|
|
|
Previously: Democracy and the Constitution Conservatives and Christianity CS Hall of Fame |
Over the last couple of weeks two issues have come up that boggle the mind as to why they are even up for debate in a free democracy. The first is the FISA bill and specifically whether or not the telecoms should be granted immunity for their past illegal spying activities. The first rule of any democracy is that it must be a nation of laws and not men. That is THE basic dividing line between democracies and authoritarian states. And that's what the immunity issue is all about. The proposed law basically says that the telecoms can not be prosecuted for breaking the law because the President told them it was OK to break the law. And that is 100% bullshit. You grant immunity, you acknowledge that we are no longer a nation of laws, and thus no longer can claim to be a democracy. If you are "pro" immunity you are anti-Democracy. You hate America. It's that simple. The other puzzler that surfaced this past week is the Supreme Court striking down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns based on Second Amendment rights. How can anyone keep a straight face while making any kind of argument that the Second Amendment applies to anything in the current United States? Read the amendment folks -- it's specfically referring to a "state militia", which at that point in time were military units comprised of citizens who were expected to provide their own weapons. We haven't had anything like that in 100+ years! We don't even have a draft anymore! Today's military is 100% professional soldiers, whose weapons are obviously provided for them by the government. The Second Amendment is totally irrelevant today. How you can argue that it has anything to do with the private ownership of weapons is absurd. If you oppose gun regulation laws, that's fine. Elect local officials who will pass laws that you think are fair. But don't go claiming "Second Amendment rights". Like telecom immunity, that's 100% bullshit.
|
