Comments on: REFLECTIONS ON McDONALD http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2010/03/04/reflections-on-mcdonald/ Massad Ayoob on Firearms, Self-defense, and the 2nd Amendment Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:58:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Matthew http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2010/03/04/reflections-on-mcdonald/comment-page-1/#comment-3048 Matthew Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:28:16 +0000 http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2010/03/04/reflections-on-mcdonald/#comment-3048 Just as a knitpicky point to some of the stuff read here: When looking at the bill of rights, it is of course important to remember that the amendments don't convey the listed rights, they simply specifically recognize rights that all humans posess from birth. Likewise, those rights have limits..i.e, you have the right to free speach, but you can't yell fire in a crouded theatre. It's tempting to take the bill of rights at face value, particularly when that interpretation serves your own view point. The issue being is that rights have limits, especially when abusing them limits the rights of others. I'm with one of the other posters here, it's my feeling that by upholding the idea that citizens can't be categorically denied handguns, but by not specifically dealing with the "reasonable" limits and restrictions of firearms, this ruling may preserve the letter of the law while doing serious long term dammage to it's spirit. The comment about automatic weapons above is a great example. By not premtively dealing with the specifics of what is both the spirit and letter of the second amendment, we've prolonged a legal battle that could have been clerified in this case and heller. My two cents anyway. Just as a knitpicky point to some of the stuff read here:
When looking at the bill of rights, it is of course important to remember that the amendments don’t convey the listed rights, they simply specifically recognize rights that all humans posess from birth.
Likewise, those rights have limits..i.e, you have the right to free speach, but you can’t yell fire in a crouded theatre.
It’s tempting to take the bill of rights at face value, particularly when that interpretation serves your own view point.
The issue being is that rights have limits, especially when abusing them limits the rights of others.
I’m with one of the other posters here, it’s my feeling that by upholding the idea that citizens can’t be categorically denied handguns, but by not specifically dealing with the “reasonable” limits and restrictions of firearms, this ruling may preserve the letter of the law while doing serious long term dammage to it’s spirit.
The comment about automatic weapons above is a great example.
By not premtively dealing with the specifics of what is both the spirit and letter of the second amendment, we’ve prolonged a legal battle that could have been clerified in this case and heller.
My two cents anyway.

]]> By: Sian http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2010/03/04/reflections-on-mcdonald/comment-page-1/#comment-3029 Sian Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:00:25 +0000 http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2010/03/04/reflections-on-mcdonald/#comment-3029 Paul, Don't be too worried. I'm 35 and I'm right there with you, and I know plenty of other my age and younger who are the same. Personally I escaped California late last year, and now I'm wondering why I didn't do it sooner. Paul,

Don’t be too worried. I’m 35 and I’m right there with you, and I know plenty of other my age and younger who are the same.

Personally I escaped California late last year, and now I’m wondering why I didn’t do it sooner.

]]> By: Denver http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2010/03/04/reflections-on-mcdonald/comment-page-1/#comment-3027 Denver Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:23:06 +0000 http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2010/03/04/reflections-on-mcdonald/#comment-3027 "# Dan A. Says: March 6th, 2010 at 1:40 am Where, in the Constitution, is the Supreme Court granted jurisdiction over disputes between an individual and the government of the city or state in which he lives?" Dan, The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law and can hear any case it chooses. “# Dan A. Says:
March 6th, 2010 at 1:40 am

Where, in the Constitution, is the Supreme Court granted jurisdiction over disputes between an individual and the government of the city or state in which he lives?”

Dan,

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law and can hear any case it chooses.

]]>