tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post5116862942831220491..comments2023-10-16T07:06:52.428-05:00Comments on Armed and Safe: Is there a legal term for 'shmackdown'?Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post-19270312776607550892008-02-06T16:09:00.000-06:002008-02-06T16:09:00.000-06:00Indeed, how sad a day it would be that Americans a...Indeed, how sad a day it would be that Americans again have to fire on Americans to defend their Constitutional rights. God spare us from this, but if it must be, bless us all with your Grace is such a terrible time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post-43931428888335524612008-02-05T20:53:00.000-06:002008-02-05T20:53:00.000-06:00Excellent. Thanks for the update.I like this part:...Excellent. Thanks for the update.<BR/><BR/>I like this part:<BR/><BR/><I>"Removing the Constitutional protection from a fundamental human right of the individual does not cause that right to cease to exist..."</I><BR/><BR/>And Locke would argue that if the government violates its contract by ignoring the law, then the people are no longer obligated to follow further edicts from the violators. Not that this is part of our system of law, but it's certainly the <I>moral</I> thing to do.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I realize this is outside of the scope of the case, but D.C. is certainly <I>not</I> the only area of the country to totally ban arms, as mentioned in the link above. There are also de facto bans, such as a municipality that requires licensure, but denies a vast majority of the applicants. This is not equal application of the law. (Not to mention "gun free" zones, which prevent me from carrying even though I sought express permission from the state to do so -- and regardless of the state's constitutional guarantee of my rights, where the only permission that should be sought is mine, so that I may negotiate for my liberty.)<BR/><BR/>I realize that they have to treat The Abomination of 1939 as precedent, but the federal government was granted no power to determine purpose, and titling the playing field toward the party with which you are associated is not only corrupt, but also unequal application of the law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post-38038612222497274552008-02-05T16:28:00.000-06:002008-02-05T16:28:00.000-06:00Oh, no argument here, AE--the RKBA has plenty of c...Oh, no argument here, AE--the RKBA has plenty of company in the disappearing Constitutional rights category.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post-73222402290656076802008-02-05T16:18:00.000-06:002008-02-05T16:18:00.000-06:00To be fair to the gun-grabbers: the govt has been ...To be fair to the gun-grabbers: the govt has been working damned hard to 'write off' other bits of the Bill Of Rights via law and administrative fiat. <BR/><BR/>Asset forfeiture if allegations of drug crime are made, and the 'anti-terror' wire tapping fiascoes come immediately to mind as examples. <BR/><BR/>The difference of course: those have (mostly) be attempted against people w/o the willingness to shoot back. <BR/><BR/>AEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com