An editorial in today’s New York Times notes that

The right of habeas corpus is so central to the American legal system that it has its own clause in the Constitution: it cannot be suspended except “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Yup.

Of course, the right to keep and bear arms is so central to the American legal system that it has not just its own clause but its own Amendment, which is even more absolutist in affording no exceptions to the stipulation that the right “shall not be infringed.“

Pity The Times isn’t willing to grant law-abiding citizens as much constitutional protection as alleged enemy combatants. But then there’s a lot of that going around.

I guess that means they’re sincerely wrong.

I thought that concept had gone out of style and been replaced by the wrong = fascist oil whore liar murderer narrative.

I actually enjoy the comedians but I’m also mature enough to realize that they’re nothing more than glorified class clowns. Good for a laugh but in the end, merely a distraction from the serious business at hand.

“the most cultually influential among us are fake people who get their opinions from comedians on a fake news show.“

I’m sorry to tell you this Roger, but that is one of the stupidest things I have heard from anyone in a very long time. At the risk of making excuses for you, I will just assume you did not mean that statement literally, just another expression of your boundless and bottomless contempt for those who don’t think the same way you do.

Corrections:

1) the culturally influential do not watch that show; they appear on it as guests;
2) the only thing remotely hip about it is the fact it attracts young people, who in our society are the definition of “hip” - the show itself is kinda geeky;
3) no one I know of gets their opinions from comedians - in fact, people who get their opinions from any source other than themselves, including their pastor or spiritual leader, scare me;

(people incapable of thinking for themselves are scary people)

4) it isn’t a fake news show - it is political satire and comedy (often not in good taste though) - there is very little or no news on the show.
5) “These comedians might be morally wrong but at least they are sincere about it.“ - Starlight had the only true statement of the lot.  That one statement is correct.

Good frank post R. Smith. But I think its just as well hip people get their opinion from comedians on fake news shows. These comedians might be morally wrong but at least they are sincere about it.

As opposed to our local opinion source, the editorial page, which now bends over backwards trying to appease the scum it once had the courage to disparage. All for the sake of trying to sell an extra 20 newspapers per year.

Satan is surely laughing about the fantastic deal he’s getting on their souls.

Starlight,

It’s the Zeitgeist. That literally translates into “spirit of the times”.

Right now we’re in the middle of one of those freak historic periods where up is down, in is out and the most cultually influential among us are fake people who get their opinions from comedians on a fake news show.

So, stop thinking and just follow the crowd. Hipness is everything. Live for today…let someone else worry about tomorrow.

Several things strike me about the conversation here and this issue in general. The one most bothersome is that those of you advocating rights for Guantanamo detainees (the self-appointed advocates include A. Barton Hinkle, apparently) claim to be acting out of concern for the Constitution of the United States. Many times, these same advocates (which of course includes the Libertarian Party) profess to be ‘doing the work of Thomas Jefferson’.

And this is where I begin laughing, sometimes hysterically.

Although I can’t prove it, I believe that if Mr. Thomas Jefferson were alive today he would scald you advocates of terror detainees:

“No, no, no…YOU FOOLS! This is NOT what we meant at all!“

While a surrealistic thought, seriously give it some as you doze off to sleep tonight.

Forgive me but I still can’t grasp why the Guantanamo detainees are the one & only example people are using, for a textbook case of how to properly adhere to the constitution.

Is this the only time that we’ve ever side-stepped the constitution? Or are these detainees really really special folks? Maybe —and I suspect I’m right—maybe this Guantanamo example is being pushed by people who are already viciously anti-government anarchists.

You know, people who falsely label themselves “patriots” (as Art Bell once pointed-out) when in fact they are a breed of domestic anti-Americans and/or terrorists.

“All rights are subject to limitations and rights and should be put in context.“

Huh?  Exsqueeze me?  Baking powder?  What the heck does that mean?  We need to interpret the Bill of Rights as is expedient to current needs? 
“If the Second Amendment is so clear cut, why is it so much debate about it.“

Because people who are afraid of guns and want government-assued “security” or “safety” want to interpret it in a way that gun bans are legal, which they clearly and plainly are not.  A lot of the debate is disingenuous and completely self-serving on the behalf of the Brady Campaign and others like them.

Read the contemporaneous writings of the men who were involved in the drafting of the original instrument and who were involved in the debate at the time, and you will see there is no question, no debate over the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.  Government officials, regulators and squeechy anti-gun activists have created the artificial “debate” over what the Second Amendment means.  Its meaning actually is quite simple and clear, once you know your history and what those who wrote it said it means.

“But if the second Amendment is so absolute then why are felons not allowed guns when they are released?“

Because no right is “absolute.“  With great liberties come great responsibilities.  Some are unable to live up to those responsibilities.  You have the right to remain free from unreasonable searches and siezures, but that is not an absolute right - if the police are able to articulate facts that create a reasonable suspicion you are engaged in criminal behavior, they can detain and frisk you.  You have the right to peacefully assemble and to freedom of speech, but you can be held accountable for libel and slander and riot.  You have the inherent right to life, liberty and property, but if you commit crimes, you can be imprisoned, your property forfeit and sold and in extreme cases you can be put to death.  But to do so requires due process. 

A convicted felon loses many rights, including the right to privacy, the right to be free from searches and siezures, the right to travel freely, and the right to basic liberty - and as you mention, the right to keep and bear firearms.  But that person has had due process by being convicted in a court of law of his or her felony.

“There is a right to bear arms but guns can also be used in crimes.“

As can cars, hammers, screwdrivers, baseball bats, lamp cords, shoelaces, duct tape, knives, rope, plastic sheets, crowbars, and just about anything.  See above re: the responsibility that accompanies inherent rights.  Speech can be used in crimes, as well - as in various types of fraud and larceny. 
“Wave the flag,carry the cross, watch the July 4th parade and not even understand what the Constitution stands for or why.“

Including the Second Amendment.

Margie: We are letting WHAT slip away??? I don’t feel we have a grasp on anything “just” here to begin with. Do you feel we’ve got everything under control here locally?

I don’t. And yet we should divert our focus to terror suspects in Guantanamo???

Bobo,

People fight over the Second Amendment for the same reason they fight over all the rest…to gain ideological advantage.

For example, the First Amendment says we have the right to free speech but it’s not absolute. Since it’s not absolute, people will forever dicker around the egdes. At least until you guys pass the Kennedy-Orwell Mind Crimes Act, then most speech will be illegal…like it is in Canada.

The Founders foresaw this. That’s why they penned the Second Amendment. Like I said…it ain’t about shootin’ squirrels.

When you stop caring about the basic concepts of justice except when it applies to you or your neighbors, you are letting it slowly slip away. You may be next on the list of people to whom it does not apply.

When our national principles are sacrificed chasing the Holy Grail of security, when an innocent can acceptably be held without even a hearing in our courts to determine if he is being held legally, when he can be detained for years without being charged or tried by a tribunal mainly concerned with security, not justice or innocence, we are all in jeopardy. What will they consider necessary to sacrifice next?

I don’t need a huge intelect to know the difference between right and wrong and when we abandon our principles out of fear, nations crumble.

Post Your Comments: