QOD

Filed in National by on August 13, 2008

If I support a law does that make me anti (insert law I support)?

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. mike w. says:
    August 13, 2008 at 11:50 am

    No. It does not. It depends upon the impact and breadth of the laws you support. Specifically, whether or not they’re discriminatory, as a large number of gun laws / proposed gun laws are.

    For example, this assertion that “what works in Chicago doesn’t necessarily work in Topeka” approach that the Democrats take to gun laws is inherently discriminatory and anti-rights. If Constitutional Rights apply, they apply equally everywhere in the USA. We don’t deny muslims their rights simply because of the threat of terrorism. Similarly we shouldn’t deny people 2A rights simply because of crime in their communities

    I support laws requiring people to show ID in order to vote. That doesn’t mean I’m “anti-voting” Why? It’s narrowly tailored, not particularly burdensome, and serves a legitimate state interest. It is also not discriminatory, as it applies equally to ALL Americans.

    I support a minimum age for buying alcohol, that doesn’t mean I’m anti-alcohol. I also support laws against libel & slander, but that doesn’t mean I’m anti-free speech. What it means is I believe there need to be limitations on speech that directly harms others.

    Nothing is absolute, but we need to give citizens the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Constitutional rights and not support a myriad of a priori restrictions upon said rights.

  2. mike w. says:
    August 13, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Also, read my comment at the other post about the stated goals of gun-control groups in this country.

  3. mike w. says:
    August 13, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    And really, you would think that gun control in the UK, in DC, Chicago, etc. would have proven to you folks by now that gun control is a failed philosophy that has done nothing more than disarm the law abiding and made them dependent on the State for protection

    Of course, they’re now made dependent on the State for protection, and the State has no obligation to protect them. Making individuals dependent on the state is exactly what they want. Gun control isn’t really about guns, it’s about the government’s ability to exert control over it’s citizens…. (subjects?) Armed, independent citizens are harder to control.

  4. Duffy says:
    August 13, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    If you support a law that completely bans (de jure or de facto) the activity or thing then yes. Otherwise, no.

  5. mike w. says:
    August 13, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    And if you support a myriad of laws that effectively make said right so difficult & expensive to practice that it’s for all intents & purposes no longer a right that’s effectively a de facto ban.

  6. nemski says:
    August 13, 2008 at 1:21 pm

    Hmm, asked in another way, I could probably answer the question.

    For instance, I’m for a woman’s right to choose, but I’m personally against abortion.

    For instance, I believe in free speech, but I’m personally against the KKK marching through Newark, DE.

  7. mike w. says:
    August 13, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Yes, but we’re talking about laws, not ones moral compass. I wouldn’t want Nazi’s or the KKK marching in Delaware but I’d still defend their right to do so no matter how despicable I find their message.

    Even if you don’t like guns you should still rally against gun control and support the rights of your fellow Americans. Someday you may want (or need) to exercize that right, no matter how inconceivable that may seem right now. (and if you’ve not defended your rights you may be stuck asking for a “permit” to exercize it and be unable to do so. Likewise, one day your safety might depend on your fellow citizen being armed. You should defend their 2nd Amendment rights with all the fervor with which you defend their other rights.

  8. mike w. says:
    August 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    “For example, this assertion that “what works in Chicago doesn’t necessarily work in Topeka” approach that the Democrats take to gun laws is inherently discriminatory and anti-rights. If Constitutional Rights apply, they apply equally everywhere in the USA”

    to further expand on this point. It’s really quite an Ironic stance for the Democrats to take, given their openly racist history. Their current stance on guns as outlined above is akin to saying “You northerners can free the slaves, but things are different here in the south, so we’ve got to keep our blacks in bondage.”

  9. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 13, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    thank you Duffy and Nemski…

  10. mike w. says:
    August 13, 2008 at 2:03 pm

    Thank you DBB for adding the type of useless response I’ve come to expect from you.

  11. mike w. says:
    August 13, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    DBB – if you supported poll taxes and literacy exams for blacks you’d be “pro-voter laws” but most certainly against the rights of blacks.

  12. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 13, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    u love to try to prove that you are right don’t you little guy

  13. mike w. says:
    August 13, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    Well we already know you are wrong. I just like to fully explain my position, which is something you’d know nothing about.

  14. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 13, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    I know all you about trying to explain your position. more words dont’ mean you are right.

  15. mike w says:
    August 13, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    Your continued inability to explain your positions (and refute mine) says all I need to know about the validity of your arguments (if you can call half the crap you post an “argument”)

  16. Not Brian says:
    August 13, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    Mike –
    I love guns. Don’t own one, mostly because I don’t want one in my home for safety reasons. I grew up shooting and hunting. My pop was a NJ Trooper, I went and practiced combat shooting with him on the weekends in my childhood. I go up to Targetmaster every now and then to put a couple hundred rounds through the MP5 they have… I understand the gun thing…

    I am also a strong defender of constitutional rights, and I think the 2nd amendment is important.

