I'm not going to get into the details of the debate but I will state that the hypocrisy of the left is something that never fails to impress me.
For example, since 9/11/01, the left has been screaming about the suspension of civil liberties and the elimination of constitutional protections. Even if we take their arguments as factually and legally correct, how can one reconcile their position on things like a person's right to associate with terrorists with their position on firearms ownership by individuals?
There is a very clear constitutional provision that guarantees individuals the right to own firearms. Yes, there is some debate on the meaning of the first clause, but any sane person knows that the phrase "well regulated" meant "ready for use" and not "cobbled by laws and restrictions".
Anyway, I'm not going to get into this legal argument right now, but I want to ask this question. Why is the doctrine of "prior restraint" so important when it comes to the first amendment but not when it comes to the second amendment.
I KNOW that there is no judicial history of using the concept of prior restraint for the second amendment, but I'm asking why, in concept, should prior restraint be such an evil when it comes to the right to speech but not when it comes to the right to bear arms?
If we regulated speech as we regulated guns the law would be nothing BUT prior restraint. We'd silence all muslims since some muslims are terrorists. We'd silence all blacks since some blacks commit crimes. In fact, just about everyone would be silenced simply because they belong to a class that has had individual violations in the past.
The attempts to ban all weapons of a certain type is nothing more than prior restraint of a constitutional right and I don't understand why it is such a favored tactic of Democrats, especially since they are the ones who scream about this when it happens to speech.
I guess it all comes down to the fact that the Democrats deal in hypocrisy.
Speaking of which, the NY Times gets the award for "unclear on the concept" for this editorial today. Apparently they haven't noticed the disconnect between their love of all gun bans and their fear of an over-reaching government...this is about as clear an example imaginable of why the individual right to own firearms is so important and the editors of the NY Times simply can't connect the dots that they drew.
Let me connect the dots: THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT AGAINST THIS POSSIBILITY AND YOU FUCKERS ARE CALLING FOR IT TO BE ELIMINATED.
February 19, 2007
Making Martial Law Easier
A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.
The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.
The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”
Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.
There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.