Communitarians, Neorepublicans, and Guns: Assessing the Case for Firearms Prohibition

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/commun1.htm ^ | 3/14/03 | Maryland Law Review

[Roscoe]

An erroeous opinion

Beg on.

"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."

Repealing National Prohibition by David Kyvig, Copyright 1979 by the University of Chicago

[apeman81]

This article is quite a load. At least the paper its written can be used to wipe.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Two words, "MOLON LABE".

[Abundy]

It is a great read - I posted this once before.

Especially enlightening is the discussion regarding the breakdown of law enforcement and military if an order was given to seize all privately-owned firearms.

Regards...

[tpaine]

"I posted this once before."


Ahhh, -- the light is dawning on why we were lumped together by our 'Communitarian, Neorepublican' friend last night. -- They must be fighting words, in his book....

[oyez]

The Terrifying Second Amendment,Terrifing to a central government run amuck.

The the 2nd Ammendment is one of the few tools that would hold the government to honesty or accountablity. Once the people are unarmed the state is free plunder what it wants. We all know that, but the gun grabers, concerned about the public safety(yeah, right) will tell any lie to divert the less informed public from knowing the intent of the law.

[Liberal Classic]

Where's the barf alert? ;)

[Abundy]

You need to actually read the article - it is pro-second amendment and anti-confiscation.

[Liberal Classic]

I've been snookered by sarcasm, have I?

[Abundy]

Probably...don't judge it by the title (I did at firstwhen I was researching my own grad paper on the second amendment...but since I was reading as much as I could, both pro and con I quickly learned the error of my first impression.) - read it and decide for yourself.

[nbritt]

I have been saying that from day one. As soon as the second admendment goes the rest are undefended. You can say bye bye to the freedom of speach and religion. I figure it will go in this order

Liberals take up:
1. Guns
2. Free Speach (which only liberals have because conservatives are frowned on when the exercise theirs)
3. Religion

after they take up our religion they will have most American people eating right out of their hand.

It sickens me to think things have gotten this bad.

[FreedomCalls]

Perhaps the best way to proceed, if nationwide domestic disarmament cannot be achieved immediately, is to introduce it in some major part of the country, say, the Northeast. That will allow everyone to see the falsity of the NRA's beloved statement that criminals kill people, not guns. . . . The rapid fall in violent crime sure to follow will make ever more states demand that domestic disarmament be extended to their region.

What the ...? The rest of the states are tripping over themselves to liberalize gun laws after the fiasco of gun bans in DC, NYC, and Detroit.