“How is any bill that purposefully restricts rights of Nebraskans to regulate what they wish to regulate a good thing? Answer: It is not.” – Kim Moss-Allen, Bellevue, Let locals regulate guns [via omaha.com]
Home Quote of the Day What Part of “Constitutionally Protected Right” Doesn’t She Understand? IMI Systems Quote...
“Don’t forget the most important part of the Second Amendment: “well-regulated.” ”
(insert facepalm meme of choice here)
Why have state legislature and laws if every city can act like it’s own fiefdom?
The most important part is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
In 18th-century parlance, the term “well-regulated” means “well disciplined” and able to hit your target, NOT the modern definition of the term…
I expect it out of high schoolers and maybe even some college kids writing their little essays to misinterpret that term “well-regulated” and view it as meaning something like “controlled, directed, and guided by government mandates and subject to civil and criminal penalties for violations”, but from a presumably educated adult like that letter’s author? That’s just embarrassing.
What other terms from that era mean nothing as the terms are known today?
Be nice to throw some of those back in their faces…
“Well-regulated” is synonymous with “restricted into oblivion” only as far as regulation has been co-opted and corrupted by government hacks. They’d like you to think the constitutional usage is archaic and obscure…
Meanwhile, the true meaning of the term is alive and well in industry, where regulators and regulation keep systems and machinery humming with maximum efficiency. (Ever used a pneumatic tool? That’s the output of a well-regulated system.)
Thank you, Ing, but that wasn’t my question.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear – What words or terms in use today have no resemblance to what they meant in the mid-1700’s?
Well, let’s start with “nice” itself, for example. Today it means “pleasant”, “good”, or “kind”, but its roots are in the Latin “nescius”, meaning “ignorant”. From there its meaning kind of evolved over the centuries to “obtuse” to “pedantic” to “fastidious” to “conscientious” to “finely done”. That mutation was more or less complete by the 17th century, however.
I’m constantly amazed at what these people confuse for “rights.” There is no right to regulate others when it effects their ability to exercise their constitutionaly protected rights.
Although I’m sure, given her views on the 2a, she would be ok if some places wanted to ban churches or mosques of certain religions, ban certain people based on the color of their skin, or perhaps just restrict the right to speak for members of certain political parties. I mean, if it’s what the masses want, it should be allowed, right?
I wish we could record her responses to “Should local jurisdictions have the power to ban certain guns?” and “Should local jurisdictions have the power to ban certain religions?” and play them back-to-back for her. The cognitive dissonance might make her head implode.
Should local governments have the power to ban certain speech?
Should local governments have the power to ban certain associations?
Should local governments have the power to ban certain peaceable assemblies?
Should local governments have the power to ban certain petition(s to) the Government for a redress of grievances?
Should local governments have the power to ban certain exercise(s) of the press?
P.S. Just what is the difference between and abridgement and an infringement?
Staters gonna state.
Little Kimmy wants what she wants. She only cares about what she wants. Our best hope is that tomorrow she will want a pony, or maybe she will want to be a princess. With any luck, she will forget all about regulating guns, after she wakes up from her nap
“Little Kimmy wants what she wants.”
THAT is the core problem: people who demand, DEMAND I TELL YOU!, what they want without any respect for the rights of others.
How do we get the masses to converge on timeless standards of right and wrong?
Think you can replace the gov’t schools?
“How is any bill that purposefully restricts rights of Nebraskans
to regulate what they wish to regulatea good thing? Answer: It is not.”
There, I fixed that for Miss Moss-Allen.
“any bill that purposefully restricts rights of Nebraskans to regulate what they wish”…
I mean, that pretty much sums up why we have the position we have here isn’t it?
Perhaps one day, my dream will come true: that a statist bigot like this one would be too ashamed to spout such drivel as this in a public forum for fear of the righteous backlash from clear-headed citizens. That one day the thinking majority would give a hateful opinion like hers no more credence than that of a nazi-tattooed skinhead proclaiming his “solution” to crime in black neighborhoods. That no one in “polite society” would entertain her opinion in any meaningful conversation because it is of no moral value.
