The reasons liberals seeks to restrict gun rights is simple. They basically don't trust "the people" because not all "the people" have the same exalted ideas they do. No one has ever been able to explain to me why the use of that phrase - "the people" - secures individual rights everywhere else in the Bill of Rights but not the Second Amendment. Moreover, while I realize there were changes in the order of the various amendments, no one has commented to my knowledge on the fact we're talking about the Second Amendment, whereas the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and so on is the Fourth amendment. Obviously, the Framers thought gun rights were kind of important, don't you think?
(I don't now whether they don't trust "the people". They sure don't seem to trust "the people" who don't precisely agree with them. I still don't understand why they seek expansion of rights, or rather the justification of non-specified rights, based on the Bill of Rights, yet something that is specifically expressed, e.g. the right to bear arms, is something to be restricted. Something else bothers me. While I wholeheartedly support of police departments in the fight against criminal activity, I have an uneasy feeling when the police are on the side of restricting rights. Sure, let's prohibit the sale of teflon bullets whose only purpose is to penetrate police bullet proof vests. But I have a degree of unease when the police are in favor of measures that smack of totalitarianism.
That being said, I have issues with the so-called "Handschue Agreement" which prohibits the NYC police form gathering certain intelligence information. Recent court decisions have prohibited the police from filming publicly held events. This goes far beyond the insertion of police into lawful political organizations for the purpose of collecting intelligence. -- TRM)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment