I was not aware of the etymology of "schlock," but then again, I'm not sure it really matters. The Yiddish "schmuck" (penis, or analogous personality) almost certainly has the same root as the German "Schmuck" (jewelry), but that doesn't mean the two words mean the same thing today. In any event, my use of the word schlock was intended as a good-natured jab, not a serious insult, so on the off chance it really does mean something worse than I thought, I've replaced it with "weenie." Is that sufficiently tame?

Xrlq has mentioned annoyance with my choices in capitalization before. Many philosophers have used proper nouns to make a point. I wonder if he cringes when he reads of Plato's world of Ideas and Chaos?

Plato didn't write in English, nor did any languag remotely resembling modern English even exist in his day.

Does he roll his eyes when he reads the Declaration of Independence?

No, but I would roll my eyes if anyone wrote like that today, which is not what you're doing anyway.

I mean not only does Jefferson capitalize "...Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness..." but the "c" in course.

My point exactly. He didn't capitalizing the important or fundamental stuff; he capitalized nouns generally, although he wasn't entirely consistent about that, either. My guess is that at that point in the English language, there was no agreed-upon convention of which nouns should be capitalized and which ones shouldn't. Some may have capitalized all nouns, as at least one other Germanic language (German) does to this day.

The point is, Jefferson wasn't wasn't drawing any semantic distinction between "Rights" and "rights," or anything else capitalized vs. lower case, as you suggest. Note the one reference to the "Right" to life, liberty and property, followed with a subsequent reference to "these rights." He couldn't have been drawing a distinction between big rights or little rights, as he was talking about the exact same rights, almost in the same breath!

In any event, if there were a difference between rights and Rights, how do you get off calling any constitutional rights Rights, when the Constitution itself doesn't? Even the Bill of Rights, which followed the Declaration of Independence by less than two decades and shares its penchant for odd capitalization (by today's standards, at least), it doesn't guarantee any "Rights of the People," only "rights" of the "people." I'd hate to think that the drafters of the Second Amendment thought that the Militia, the State, and even my own Arms are more important than my "right of the people" to keep and bear them.

Now, if you were to say "hey, Xrlq's a lawyer, I'll bet he drafts contracts all the time that capitalize words that wouldn't normally be capitalized." Which is true, I do that every day. However, irregularly capitalized letters are done for a very specific reason: to indicate that the term has a specialized meaning which is defined somewhere in the contract. The idea is that if a dispute arises over the meaning of the contract, neither side's lawyer will run to the dictionary - the word means what it is defined to mean in that contract, NOT what the word means in ordinary usage.

In that sense, I could almost see drafting a contract that contained a reference to "Rights" rather than rights. What it would mean is, forget what rights you might have in a vacuum: when it comes to this deal, your Rights are what this contract says they are, nothing more, and nothing less. I don't think that's the idea you're trying to convey by capitalizing the word, but I could be wrong about that.

A property owner should not ever be required to obtain a license to build on his own property

Cool...I'm buying your neighbor's house and I'm going to build a 40 storey highrise. I'll have construction crews going 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Hope you don't mind the noise and dust. Oh and on the first floor, there will be a strip club.

Manish, invading his neighborhood with excessive and non-stop noise would be infringing on his rights. You can't do that even WITH a license. But if you kept the construction noise confined to daylight hours, and the business noise contained after you opened your strip club, there is no reason you should have to have a license to build your 40 story strip club.

Citing building permits and drivers licenses is missing the point. What kind of license do you need to vote? Or go to church? Or write to your congressanimal? What kind of license does XLRQ think we should have to have?

Ok, someone please tell me this discussion hasn’t really been going on since Oct. 18th over on Say Uncle? At that location you will find I left Xlrq a question whether the founding fathers were unfit criminals because they didn't follow law. I stated the question this way:

“Xrlq: Your words seem to describe the founding fathers as criminals unworthy of office. Is this something you were trying to say? Would you follow this law as well: kill your first-born son? It’s was a law once too. Because someones principle’s cause them to draw the line before you do, (or possible ever would), does not mean they are unfit for anything. In many ways, the uncompromising person is BETTER fit for office, (they don’t get blown around with the wind). But really, what about those unfit criminal founding fathers?”

No answer was given for this question, mine is the last comment, (which are now closed).

Publicola then repeated the question for Xlrq here, (at the very end of his post). No answer was given in the comment Xlrq made there.

We then go over Xrlq website where he gave a very poor attempt at brushing the question aside here, Assumption 7. Apparently trying to sum up the point of my question with this:

“…Anyone who violates a law they disagree with is next Rosa Parks or the next Martin Luther King, Jr.”

The laws at issue are well beyond "disagreeing with," (more on that later). At his site he then answers his own statement, (not the question given him), with this:

"...flouting an allegedly unfair tax is not even remotely comparable to fighting Jim Crow. For one thing, the Jim Crow laws were on completely plane from the tax code, making such comparisons borderline insulting. For another, the Jim Crow laws were also unconstitutional, thereby making them invalid as a matter of law. Citizens have a duty to obey the law; they have no duty to obey “color of law,” especially under circumstances where openly setting out to get caught, and then fighting a bogus prosecution may be the only way to get a legitimate issue into court. Not so for the tax “honesty” liars, whose frivilous “legal” arguments have already been dealt with by too many courts, too many times."

Sorry, Xrlq... We seem to have parted company.

