So what do the politically-appointed urban enforcers call “reasonable”? [More]
Another "I believe in the Second Amendment BUT..." oath-breaker.
Thursday, July 05, 2018
‘Totally Reasonable’ Gun-Grabber Police Chief Has Huge ‘But’
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In Marbury vs Madison (1803) SCOTUS announced that henceforth the Constitution would say what SCOTUS said the Constitution said.
Similarly, given Chairman Mao's succinct analysis of the source of political power: "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.", reasonable is what American gun owners say is reasonable.
America's gun owners, even if you allow for only 3% of them taking part, outnumber LEO's many times over.
An often misattributed line is that "quantity has a quality all its own."
Since all of the above is common knowledge among the likely players, the most likely danger is a bad move by a Maxine Waters or a pumped up police chief somewhere.
In other words, someone full of zeal but lacking knowledge.
Took me a while to find this:
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- Justice Louis Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead vs United States (1928).
So, the chiefs of police met and made some decisions that are counter to the oath that they swore. Perhaps they should be aware if this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
Post a Comment