    I also think that boiling down the entire gun control discussion down to a polemic rant over the merits of the constitution is a cop out, ignoring the fact that there is a legitimate public policy concern.

    I am anti-gun control from the perspective of disallowing citizens from purchasing handguns for self-defense and/or rifles and shotguns for hunting. Unlike most liberals I am not too worried about assault weapons (expensive and large, not that many of them out there, they are not used all that often in commission of crimes – scary, but not a significant problem today).

    I am worried that guns need to be registered and ownership tracked. I am worried that we need effective laws to keep people from straw purchasing weapons. I am worried that we need to close all loopholes around the purchasing/trading of weapons at gun shows. I am worried that existing gun laws need to be properly enforced and that there need to be gun laws that are not designed to make the gun lobby happy with sales but to make things safer.

    I think the purely constitutional argument ignores some rather egregious loopholes in the ways guns are regulated and ignores simple steps that could be taken to help identify bullets fired by a weapon (a registry of the rifling marks of when they leave the factory) to make the weapon used in a crime more likely to be traceable (to stop straw purchasing).

    Whatever perceived limitations you see in DBB’s arguments (or lack thereof) I have to say that your discussions on this site have been rather two dimensional. I accept your constitutional argument. Now, rather than parroting a very tired point (which I agree with), how about common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children? How about taking the argument away from the anti-gun people by supporting healthy limited regulation rather than throw your hands up and declare any regulation as unconstitutional (I have a first amendment right – it is not unlimited).

    Anyway, I am a casual reader of this blog and I see your name on posts about gun control or some unrelated topic that somehow gets back to gun control… if you are going to contribute that much please come up with something a little more nuanced and relevant… stop grinding that axe… you only encourage DBB…

    God knows he requires no encouragement…

  17. mike w. says:
    August 13, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    Several of the worries you’ve discussed are misguided and incorrect. I’ll go into detail later.

    Several of the fixes are likewise misguided. For one, the “ballistics fingerprinting” you suggest does not, has not, and cannot solve crimes. Nor does registration and licensing. This is supported by the countries and U.S. states which employ such policies.

  18. mike w. says:
    August 13, 2008 at 11:40 pm

    Also, if my comments appear 2 dimensional it’s because DTB pushed me into a yes / no response by his total inability to understand nuance or basic points.

    Duffy summed it up well in Comment #4

    “If you support a law that completely bans (de jure or de facto) the activity or thing then yes. Otherwise, no.”

  19. Not Brian says:
    August 13, 2008 at 11:45 pm

    Please do. And please don’t insult my intelligence (as I read your objection to this in your comments to everyone on the site)… no cherry picking stats…

    Am I to assume from your comments above that you believe in a 100% free market with no restriction on any aspect of gun ownership?

  20. mike w. says:
    August 13, 2008 at 11:52 pm

    “Am I to assume from your comments above that you believe in a 100% free market with no restriction on any aspect of gun ownership?”

    Not at all. See comment #1.

  21. Not Brian says:
    August 14, 2008 at 12:02 am

    Saw it.

    Booze, Voting, Muslims, First Amendment… nothing about guns…

    I think most gun control organizations are are as wildly myopic, one-sided peddlers of polemic arguments as are the NRA…

    Give me an idea of what you think could reduce gun violence (or why it is nothing too be concerned with).

  22. mike w. says:
    August 14, 2008 at 12:32 am

    “Nothing is absolute, but we need to give citizens the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Constitutional rights and not support a myriad of a priori restrictions upon said rights.”

    This is what I was referring to.

    I consider “gun violence” a meaningless term. Violent crime is the issue. Why single out gun violence as some separate entity? Is violent crime any different because the tool used to perpetrate said predatory violence was something other than a gun?

    I’m as much a fan of increasing public safety as you are, I just disagree with gun control as a means to that end. This is especially true when gun control has not been shown to decrease violent crime nor make individuals demonstratively safer.

    My example of denying religious freedom to muslims because of the threat of terrorism was meant to show the fallacy of the “public safety” argument as applied to the 2A.

    I also believe that rights trump “public safety” concerns. That is not to say rights are absolute, but that government must show why it has a compelling need to curtail said rights. It must show that it’s restrictions will actually serve that government interest and must make that restriction as narrow as possible. A priori restrictions of 2A rights goes against this principle (a principle we use for 1A rights)

    The burden of proof is on the government to prove why I should be restricted in the exercise of my rights, not on me to prove why I should be “allowed” to exercise them.

    I’m going to bed. I’ll go into more detail later.

«
»