Quote:
Originally Posted by jsarno
I don't think that would ever happen. Too many gun owners would protest it. We'd have a prohibition on our hands.
|
I agree. Even if permitted by the Court, I doubt State's would act to do so. Further, the day after such a restrictive decision came out, calls for a new amendment would also be out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsarno
But to answer your question for shits and giggles, I would absolutely disobey it. The supreme court would be wrong for doing so, and I refuse to allow them to tell me how to protect myself.
|
So, your calls for respecting the Constitution and the Founder's intent is only true when the system they enacted results in a decision with which you agree. If the system enacted by the Founder's results in what
you determine to be an infringement of your rights, you are then free to ignore it?
So much for your much vaunted "Rules are the Rules" arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsarno
If they made a ruling to disallow all security systems in vehicles, homes, and work related, would you comply?.
|
Fair question, and, honestly, not sure how to answer it. I think I would try to comply with the letter of the law while: a) finding every loophole possible in both it's wording and intent; and b) actively working to change it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsarno
ps- if the government decided to do something so blantently stupid, then what is next? Be very careful when the government starts enforcing what THEY THINK is best for you. That's a nasty slippery slope, and I feel would be the beginning of the end of this country.
|
<sigh> It seems as if everything is a slippery slope to you. Every day, and in every action it takes "the government" is enforcing what "they think is best for you". Speed limits? Pollution controls? Food inspection requiremnts? Sanitation controls? who to tax and how much? How much to charge for postage? How to prioritize government spending? The list is f***'ing endless. [As a personal example: Should I settle the case I am working on? Should I pursue it to litigation? Which is in the best interests of the public (i.e. what outcome is best for you)?]
With all due respect, the fundamental flaw in almost all your arguments is that you continually assert/assume that "the government" is some separate entity that exists free and clear of the society that both created and supports it. You seem to constantly view the government as an opponent of the society that created it. To some extent, it is because - as the saying goes - you can't please all the people all the time. BUT, that is only half the equation. It is also works on behalf of every individual who comprises it. It does not exist in a void or separate from the governed.
To continually assert that things are going down a slippery slope is to ignore the fundamental responsiveness of the government created by the Founders. They created a system that continually balances the tension between 1) a society's need to have a governing body to ensure the goal of maximum individual freedom 2) the need for that governing body to have authority to limit individual freedom in order to effectuate that goal. The government created by the Founders is sometimes slow, awkward or seemingly out of touch, but it has historically balanced these tensions by always being government "of the people, by the people and for the people." As such, the extreme swings of governmental authority you seem to envision are simply removed from the reality of the government we have created for ourselves.