let alone protested.
As far as the "collective rights" issue goes, you just essentially agreed with me, admitting "we gunnies are going to get upset about this" and referring to the new language as "lunacy."
I've addressed the speculation that it may be just a bureaucratic oversight here, but regardless--since the function of government is essentially to protect our rights-- such sloppiness, if that's what it is, amounts to irresponsible, and some would say, criminal negligence when one of the keystone rights is involved.
If it's truly "a storm in a teacup," then there's no reason why the administration shouldn't order the language they approved for publication in the Federal Register rescinded, and the office of the president shouldn't publicly reaffirm it's commitment to an "individual rights" interpretation.
I have a way to find out, and it'll only take a minute--probably less than a tenth of the time it took to write commentary with a conclusion telling people I need to take a Valium. Why not just send the White House an email on the topic and find out? If it's no big deal, they should be happy to make everything all right. Right?
I know it would sure settle me down, hysterical little Cassandra that I am.
16 comments:
I can't figure out du Toit's position--first, there's an admission that the "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment is "lunacy" (du Toit's own wording). So far, so good--sounds like we're on the same page. But now, you need to "take a valium," for creating a "storm in a teacup." Which is it, Kim?
Good for you David!
Kim is out of line and should be called on it.
You were VERY clear as to what was the objectionable language in the FAA ruling. The posters on Kim's forum and even Kim to a certain extent made you out to be some kind of nut screaming about "guns in spaaace!".
Please, any attempt to detract from your point if transparent in my opinion. The FAA ruling is a real threat to ALL of the Bill of Rights.
If it goes unchallenged, what is to prevent the FCC from limiting the 1st because it only applies to "collective" speech?
What is to prevent the DOJ from limiting the 4th because it only applies to a "collective" right of privacy?
What is to prevent the DHS from limiting the 1st because it only applies to "collective" right of assembly?
Why can't people see that such seemingly arcane, faceless, bureaucratic, administrative tools, are ideally suited to be used to gut the Bill of Rights?
They go into effect without notice or fanfare, but carry the force of law. They can be used by any agency at their discretion. Eventually we are all "lawbreakers" if the state is so inclined to push hard enough.
We ignore this trend of endless conflicting "lawmaking" at our peril.
I don't recall you at all advocating for "spaceship passengers [to carry] their Glocks on board."
As for federal government regulations on "spaceship carry" they certainly can ban it on any spaceship that they own. They own the spaceshuttle and part of the space station so they certainly can ban anyone from carrying a Glock on the spaceshuttle and on the space station. However, the 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with it, and it is ludicrous for the feds to use a "collective rights" interpretation to try and justify their regulations.
As far as private space flight goes, why even bother to pass such a stupid regulation as banning firearms in private space flights? Do we need a law that say I can't explode an M80 firecracker in my own hand? Do we need a law that says I can't drive down my own dirt rode and shoot the tires out of my car while driving 50 mph? Do we need a law that says I can't have a bonfire in the middle of my living room?
As far as "spaceship carry" in a private spaceship, an individual can determine what is good for his/her own safety. Does the government really need to pass a law that says a private space entepreneur cannot have a stick of dynamite in his own spaceship? If a person is that crazy, then let him kill himself. We don't need laws to protect stupid people from doing stupid things. The government is not here to be our babysitter.
Don't get too exercised about kdt's opinion of you and teacups. I use to be member of his forum and although there was a lot of thoughtful commentary there, with some differences of opinion that could provoke a lot of thought it became apparent that disagreement with kdt or his wife would not be tolerated.
I was banned from there immediately after I posted my goodbye note, which was polite and not at all polemic as you know I am sometimes wont to do.
kdt needs his ego stroked, as does his lady, that doesn't make them bad, but it eventually made them intolerable to me.
So David, don't worry about it. Kim is just running around in front hollering "Hey, look at me, look at me."
"kdt needs his ego stroked, as does his lady, that doesn't make them bad, but it eventually made them intolerable to me."
why I never joined up over there.
Seems to be that he's upset, but he thinks it'll pass or something. more gun owner apathy, the source of most of our problems. Lots of things worry me, but sitting on your ass and saying to take a valium isn't going to help Kim.
Hairy Hobbit and Straightarrow pretty much already beat me to it, but I was going to say that I think he's just jealous that someone besides himself is getting some attention.
They are very skittish over there these days about anything that smacks of "reset button." That said, there was a certain amount of obstinate/deliberate point missage going on in that thread.
Some in that community were dismissive of Wayne Fincher, too.
