You call it a privilege, the Constitution calls it a right.

Post #57,772 by Brandioch 10/19/02 12:38:38 AM Reply	You call it a privilege, the Constitution calls it a right. I'll stick to the 2nd Amendment. Thank you very much. Do you think driving is a privilege? Depends upon what I'm driving and where and whether I'm intoxicated or not and so forth. Hell FREE SPEECH is a privilege - there are libel laws. No. Free speech is a right. But, because it is a right, does NOT mean that anything you say cannot be actionable under law. Just as gun ownership is a right, but that doesn't mean you can shoot anyone you want to. Traceable ammunition is clearly in the public interest. You keep claiming this DESPITE it being shown how the criminals would quickly avoid any links to themselves AND being shown how it would turn currently legal activities into illegal activities. Again, we SHOULD have learned this lesson from Prohibition. It doesn't say regulation of dangerous things cannot be done in the public interest, to the extent the "several states" deem necessary. Just as we outlawed the dangerous substance of demon rum. And firmly established the Mafia. Because it is LEGAL to pass some laws does NOT make such laws INTELLIGENT nor EFFECTIVE.
Post #57,784 by deSitter 10/19/02 2:07:25 AM Reply	Re: You call it a privilege, the Constitution calls it You talk as if the world is crawling with master criminals. It isn't - most crooks are plain stupid. Also - blindly mouthing the words of the Constitution without understanding what makes it alive, is worse than ignoring it in some ways. I pointed out that the very people who wrote the damn thing engaged in a bitter struggle to encapsulate the idea of a living, changing Federation according to their own predelictions and level of suspicion. Yet you simply state "it's a right" as if that made the problem disappear. The reason the Consititution is malleable is that the framers understood that things were certain to change and the government must be able to adapt itself to changing needs within defining limits. -drl
Post #57,789 by Ashton 10/19/02 3:41:49 AM Reply	I agree that was their vision. They might even have conceived of.. periods of fainthearted uninvolved people / or ravening Yahoos administering the Republic (with trepidation, we can assume). The point was for the Republic to survive but NOT... under ANY condition imaginable! ergo: the stated condition(s) for revolution. If we accept that today, persons of the calibre of the founders are not the ones in charge [is that even debatable?] then this Sterling document still applies even unto the dissolution of a present administration, one which trends toward an Authoritarian Theological state - thus may even lead to a need for this extreme action. In this present environment, it is reasonable to expect that which you are disappointed to see - a more formatory, more rigid interpretation rather than the more flexible one we would expect and would choose: were this a nation of informed, participating citizens whose leaders are capable of leadership and wise restraint simultaneously. More simply: we can survive fucked leadership.. to some (unknown) degree, for a time - even with non-participating sheep. But 'Rights' during an arid period must be asserted more forcibly and described more simply - in opposition to the banal cant of the Authoritarians and opportunists (who are ever amongst us in any age). My take, Ashton
Post #57,792 by imric 10/19/02 6:21:56 AM Reply	Then get it repealed. That's the built-in flexibility. Don't hold your breath, though. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #57,898 by Brandioch 10/19/02 10:17:24 PM Reply	Then have it changed. Yes, I am stating that it is a right. And that is all I need to state. Until the Constitution itself is changed.

Welcome to IWETHEY!