~

E.V. Collier
June 24th, 2009
7:06 am

You’re completely correct in your assessment. Embracing “transnational jurisprudence” would be, to say it very simply, an absolute surrender of U.S. Sovereignty; which would make the Declaration of Independence and the adjoining U.S. Constitution null and void for all practical intents and purposes. In that event, far more is lost than just the right to bear arms.

What I find so oxymoronically inane about this move toward embracing “transnational jurisprudence” is how those that would essentially destroy U.S. Sovereignty – via imposing or superimposing “transnational jurisprudence” – will adamantly in the next breath out of the same mouth denounce secessionists for attempting to destroy the union?

I mean either way, the United States of America under either choice ceases to exist, period. No country, No union !

~

JF McNamara
June 24th, 2009
9:50 am

This condemnation of E.V. Collier’s comment has an added Constitutional oxymoron: That says, it is okay for you to exercise the right to bears arms as long as you don’t reasonably expect to exercise your fourth amendment right to privacy by allowing government to track your arms and thereby you as well; then, concludes in mostly extraneous hyperbole for supporting arguments.

I say…let people be armed with “butter knives”…OR…let us have tanks if we can afford to do so!

I hate EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU who caused a traffic nightmare last night and made many of us miss the first 4 innings of the Yankees-Braves game by backing up I-75 for 2 freaking hours.

Seal the Border, and…

GO, BRAVES !

I’m a born-and-raised New Yorker of Hispanic descent in my mid-20s. As an atheist & a staunch libertarian, I often find myself at odds with both my own, largely Catholic ethnic group and the young hipster liberals who make some parts of my city look as blue as a smurf’s armpit. I used to like democrats until I came to my senses and I’ve never been fond of republicans, especially after their Christian right infestation.

Now that we’ve established how interesting my life is….

@bull-gator:

“Why don’t we just give the keys to the kingdom to the U.N.?”

I assume your implication is that we shouldn’t. I agree with that. In general, though, I feel that economic globalization via free markets, unrestricted trade & international competition is beneficial if not necessary. The problem arises when you try to IMPOSE globalization via legal fiat, curtailing national sovereignty and individual rights. I simply don’t understand why people think we need to forfeit our constitution along with our legal traditions to be more ‘global.’ You can have both national sovereignty and globalization, but that can only happen through voluntary, free market-activities rather than governmental submission to foreign bureaucrats.

@SwedeAtlanta:

“I don’t understand why the gun nuts are so opposed to reasonable regulations regarding firearms. What is wrong with marking and tracking firearms?”

The essence of the 2nd amendment is the ability to RETAIN our guns, not simply the right to acquire them. It is easier for the state to disarm citizens if they know who owns firearms and where those firearms are. ANY MEASURE that facilitates the power of government to confiscate your weaponry is not a ‘reasonable regulation.’

“We mark automobiles using the VIN and track as they move between states including a need to license the vehicle.”

These regulations are not reasonable either, and never have been. Contrary to what Law & Order and CSI would have us all believe, the vehicle-tracking powers you mention are often used in police abuses rather than actual law enforcement. And even though the DMV regularly issues licenses to bad drivers, you cannot bankrupt them with a lawsuit. Why? Because the DMV is a government agency.

“While autos are not designed to kill their use results in countless deaths.”

The mere use of automobiles does not result in countless deaths. Incompetent driving, refusal to obey traffic laws and intoxication is what results in countless deaths.

@Fang1944:

“Never forget that every illegal gun sale is the direct descendant of a legal one.”

Never forget that every illegal gun sale is the direct descendant of a gun law.

I fixed it for you.

@Edwin Burgh:

“Our 1st amendment rights, which are frankly far more important than the current obsession with supposed 2nd-amendment rights to own our own personal military-grad arsenals,…”

That’s like saying the Polish Jews could’ve talked their way out of Auschwitz. Without 2nd amendment rights, you do not have 1st amendment rights, or ANY RIGHTS—-only privileges. There’s a difference.

“Our freedom to assemble is limited by the need for government-issued permits. Our freedom of speech is subject to laws concerning libel and slander, among others. Why should the 2nd amendment be completely and totally free of regulation?”

Such controls on freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are unconstitutional & unreasonable by their very nature. You cannot use other cases of oppression, no matter how longstanding, to justify yet more instances of oppression. Very few tyrannies appear out of nowhere; the process is almost always gradual. In that dark process, one of the key milestones is convincing everyone that the an individual’s right to self-defense must be ‘regulated.’

@EVERYONE WHO IS IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL:

You all want to reduce and eventually eliminate gun violence, which is fine. The problem is that you’re going about it the wrong way. Only a citizenry capable of quickly, easily and cheaply arming themselves will ever significantly lower gun violence.

When examining gun violence both today and over the history of the human species since firearms were invented, you need to stop obsessing over the weapons themselves and start looking at two things:

1. Who’s doing the killing?
2. Who’s getting killed?

Criminals and governments tend to occupy the first group. Would anyone care to take a wildly insightful guess as to who is usually in the second?