Friday, August 18, 2006


I've been following this aspect of the Katrina firearms confiscations, and it's disturbing. Not the outcome, but the basic premise by which they have argued. The arguments that Nagin and his council have provided indicate that they believe the city's sovereignity is being violated by the Constitution (that would be the US-Federal version), as it affirms a person's liberty, and specifically the right to keep and bear arms, as defined in the second amendment.

Nagin and his toadies feel as though this is an affront to their authority and made the rather absurd assertion that they can do as they please, since it was their turf, or something like that.

How perfectly authoritarian of him. Makes one wonder who his role models are.

The biggest issue here is how he came to the conclusion that it was OK to do this sort of thing in the first place. How did he rationalize this? Where does this need come from? Where, in the recesses of that bald head of his, does he get the idea, Goddamnit? I'm wondering how he thought this would play out. I am wondering how he kept his seat in the last election. I am wondering if anyone down there gives a damn.

Another nail in the coffin, I suppose. Another day in the Endarkenment.


Blogger NYC TAXI SHOTS said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home