[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bungalow wrote:
…But for law to be effective, it can’t be biased. I don’t think self defence is in question, but rather the possession of the illegal handgun that is disputed.[/quote]
Yep, you’re darn right. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is a good example. We ALL must follow the law, right? ALL the time.
If you lived in upstate NY in 1854 and provided food or shelter to a runaway slave from Mississippi you were breaking the law.
Yeah, “the law is the law.” Sure thing. Always obey the law.
By the way, I hear the FSA was “effective”; it must not have been biased. And isn’t that all that really matters?[/quote]
So, I wrote out a sarcastic response, only to realize that the humor in it wouldn’t have worked. So I’ll try the direct approach.
The way to get things changed isn’t by flagrantly flouting the law. That’s the route of Sanctuary Cities, which most on the board (myself included) think is a bad idea. Instead, its important to get bad laws changed. Until then, things like this, though doubtlessly the best result of a bad situation, are still illegal.
That said, didn’t McDonald v. Chicago set this to rest by declaring the Chicago Gun Ban illegal? I haven’t heard much about the case in the last little while.[/quote]
McDonald hasn’t had its day yet with the USSC.
Now to your point. Comparing the 2nd Amendment guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is not even remotely comparable to a sanctuary city law.
Tell me, is an 80 year old man who keeps a handgun in his home for self defense flagrantly flouting the law?
What if he said “the law” was the Constitution and the Constitution clearly guarantees his right to arm himself and as far as he is concerned trumps the silly Chicago city ordinance that tries to deny him his right?
Had you been able to speak with him prior to the shooting would you have advised him to discard his weapon and comply with the ordinance?
If you were that hypothetical 1854 New York farmer who found a runaway slave hiding in your barn would you “flagrantly flout the law” by feeding, watering and sheltering him? Or would you say, “It’s important to get bad laws changed. Until then, things like this, though doubtlessly the best result of a bad situation, are still illegal,” and promptly have the US marshals to have him take him away?
Answer those questions for me, Sir Otep the Law Abider.[/quote]
Sure thing.
Your first statement compares the Chicago Gun Ban with the US Constitution. In this, you suggest owning a gun is, in fact, legal, according to the highest law of the land.
Your statement about the hypothetical farmer compares the highest law of the land (the Constitution, and it’s interpretation at the time) with the law of morality.
I want to point out that the US Constitution is correct in the former (according to your ideology) but incorrect in the latter (according to current ethos/popular opinion). I thought that was funny. Neat choice of arguments.
So when you say they’re ‘not only remotely comparable to a sanctuary city law’… I LOL’d. Because its not like you’re being exact with your comparisons either.
But yeah.
My faith would have me be an avid, though non-violent, abolitionist. So I assist a runaway slave with every aid God gave me the ability to bestow. And this has nothing to do with the case at hand.
As for the gentleman in this article, there are probably reasons why he’s stayed in Chicago. Maybe he can’t afford to move. Maybe he has a sentimental attachment to his property or community. Who knows. The point is that, right or wrong, he’s in a tough spot that he knew about well in advance. The ‘Rule of Law’ ceases to be the rule of law if we start playing favorites on who to inflict due process on.
Unless, of course, you beleive some people should be exempt from the law because they agree with your ideology?