First off, you never gave an answer to my question on the founding fathers being unfit criminals? Were they? According to your above statement they were... let's follow you through it. The founders broke the "color of law." Did they know at the time it was "color of law?" No. In fact, courts had ruled time and again that the people of America were not free to start their own form of government. They were to be taxed and taxed on the Kings term. So, this "color of law" you speak of was not defined as "color of law" before they decided to break it. Further, you tried to narrow this answer down to those "flouting an allegedly unfair tax." Funny, that's actually a key reason for our war of independence, mind you. So apparently you feel those that fought for our independence were “unfit criminals” too. You see, the issue over freedom for the New World had been judged on by the king's courts and they had ruled AGAINST freedom and independence and FOR the King’s tax. So, exactly how were founding fathers supposed to know the laws they broke were only "color of law" before actually waiting for it to be ruled as such?

Aaaahhh, now I’ve almost fallen for your narrow interpretation of the question I gave you, but I won’t. This issue is not even remotely about “an allegedly unfair tax.” You now appear to have taken the same stand against those that openly defy the conceal weapons permit laws. So, you have not narrowed the “unfit criminals” statement to just “an allegedly unfair tax.” Only a quick glance into the conceal weapon permit laws, and you will find that they are not just “allegedly unfair.” They also cannot be summed up with your statement of “…a law they disagree with…” They are, without a doubt, unconstitutional. Mind you, they have not been ruled that way by the courts yet. But, the issue was covered in the 2nd Amendment, which easily covers this issue. “Shall not infringe.” You may not agree that it is wrong, unconstitutional, or “color of law,” but not everyone agreed that the founding fathers were doing the right thing either when they were “flouting an allegedly unfair tax.” Some openly called them “unfit criminals,” and your words put you squarely in that corner.

Billll:

What kind of license do you need to vote?

You don't need a license, but you do have to register, and even the worst "I've been disenfranchised" weenies don't seem to have a problem with that in principle.

What kind of license does XLRQ think we should have to have?

None. If you search my archives, you'll find that I consider the Alaska model (optional licensing) to be the best for CCW. Vermont's (no licensing) is good in theory, but bad in practice if you ever want to travel to other states.

Jason:

Ok, someone please tell me this discussion hasn’t really been going on since Oct. 18th over on Say Uncle? At that location you will find I left Xlrq [sic] a question whether the founding fathers were unfit criminals because they didn't follow law. [...] No answer was given for this question, mine is the last comment.

I frankly didn't think the comment warranted a response, due to the silly, irrelevant "what about killing your first-born" non sequitur. But as to whether or not the Founding Fathers were criminals, hell yes they were! What the hell else do you call someone who takes up arms against his own state, violating practically every law on the books? The only reason they weren't hanged for their crimes is because they won the war. The difference is that Publicola is in no danger of winning his private war against the largely gun-friendly state he lives in - but does run a very real risk of sabotaging the pro-gunners' efforts to win the wars that are truly winnable. If Colorado ever does enact Vermont-style carry, it will be in spite of the efforts of people like Publicola, not because of them.

Only a quick glance into the conceal weapon permit laws, and you will find that they are not just "allegedly unfair."

That's true. May-issue laws like California's or New Yorks are patently unfair. Shall-issue laws like Colorado's are not. If Publicola lived in California, tried to get a permit, was denied one, and then went on carrying anyway, I wouldn't blame him for it (though I might send him a private email advising him not to advertise the fact to the world). But refusing to work with a law that is rightly dubbed "right to carry" indicates nothing more, and nothing less, than a need for a serious attitude adjustment. If your general state policy favors the right to carry concealed, then work with your state, for Christ's sake. There is a time and place for civil disobedience; this is neither.

They also cannot be summed up with your statement of "a law they disagree with..." They are, without a doubt, unconstitutional.

Just because YOU choose not to doubt something does not make it "without a doubt." No court has ever found a constitutional right to carry concealed, which is rather fitting given that the word "concealed" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

But, the issue was covered in the 2nd Amendment, which easily covers this issue. "Shall not infringe."

It's only "easy" to the intellectually lazy - kinda like those who are too lazy to look up the exact text, yet insist on using quotation marks anyway as if to suggest otherwise. To the non-lazy among us, a very legitimate question exists as to how much a state can regulate a right without "infringing" it. AFAIK, no court has ever ruled on that question, having instead got hung up on other irrelevancies instead (e.g., whether people are "people," whether handguns are "arms," or, worst of all, whether "well-regulated militia" means "please ignore the next clause of this sentence in its entirety").

Good points made here X. My personal struggle with viewing 'concealed carry' as an infringment is just that..PERSONAL. Some may say this is a 'cop-out', but I tend to try to err on the conservative (the use of the term 'conservative' here almost seems funny) side when in doubt.
I am but one man with an opinion. My opinion being that CCP's are an infringment. But until 'We The People' en masse elect representation that enact law OR said representatives appoint judges that rule on established law to SUPPORT THAT OPINION, well... I spend the 50 bucks and send my two passport photo's in with the paperwork. Don't like it, but I also don't like the alternatives.

Choose your battles well. I think the Founding Fathers were wise in that respect, the overall 'will of the people' being with their cause. 'Course there is nothing wrong with attempting to educate and woo the will of the people, which is what I think is the heart of what Jason is doing.

Thank you both for your interesting commentary.

Here's another way to look at it. Chances are that the government interprets not just the Second Amendment, but others as well, more narrowly than you consider appropriate. If you had the opportunity to bribe the government a measly $50.00 to get them to interpret the First Amendment YOUR way for a period of five years, wouldn't you jump at the chance?