BasicGreatGuy
Aut libertas aut mors
I believe in strict constructionism, but I also believe in the natural law. Just because a law is constitutional doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't agree with the income tax and believe the 16th Amendment should be repealed immediately. Just because New York has the right to enact a law, under the Constitution, restricting the right to bear arms doesn't mean it's not unjust and in violation of the natural law. Slavery was certainly unjust, but it was sanctioned by the Constitution. The point is, where the Constitution or state law goes against the natural law it is unjust and should be changed.
Said store owner was not prevented by law (natural or otherwise) from protecting himself and his property Kevin. That is a fact. The gun restriction in his state was properly ratified and is congruent with strict constructionism. You can't rightfully state you believe in something, and then proceed to argue against it, which is what you are doing with me Kevin.
Until and unless you can show that the state law was not properly ratified, in violation of its own state constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, you have no solid ground for retort. All you have is emotional dislike. And as you and I both know, that doesn't cut it when we are talking about the Constitution.
The law is not unjust as you keep claiming. The employers of said state had the right and power to make their voices heard, in regards to the proposed law and its subsequent ratification. How can you claim said law is unjust, when the people of that state have exercised their rights, and those rights under that law are congruent with the Constitution of the United States?
This is a classic argument for the "Tyranny of the Majority." Just because a majority of New York's population, through their elected officials, may want gun restrictions doesn't mean that it's right to do so. The rights of the minority must be defended as well. Those calling for this man's prosecution are saying that because the state of New York said so this man doesn't have the right to defend himself from criminals. No one can take away somebody's natural rights, which includes the right to self-defense.
You appear to be inferring that I am making a case for tyranny of the majority. Where in the world did you get that from with my posts? Do tell. You are making an emotional appeal, to use as the mortar for the foundation of your argument.
1) You agreed with me that the II Amendment restricts only the federal government, and not the individual states.
2) The people of said state exercised their rights under their state constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States. In exercising their rights, they made decisions that you and I do not agree with.
3) The rights spoken of in point two do not violate their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States.
4) The law in question does not prevent a citizen of said state from protecting themselves and their property in any manner.
With all that in mind, tell me how the law in that state is unjust from a constitutional standpoint. If you were to file suit in that state, what would be the point of standing for your suit? Would it be "it is unjust because I don't like it" ? That is your defense thus far. That doesn't cut it in a court of law. If you have a defense to make, that doesn't involve using the heart strings as your subject matter, lets see it.
Last edited: