Jim Heffernan, formerly of the Duluth News Tribune editorial staff, wrote a great letter that was titled "Obama isn't coming after your guns". Unfortunately, none of the letters for 2012-02-21 were posted online, and so I can't give those of you outside Duluth a link to Jim's letter. [Update: Jim's letter is at http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/223784/]
Although Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association, backed off from any claim that President Obama has tried "to take guns away" in his first term, LaPierre stated, "he's hiding his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in his second term." ["At CPAC, Defeating Obama Trumps Fight for Nomination", New York Times, Erik Eckholm, 2012-02-11.] Jim wrote that LaPierre "doesn't have a clue" about Obama's intentions. Jim countered that he knows "very well that LaPierre and the NRA soon will arm every student in Columbine High School in Colorado with an assault rifle." Jim adds that of course he doesn't know that, but he wouldn't be surprised.
In an email exchange with Jim, I wrote, "the right to bear cameras should be the same as the right to bear cannons. (Or the right to bear a Canon or a cannon.)" See "Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress".
Showing posts with label cameras. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cameras. Show all posts
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress
I left the following comment on OccupyVotingBooths Facebook community to an item on the arrest of Josh Fox taking pictures of a Congressional hearing. The article is "The Arrest of Josh Fox: What Are They Trying to Hide When They Deny Our Right to Take Pictures?"
This all is a slippery slope of intent. If cameras were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then how can we positively say that use of a camera is a First Amendment right? Since multiple-shot, concealable weapons were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then there is no Constitutional right to conceal and carry. Either we have to interpret the Constitution to cover modern technology or we have to interpret it to not give rights of use of modern technology. As it is, we are interpreting it to suit our own interests. Nothing new there.
What we can assume about the arrest of Josh Fox is that some members of Congress have something to hide.
This all is a slippery slope of intent. If cameras were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then how can we positively say that use of a camera is a First Amendment right? Since multiple-shot, concealable weapons were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then there is no Constitutional right to conceal and carry. Either we have to interpret the Constitution to cover modern technology or we have to interpret it to not give rights of use of modern technology. As it is, we are interpreting it to suit our own interests. Nothing new there.
What we can assume about the arrest of Josh Fox is that some members of Congress have something to hide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)