OK, all you anti-gun liberal types out there

[unixronin]

(Not meaning to imply that all liberals are anti-gun, by the way.  I'm just talking to the "Ew, Guns Are Icky" set here.)

Remember all the times we evil gun-totin', NRA-decal-displayin' gun nuts have said that the Second Amendment is the most important of all the amendments, because it protects all the rest?

Well, having become one of the most strictly anti-gun states in the US, Massachusetts is now going after the right of peaceable assembly.

Yeah, yeah, I know; it says it's only for use against gangs and only in "safe zones".  But as metahacker points out, the devil is in the details.  Surely you folks remember "designated free-speech zones", right....?  Remember the first rule of legislation:  Any law, no matter how clear its original intent, sooner or later succumbs to "mission creep".

"Yeah, I know this law was passed for X.  But we're already using it for Y.  Why don't we use it for Z as well?  I bet we could, especially in front of Judge J."

Speaking of which...

mazianni found these two articles on the 9th Circus's ruling that US border agents can search laptops and other personal electronic devices for evidence of crimes without a warrant or cause.  Once again, "security" trumps liberty, and another little piece of the Fourth Amendment is whittled away.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  ...Unless we want to.

Comments

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Come on, don't give me that! I've just said that you set up a straw man argument.

Is there any other reason for what you wrote, other than to imply that the lack of a well-armed populace in Massachusetts is responsible for a decline in civil liberties in that state? I'm referring to this:

Remember all the times we evil gun-totin', NRA-decal-displayin' gun nuts have said that the Second Amendment is the most important of all the amendments, because it protects all the rest?

Well, having become one of the most strictly anti-gun states in the US, Massachusetts is now going after the right of peaceable assembly.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

OK, to clarify:

I did not state, nor intend to imply, "Massachusetts feels it can now go after other rights because it has de facto eliminated the Second Amendment within Massachusetts." (And that should not be taken as a statement that it has. Severely weakened and made it difficult to exercise, but not eliminated.)

What I intended was rather "Long known for its dislike of the Second Amendment, the State of Massachusetts is now going after peaceful assembly as well."

No "proof" of anything is or was intended. An example supporting the idea, sure. But "proof" would have to occur on a national level, and would have to have as a necessary precondition the complete (at least de facto, if not actually de jure) elimination of the right to keep and bear arms, clearly seen be followed nationwide by a major clampdown on or elimination of other essential liberties. And that's an experiment I'm rather unwilling to undertake to achieve a proof. It'd be sort of like proving that if you jump off the Sears Tower with nothing to slow or arrest your fall, you'll die.


Now, if you want to read what you quoted as an assertion of proof, I guess that's up to you. But one example in support does not a proof make.

(Which, ironically, is — I think — at least in part what you're arguing, which leaves me feeling kinda silly having to argue it back at you.)