We’re not there yet. There’s still too many people out there who embrace bigotry as normal and socially acceptable…
This is my favorite part. I love how they can, with a straight face, claim to be in the majority on any given topic while whining about their minority status. They excel at making compound statements with incompatible facts.
If all Nebraskans want to restrict guns, then who got a preemption law passed?
If “most of the country” supported Clinton, then how come Trump is in office?
If progressives are in the majority, why are both houses controlled by republicans?
Along the same lines, I guess:
If OC’ers are super scary and make you fear for your life, why do you get up in their faces and start yelling about how afraid you are?
If PotG are all bigots who use violence to get their way, how are there any Antifas left with all their teeth in?
“How is any bill that purposefully restricts rights of Nebraskans to regulate what they wish to regulate a good thing? Answer: It is not.”
Is she making an argument for slavery? For restricting speech?
Yes. She is. Her mind is just too shallow to grasp the concept. Have another box of wine Kimmy.
Yes locals should also be able to decide who does or doesn’t get to vote or speak, what religions are allowed, and where colored people aren’t allowed to go (and whether they’re allowed to be kept as slaves).
Whether it’s a local jurisdiction, a state, or the federal government passing laws restricting people’s actions, the relevant standard is still whether the law passes constitutional muster. What this woman wants is to use local rule as a shield for stomping all over individual rights. Mob rule is still mob rule, regardless the size or proximity of the mob, madam.
And what if the majority of her neighbors decide that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote anymore?
The 19th WAS just one more progtard thing. Every other amendment the coven of marxists jammed thru a century ago was “ill-considered”.
As much as women in this country SHOULD have the right to vote, I think the country would be far better off if they didn’t. If nothing else it would be the end of the DemonKKKrat party as we know it.
How are we to take seriously anything a hyphenated American says?
The right of Nebraskans to regulate what they wish? There is no such right, nor can there be, since your neighbor on your right and your neighbor on your left would have equal rights to regulate any aspect of your life whatsoever, and they may not agree.
No, what you’re talking about is the power of local government to regulate whatsoever they please, in essence to have unchecked power. I shouldn’t have to explain why this is incompatible with a free country or the rule of law.
The Constitution of the US through the equal protection clause ensures that states can not infringe on their citizens rights and effectively sets a minimum bar.
“The Public Pulse: Let locals regulate
How is that any different?
I’d post that on the original article if they allowed comments.
“How is any bill that purposefully restricts rights of Nebraskans to regulate what they wish to regulate a good thing?”
It’s a good thing because a little tin god like you shouldn’t get to make that choice.
Just like I don’t get to regulate your stupid speech. Got it, Kimmy?
Typical hyphenated last-name leftist. Hyper opinionated, and totally deaf and blind to the fact that her opinion, however vehemently she feels she’s right, that it’s not the prevailing sentiment in her area of operation.
And typically, she’s totally off base on her education on the topic which she’s talking about, clueless at both the national and state level; and again it wasn’t but 153 years ago that the “Confederate States of America” and Union Army were settling the dispute of Federal vs. State/Local Government not too far removed from Nebraksa…
How is a bill that purposefully restricts the ability of Nebraskans to restrict the rights of other Nebraskans a good thing? Answer: it places personal freedom above the authority of the collective.
This is not a well-informed person. Her LinkedIn profile lists a single skill: MS-Word.
It’s kinda like inviting some intolerant communist ahole Californians over for some gay marriage wedding cake with aborted baby icing, served by 47 yr old DACA ‘children’, while streaming FGM videos to celebrate muslim globalism, before selling American MAGA good stuff to China for $25 worth of sheet music and beads.
Kill a POS commie for mommy.
As a Nebraskan, I would certainly like to be able to regulate my own guns. Unfortunately, there is national and local legislation in place that restricts my right to effectively do so.