Thursday, April 29, 2010

No It's Not Either

And I wish people would quit saying that. [Read]
Posted by David Codrea at 4/29/2010 11:06:00 AM

4 comments:

Crotalus (Don't Tread on Me) said...

Why isn't it, David? Other than the political realities of governments consistently ignoring the Constitution, that is.

4/29/2010 12:50 PM
David Codrea said...

The same reason the Constitution doesn't give us rights.

4/29/2010 1:08 PM
Longbow said...

Spokesman for the Association of Chiefs of Police, quote: “[It] will take Arizona back to the Wild West... with no consideration of officer safety.''

Doesn't any cop realize that there are more good people than bad people in the world? And that since more of the good guys will be carrying at their own discretion, that any cop could have back up by a dozen citizens at any time?

No? Ohhh, so what you're saying is, that most cops see "civilians" (that is you and me) as the enemy, to be herded and controlled and reduced to non-threat status? Is that how it really is?

Well then, since cops see me and EVERYONE ELSE that way, perhaps it would be best for me, and everyone else, to look at cops the same way. Perhaps when I see a cop, armed, coming toward me, I should PRESUME that he intends to kill me and that I shouldn't relax my posture until I am standing on his neck (sorry for the inconvenience, pal, but you know, "civilain" safety comes first).

Now how about we start doing things that way?

Maybe the cops who DON'T think like that should start speaking out and telling the Chief's Association to go to hell. But, as usual, the silence is deafening.

4/29/2010 1:58 PM
bob r said...

To expand on what I think David's point is: A permit (a.k.a., a license) is "permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal". The 2nd amendment expressly prohibits the government from making it (carrying a firearm) illegal therefore "permission" is not required. Which further implies that the 2nd is not a "permit".

Quite the contrary, it is a prohibition. And this highlights a problem with referring to the 2nd as a "permit": The Constitution does not apply to individuals, it applies to the government. What the Constitution "allows" is _all_ the government may do; what it "prohibits", the government may _never_ do. But the Constitution does not specify _anything_ about what an individual person may or may not do unless said person is acting on behalf of the government.

4/29/2010 7:22 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)