Wednesday, November 21, 2007

More on Possible Outcomes on the Second Amendment

Well, there could be another outcome of the US Supreme Court Case. It's highly unlikely, but considering that the purpose of the second amendment is:

  1. Protect the People from the Government
  2. Protect the United States from foreign subjugation
One could reasonably expect that the founding fathers deemed that the arms to be kept by the people, by their nature, need to be of military relevance to be useful in a militia. This is also what I typically say to those that the second amendment counts only for arms of the time - i.e. Muskets. Anyone who has studied history would know that anyone shot with a black powder firearm is in a world of hurt too, and the wounds they leave significantly less humane than a modern firearm.

If this is the outcome, we could see the legal definition of "machine guns" and "assault weapons" being made completely legal, and the remainder of the firearms be deemed "not militarily relevant" and thus subject to regulation. The USA would turn to Switzerland...

"Sorry son, you can't buy that little pistol. But we have this M249 machine gun on special..."

Labels: , , , ,

Supreme Court to hear on 2nd Amendment

Well, this ought to be interesting. We have DC on one side, saying the right to have a firearm is not being infringed if it's denied outright, and a security guard denied a permit to have a firearm in the district on the other side, all of this backed by the Cato institute.

The NRA-ILA was against this, since, well, their reason for existing was being threatened.

So what happens if firearms ownership is ruled a collective right?

Good question. At worst, the new democratic president would order all firearms in private hands taken away, and the USA would be just like the UK, with its skyrocketing violent crime rates. Sure, fewer people die there, but a lot more get curbstomped by drunk thugs.

What happens if this becomes a clear individual right?

Well, if the National Firearms Act gets thrown out entirely, then even convicted felons could legally purchase any firearm available, although many states have clear rules that prevent that, and those laws would not be invalidated.

Most likely there would be a backlash with the new presidency, and likely new, more restrictive laws would be enacted. Like California, where you pretty much have to be shot before you can shoot in self defense (without being charged with a felony), this would likely be the national case. The revenge of the liberals would be upon us, and self defense be made illegal.

I stuck my neck out and posted the following on the Washington Post article and editorial discussing this:

To the "government will help us" people: Specifically in the District, the right to police protection is a COLLECTIVE RIGHT. This means, according to case law, that you have to recourse if the cops don't show up when a robber wants your wallet, which you gave him, and now wants your daughter. Remember Warren vs. District of Columbia (1981).

"Children Die" because of guns. They sure do, but this is lack of parental guidance, and as much the fault of the parents. Teaching your children to not touch, and get an adult is simple, yet most people abrogate their responsibility to their children to the state.

"The streets will run with blood":
Well, Virginia's crime rate has dropped, as have those states with "shall issue" concealed carry laws. These laws state that you need not have a "valid reason" (like being a friend of the sherrif, as is the case in LA county, California) to apply for a permit. The only exception is Philadelphia, but this is clearly a case of illegal guns, and not legally purchased ones. VA Tech rampager Cho purchased his pistols legally because laws were not being followed. Note also, that you're statistically less likely to be shot by someone with a concealed pistol/weapon permit than you are by a cop - CHP holders have had more stringent background investigations done than most police, all the way to the FBI level. They are the least likely to commit a felony, ever, even lower than police.

"You're more likely to be shot with a gun in your home. This study proves it." You're right, but if you look into the statistics, they include guns brought into the home by the assailants, and also count criminal on criminal activity, like dope houses getting shot up. Statistics are meaningless unless one looks at the real numbers in question.

Now, I am all for gun control, but control the illegal stuff first before controlling what I have. I have not broken any laws, and restricting me as if I would, could, or will break the law breaks my ... what is it, 4th amendment right to due process?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Happy Voting Day, and uh, Apple censors everybody.

First off, I hope you voted. For someone that will defend your rights and freedoms, and not take them away "in order to protect you."

On the digital freedom front, Apple not only manages your digital rights for you (meaning you have none, kind of like having emergencies managed, and oxymoron and a federal agency) and has been super busy removing or blocking access to people complaining on its forums about problems with Mac OS X "Leopard". Especially popular ones, such as ones linked to by enthusiast sites like Tom's Hardware Guide.

Remember that some article noted anecdotally that liberals were more likely to use Macs than anyone else? I guess that's kind of like shutting off conservative talk radio in the name of "equal access."

I don't care for the conservative side of the argument either - so I just don't listen, and act to change my radio station instead of complaining. I know, this "responsibility thing" again, it's easier to blame your (usually someone else's of course) radio for putting conservative babble on, kind of like those "assault weapons" that go around on their own killing people.

Other people complaining about Apple:


And my Google search for the lazy. Clicking on the news header is also educational.

Labels: , , , ,