Seeker of Truth
06-12-2003, 05:30 PM
No Gun Laws - Period
By Lewis J. Goldberg
It's a familiar cry - 'Enforce the 20,000 gun laws already on the books!' This is considered by conservatives to be the commonsense approach to crime prevention, as opposed to drafting and passing new legislation to deal with the allegedly rampant gun violence in this nation - a typically liberal response to the problem of gun violence.
But is advocating enforcement of current laws really a conservative position? Rather let us ask another question - how is it 'conservative' to support the existence of laws enacted by antigun socialists? Do laws attain 'conservatism' once passed, making it virtuous to support them, regardless of the consequences? The only answer to these questions is no, no, and no.
Our glorious, dead-letter Constitution states that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Is the definition of 'uninfringed' equal to 'up to 20,000 laws, but no more than?' I know this will infuriate the nanny-statist heathens in Washington, DC, but 'not infringed' means if you're tall enough to put your money on the counter, you can have a gun. That also means convicted felons can and should be able to own firearms.
Goldberg...you've gone nuts! No, let us examine this issue [and I did this before, a few years ago, but it bears repeating.] Our nation was built on private ownership of firearms. You may hate guns, but were it not for them, you would not be here today to whine about them. Being that it is the right of every free man to own weapons, if a man cannot be trusted with a weapon upon release from prison, he should not be let out. This fundamentally simple concept speaks volumes about the failure of our judicial system to hand out punishments consistent with the crimes committed.
More @ sierratimes.com (http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/11/goldberg.htm)
By Lewis J. Goldberg
It's a familiar cry - 'Enforce the 20,000 gun laws already on the books!' This is considered by conservatives to be the commonsense approach to crime prevention, as opposed to drafting and passing new legislation to deal with the allegedly rampant gun violence in this nation - a typically liberal response to the problem of gun violence.
But is advocating enforcement of current laws really a conservative position? Rather let us ask another question - how is it 'conservative' to support the existence of laws enacted by antigun socialists? Do laws attain 'conservatism' once passed, making it virtuous to support them, regardless of the consequences? The only answer to these questions is no, no, and no.
Our glorious, dead-letter Constitution states that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Is the definition of 'uninfringed' equal to 'up to 20,000 laws, but no more than?' I know this will infuriate the nanny-statist heathens in Washington, DC, but 'not infringed' means if you're tall enough to put your money on the counter, you can have a gun. That also means convicted felons can and should be able to own firearms.
Goldberg...you've gone nuts! No, let us examine this issue [and I did this before, a few years ago, but it bears repeating.] Our nation was built on private ownership of firearms. You may hate guns, but were it not for them, you would not be here today to whine about them. Being that it is the right of every free man to own weapons, if a man cannot be trusted with a weapon upon release from prison, he should not be let out. This fundamentally simple concept speaks volumes about the failure of our judicial system to hand out punishments consistent with the crimes committed.
More @ sierratimes.com (http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/11/goldberg.htm)