The thing with the tin-foil hat crowd is that politicians try their awfulÂ damnedestÂ to make their paranoid delusions a reality. This is one of those cases. The article also has a great quote from Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia:
He added, “People are being killed every day in the United States of America with illegal weapons. I love the 2nd Ammendment. [But], I have a 1st Ammendment right not to be shot.”
I’m pretty sure the copy of the First Amendment I memorized in school didn’t say anything about a right not to be shot. Right to free speech? Check. Freedom of religion? Check. Freedom toÂ peaceablyÂ assemble? That’s in there too. But not be shot? Peaceably assemble without being shot maybe? I hate to tell you this Mike, but the guys getting shot and doing the shooting in your city are, shall we say, assembling for the purposes of furthering the unlicensed pharmaceutical business, for the most part. Last I checked that wasn’t peaceable.
But back to the original issue. It’s clear that the ICJ in theÂ Hague doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear the kind of case Mayor Daley wants to bring (against gun manufacturers), unless he’s egging other countries to challenge the US in the ICJ, but the US doesn’t accept compulsory ICJ jurisdiction. Then again, I don’t have a lot of faith Barry wouldn’t play along with thisÂ charade.
11 thoughts on “The Tin Foil Hat Crowd Will LOVE This”
And does the third amendment somehow trump the fourth amendment, in NuttersWorld ™?
I am still just flabbergasted at the utter cheekiness of the whole thing.
Is Daley trying to push the Dems onto the third rail that they’ve been studiously avoiding at a national level for six years now, or what? Is he that worried about the outcome of McDonald?
Is he ignorant (ok, rhetorical) that the decision in McDonald will apply to all of Illinois (indeed, ALL of the United States)? A law that McDonald finds unconstitutional in Chicago will be illegal everywhere.
No, it is nice rhetoric. You see FIRST comes before SECOND. So that makes it more important, seemingly.* Of course what he talks about is not there. A right to be unharmed world be Amendment Nine if anything. And even that does not bring government compulsion.
But darn-it-all his rights trump your rights, because-he-said-so.
*FDR was wrong: there is no freedom from fear.
A right to be unharmed would be Amendment Nine.
Tam Said: “Is [Daley] that worried about the outcome of McDonald?”
That’s affirmative. He is. He and many before him have been using the “lack of gun laws” issue as a canard for inaction. Now, it seems, that canard will likely be closed in a very substantial way. Violent crime is one of the main background problems in urban areas (especially Chicago, DC, etc.); it’s generally a very difficult problem, but Daley has ridden the wave of “as long as I call for more gun laws, the people will think I am serious about dealing with the problem.”
Word has it that the many and strong Chicagoland gun control advocates are very worried, and acknowledge that McDonald might fundamentally change their game … their modus operandi.”
Course they will still scream for gun control … but the people will realize it’s for naught because it’s been taken off the table.
I am hopeful for some real change in this area …
Cut Nutter a break: if he is shot and killed he will no longer be able to access the court–a First Amendment right.
So, let me get this straight: If Daley attempts to rape someone, he still has the right not to get shot? Or if he attempts to smash in someone’s head with a hammer? Or smash in someone’s kneecaps with a baseball bat?
Wow! If only governments throughout the world would recognize the “right not to get shot”, we’d be a lot safer!
Well, selling dope might sometimes be peaceable, but it’s not for a redress of grievances against the State.
That unfortunately is our Mayor. Quite the idiot. We call him Squidward. Oy!
Comments are closed.