USA Today: Your rights subject to their whims
From a constitutional perspective, the Supreme Court may have gotten it right. But from a standpoint of public safety, lawmakers are getting it very wrong. A right to keep and bear arms should come with restraints that equally protect those who have no interest in owning them.
And how exactly does one do that?
April 25th, 2011 at 9:18 am
What the hell is so difficult about simply not buying one if you don’t want one?
April 25th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Like mike w. said, it’s not a problem. Don’t want a gun? Don’t own one.
April 25th, 2011 at 9:32 am
1. OK! You DONT HAVE TO BUY A GUN!
Problem solved!
2. My guns protect them!
Another problem solved!
Win-Win-Win!!!
Don’t worry, be happy!
April 25th, 2011 at 9:44 am
People are entitled to their opinion, no matter how logically flawed they are… BUT, if you dont like how things are THEN CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION! I dont care what the issue is. Its our contract with govt and if we allow them to take it for granted, then we have nothing. We will be ruled as serfs and treated like subjects.
Either shut up and respect the law of the land or work to have it changed if you dont like it. I so sick of this traitors ignoring the constitution!
April 25th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Ahem…
Allow me to go back in time a tad, and re-phrase in terms that bigots everywhere can readily understand….
“…A right to an education should come with restraints that equally protect those who have no interest in associating with Negroes.”
April 25th, 2011 at 10:51 am
“A right to keep and bear arms should come with restraints that equally protect those who have no interest in owning them.”
I totally agree! No one should ever be constrained by law or decree to acquire, purchase, possess or carry arms.
April 25th, 2011 at 11:14 am
I think you should have to own one.
April 25th, 2011 at 11:15 am
@Ron W: There’s at least one and maybe 2 towns where the municipal ordinances require heads of household to possess firearms…
April 25th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Mike, yep, word for word:
“These are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big overgrown Negroes.”
D.D. Eisenhower, who sent the troops anyway.
April 25th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Those who choose to not own guns gratuitously put themselves at the bottom of the food chain.
They will be eaten first.
April 25th, 2011 at 11:43 am
Bryan and Ian,
In the matter of rights and delegated powers, States do have more prerogatives in both according to the 9th and 10th Amendments. However, I would oppose having any right imposed. I would think that at least here in Tennessee, our Declaration of Rights would certainly include not being forced exercise any right, which would include to purchase or buy anything to keep in your home.
Re:the keeping and bearing of weapons, the Federal Gov’t has NO “delegated powers” re: the States and People, but onlyu for “governing such part of the militia that it calls into service and is EMPLOYED by it” (Article I, Section 8:16)
April 25th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
I think as a matter of civic duty in protection of yourself and your homeland, you should own and practice.
At the minimum, I think that safety and use should be taught in schools from a young age.
Ron W, good points.
April 25th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
” A right to keep and bear arms should come with restraints that equally protect those who have no interest in owning them”.
Same way as we do FREE SPEECH! They can SHUT UP if they want. You don’t have to talk and still have the 1st Amendment rights. So same goes for the second. They don’t have to own anything or say anything.
April 25th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
“…pushing Gun Rights from Radical to Idiotic..”? If I had a Nickel for every “Radical to Idiotic” comment that I’ve heard from the Lamestream Media and Politicians over the last few years, such as “the Fundamental Transformation of America…” But I see no effort by the Gunnies to remove the 1st. Amendment Rights of the Talking Head Crowd.
April 25th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Surely they can’t have it both ways! If we can’t be forced to acquire firearms, then how can it be ok to force us to buy health insurance for example? Or are they fixing to make us all arm up? It effects commerce, after all…
April 25th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
@Ron W: Kennesaw, GA is the one town I know of that requires ownership by head of household.
April 25th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Don’t threaten a guy who has a gun and you should be fine. And if you choose not to own a gun when the Zombies come don’t beg me to save you.
April 25th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Ian writes: “@Ron W: Kennesaw, GA is the one town I know of that requires ownership by head of household.”
Yes, I’m aware of that. But I’m definitely against forcing the exercise of any right, just as I’m against the violation of any right. Freedom also requires that I’m free not to exerciseenumerated rights….I can refuse to speak out, not vote, spill my guts to LEO’s, etc.
But any infringement on the right to acquire, keep and carry the means of armed self-defense is evil because: ONLY YOUR ENEMY WANTS YOU DISARMED
April 25th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
“And how exactly does one do that?”
Easy. You just have to understand left-think;
We are all equally protected when we are all equally vulnerable (except the ruling class, which has all the weapons). This is similar to “economic justice” in which everyone is equally destitute (except the ruling class, which has all the wealth).
April 26th, 2011 at 3:12 am
You know, maybe USA Today is on to something. After all their reckless use of the 1st Amendment is certainly doing harm, so why shouldn’t I be protected from them too? Certainly USA Today in the spirit of reasonableness and equal justice will allow me to have a veto over their 1st Amendment rights the same way they want to veto my 2nd Amendment rights.
Right?