Nobody's right about everything all the time. This applies in the gun rights community as well as anywhere else. Kim et al just happen to be wrong about this one--not because it's about Glocks in spaaaace, or because it proves that President Bush is really eeeeevil, it's that they're underestimating the potential for mischief emanating from this "innocuous" issue.
Respectfully......This is not the first time Kim has been waaay off base.
There seems to be a tendency among elitists and persons that have escaped totalitarian countries to support the government as long as it is screwing the other guys ox and not his.
My opinion, having read his writtings is that since Kim hails from a former "totalitarian" country he has a tendency to be comfortable with "government oversight" or "rules".
Like Safari Club members that have this "the second amendment protects the right to hunt and that individual elitism will protect HIS rights by being in the right "club" and if they disarm everybody else it's O.K. because they did not come for me" attitude.
I have no respect and no use for such thinking. I stopped reading and paying attention to kdt long ago.
Fight islam Now
And you know what the best (worst?) irony is? There already are guns in space! The Russians have 'em. Ever since a Soyuz capsule landed far off course and had to endure a night besieged by wolves, a little shotgun has been a part of the emergency survival package in every Russian spacecraft.
So Uncle Sam trusts cosmonauts, but not us -- after all, they're government employees and we aren't. :(
As for KdT's suggestion, I suppose after one has been disarmed, it might be time for a Valium -- especially if the plan is to die cowering. Don't much like that plan, myself.
Am disappointed that Kim feels the way he does. Or, chose the wording he did to express his opinion. Understand his point concerning the dangers of guns on aircraft or spacecraft. However, acknowledging the perverse precendence established by the perverse government, is not the answer.
The 'system' should bend to our Right, and make allowances for it. We, in turn, should allow such restriction on the use of our right that would maximize the safety of all. But, by no means completely surrender the right. (It is the FIRST LAW OF NATURE, after all). By using the word 'restriction'. I mean such as having a rule that only frangible ammo can be used in the weapon you bring on board. That way, the companies precious 'property' is safe, as well as THE CUSTOMER THAT THEY ARE SERVING.
The restriction on knives doesn't even make sense. Come on Kim! What is more valuable? - A mans life, or a piece of property?
Only by the spirit of accomodation and negotiation were We The Peoples Constitution formed. Frequent recurrence to Fundamental Principles is the bulwark of Freedom and Liberty....
It is self-evident that we need, sorely, to get back to basics.....
It is precisely conservatives not yellng at the top of our lungs about injustices and rights violations that enboldens gun grabbers and libtards alike.
Kim should know and understands this.
If conservaive Americans don't start yelling at every little offense like the left does, we might as well just hand the keys to the country to them.
Kim, if you really believe this could not and would not be used by gun grabbers, then you are not quite as smart as I thought you were.
One more thing. Guess that the lesson of 9/11 hasn't been learned, has it? Unarmed passengers make like projectile fodder. Wonder how many more of us will have to perish before we 'get it'? Instead of following the clear-cut precedent of the "Laws of Nature and of Natures God". Steps to further restrict and eliminate our freedom and liberty are applied. Cannot that be considered as totally defeating the purpose for which our Constitution was instituted? "And secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". "Secure" them from what? Being enjoyed, or utilized? Surely I can't be the only one to see how backwards and self-defeating that premise is.
How has the great land of freedom and liberty been allowed to digress so much? Truly astounding, and sickening as well....
I am in the middle of a debate on another blog where people are asserting that my interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right is incorrect. They have no real data; only keep saying that the founders never intended it to be "interpreted" as I do. Here is my interpretation:
Because a very effective, armed population is essential in order for America to stay free and safe, the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!
Kent, see one of E David Quammen's posts above, follow the links to his site and contact him for more quotes about what the Founders intended than your debate opponents can shake a stick at.
David Codrea said...
"Kent, see one of E David Quammen's posts above, follow the links to his site and contact him for more quotes about what the Founders intended than your debate opponents can shake a stick at."
Thank you David, I'm truly honored. As I've shared before, a large part of the work I've done can be directly attributed to the enlightenment that you provided me.
BTW, you have done some amazing work of late. Hat-tip to you! Very grateful for your contribution to the common cause of TRUE American Freedom and Liberty.
I thought it was time to re-visit this thread to point out that the same people that accused David of making a tempest in a teapot regarding this issue are now patting themselves on the back about great it is that the FAA reversed the initial ruling.
Funny how nothing succeeds like success. And fair weather friends, aren't.
Post a Comment