[T]here is no reason why the Second Amendment should be the last word for the voting public. [Read]Yes there is:
"When Democracy Becomes Tyranny
I STILL get to vote."
I'm disappointed in you, Thomas Sowell.
You establishment media-anointed "conservatives" just don't get it:
We will not disarm.Now go ahead and have your vote.
You cannot convince us.
You cannot intimidate us.
You can try to kill us, if you think you can.
But remember, we’ll shoot back .
We are not going away.
We are not backing up another inch.
And there are THREE MILLION OF US.
Your move, Mr. Wannabe Tyrant.
Your move.
[Via Ed M]
10 comments:
Disappointing, indeed. I like Walter Williams' views better: "When you hear that Williams's guns have been taken, you will know that Williams is dead."
Sowell says if enough people work within the system, the rest of us will have to obey the tyranny they bring about.
I say America is unique in all of human history. The consequences would not necessarily be unique, but they would be spectacular.
Remember that in the Nazi camps, one German soldier with a bolt-action rifle could control 200 prisoners. As pointed out in "Unintended Consequences," sometimes those rifles didn't have a round chambered. The prisoners were not "gun people." 150 million Americans, minimum, ARE.
Sowell laments that we shoot each other just because we can. Hell, if Americans will shoot each other for athletic shoes, a beer, a disdainful look, we will SURE as hell shoot people over losing liberty itself. Would-be tyrants should think long and hard.
I wonder of Mr. Sowell would be so calm and collected if it was the Thirteenth Amendment under fire.
The Second Amendment simply codifies rights that exist in nature. Even if there were no governments or constitutions, men would still have a right to own (keep) and carry (bear) arms for personal protection. They would also still have the right to organize into groups (militias) in order to better defend their homes and community (hopefully a free state).
I never thought I'd have to say this about Thomas Sowell but, "Grow up."
I have long respected and admired Sowell, but I must say I am extremely disappointed in him here.
Well I agree with what Sowell wrote -- if you read his entire commentary.
It's obvious what he meant.
Walter Williams wrote this, which is perhaps easier to comprehend:
The Founders' Vision Versus Ours
What would the founders think about our respect for democracy and majority rule?
Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."
John Adams advised, "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
The founders envisioned a republican form of government, but as Benjamin Franklin warned, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
I think you are severely misunderstanding Sowell. He is not advocating gun bans--rather, he is saying that in order to have gun bans, you must first amend the constitution. The inability to amend isn't evidence that it is too difficult, it is evidence that there is not enough support for gun bans.
While I think that Sowell was playing devil's advocate in his essay, the basis for his saying what he did, even then, is wrong and inherently so.
Rights are not subject to the democratic process nor to arguments of utility, if they were they'd be privileges and not rights.
Unrestricted access to any weapon, what is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is a subset of the intrinsic right of self defense which is possessed by everyone as a result of their existence as a human being.
To reiterate. We Americans have a inalienable right to own, possess, and use ANY weapon of which the US government, and most state governments until McDonald, now they're all tasked with this, is required to protect. There is no limiting language to be found in the Second Amendment, no limits should be or will be tolerated.
If the SCOTUS doesn't know it now, someone should tell them, we Americans will be back for more of our right to access our intrinsic right and we'll keep coming back until we have it all.
Who is this? Why is there a political philosophy editorial in a money rag?
I understand completely what he's saying, and he's promoting a fallacy.
Look: there exists a mechanism to punish people by temporarily denying them exercise of their rights--it's called a "jury". If legally violating the fundamental rights of Citizens was as simple as voting for a bill, the entire judicial system would simply be pointless decorum. (I am perplexed why anyone in the judicial system would argue otherwise, since it would mean their job is extraneous--but here we are in the 21st century.)
Anyone who believes that the Constitution may be amended to deny liberties is grossly misinformed. The Constitution only applies to the government which it establishes. The Bill of Rights came about because of Anti-Federalist agitation, later, and is a list of things that government may not do. Furthermore, it is redundant, because if the Constitution doesn't say it, the federal government can't do it.
Repealing the Second Amendment, does not eliminate our right to armed defense. The whole point behind this rotten republic was to put the basics of civilization beyond the reach of ambitious tyrants, and charge a government with keeping them there. GOVERNANCE FAIL.
No, I think he's saying just what he means to say. He's reassuring all those fine, upstanding right-wing citizens that the law is firmly in charge. No, he's not calling for gun bans, but he's telling the rightwingim that they could have gun bans if they wanted them by simply following all the constitutional rules.
If the constitution said everybody had to walk on their hands, I guess in his mind we'd just better get inverted.
To which I say, "What David said."
What if the majority of politicians voted as if they wrote that article?
We win.
It would be great if politicians and journalists believed in pre-existing rights, but "obey the constitution as written" is a huge improvement over what we have now, and I won't fight against that.
This...
"Anyone who believes that the Constitution may be amended to deny liberties is grossly misinformed."
...should read...
"Anyone who believes that the Constitution may be amended to deny fundamental liberties is grossly misinformed."
Post a Comment