I think that's generally true -- as badly as big-city cops get roasted by the media when they mess up (and they do), their local-yokel counterparts are worse-trained, less professional, and generally more prone to violence without media oversight.

Those that called are probably afraid to walk through the firearm section of their local Dunham's.

__________________
1987 560SL
85,000 miles

I disagree. We don't have guns in my family (my wife is afraid of guns and I have no need for one), but I enjoy looking at them and seem to have a knack for shooting a gun. Even so, I fear people who open carry weapons for no apparent reason. We have several restaurants who encourage their customers to open carry. Just about everyone I know avoids those restaurants because the men who own them are idiots and so are many of their armed customers. Fortunately for those restaurants, there is enough gun sickness around here these days to supply them with customers who think it's patriotic, cool, or something to display their firearms while dining.

It is scary when we need a court ruling to uphold "inalienable rights".
While i applaud the ruling, I fear the time is coming when Court rulings will eliminate all our rights in order to favor the ruling class.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Sounds like a win-win.

That's exactly what the Federal appeals and Supreme courts were intended for, and I'm glad the system still works.

That's the sense I get. They probably attracted more customers than they lost and the ones they attracted are probably going to be loyal. The first restaurant in town to offer discounts for open carriers is struggling, but I think that is because of its lousy location. The gun thing, I suspect, is working in their favor.

I disagree.
Courts should have no jurisdiction over the Constitution. The Rights are NOT granted by a benevolent government--they are inalienable. If Courts can deny an inalienable Right, then it is not inalienable, is it. I don't want a situation where some tyrannical (future) government can stack the Courts with patsy Justices and thereby take away inalienable Rights.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Under your system, who would decide what our inalienable rights are?

Courts have no JURISDICTION over the Constitution. But they have every right to tell the other branches of government that what they're doing is in violation of the highest law of the land, and they should do so frequently if needed.

Each individual decides for himself. Liberty is the opposite of a corporate decision.

I am reminded of an old fart named Viktor Frankl, whose opinion was that no matter what people take from you, it is up to you how you will react. This is the ultimate expression of a free man.

So, at what point does the sheriff come out to defend my inalienable rights? For example, what if I own a piece of land and claim an inalienable right to exclusive possession of it. My neighbor claims an inalienable right to conduct religious observances on "my" land. I respond by removing his religious symbols and erecting a fence to keep him out. Each individual has decided for himself. Whom does the sheriff (by whom I mean the police) arrest?A free man who will go to prison if he chooses to react in a way that our system has decided is illegal. I don't understand that definition of freedom.

The concept of inalienable rights had everything to do with the formation of our country. It has nothing to do with who has the power and authority (two different things) to decide what is and what is not constitutional.

Exactly right. Think Jesus, Gandhi, Thoreau, M L King, Mandela. Each man was truly free and made a choice that got him jailed.

is it your opinion that the world would have been better off had they gone along with the powers that be and led a quite life peacefully on their knees?

Point taken. Even so, on a more pragmatic level, this country would be screwed were it not for the ruling in Marbury v. Madison leaving it to the courts to interpret the Constitution and other laws.

How do you know the country would be screwed? You state it as fact, yet it's never happened and most likely never will. If you said "I think we would be screwed" or "IMHO we'd be screwed" then it's acceptable. The liberty of stating things as fact when indeed they are you opinion- does that work in general for you? I think that's one reason I tend to disagree with some folks so often- they assume opinions are facts. I'm not trying to get snotty- just an observation which might lead both of us to better ground.