imported post
sjalterego wrote:
I'm not sure why people are unhappy with the message that the 2A is an individual right but it has limits. Every other right in the Bill of Rights has limits.
I'm not sure why people are happy with that message. Does it make it better to know that every other right outlined in the constitution is subject to trampling? Not to me. "...shall not be infringed" is very specific and concise. If the founders wanted there to be exceptions, the would have used different wording, like "shall not be unreasonably infringed"... like the did with 'unreasonable searches and seizures" in the 4th Amendment.
They affirmed that felons and mentally ill may be restricted from possessing firearms. I hope this isn't controversial.
This is controversial. Felons are not always violent. Once time is served, their debt to society is paid... yet they lose their rights permanently. If they're so dangerous they can't own a gun they should be in jail. If they truly are dangerous telling them not to buy a gun won't stop them illegally or just stealing one.
Mental illness is another shady area. Again, if they're that dangerous lock them up. Again, telling them they can't buy one won't stop them from getting one if they're motivated. The most dangerous part of this deprivation of rights is the potential for abuse. It's far too easy to say someone is mentally ill without really proving it. I'm sure there's a few LEOs that think I'm mentally ill because I think it's a good idea to OC. Way too much potential for abuse here...
They affirmed that "sensitive places" such as schools and some gov't buildings may restrict possession within them. This may be more controversial to members of this forum but I would hope that we can largely agree that there may be some places in which firearm possession isn't "necessary" and in which gov't can restrict such possession.
No, I don't agree that there is any place were a firearm is not necessary. Schoolhouses, courthouses, police stations are all just as dangerous as the grocery store or the average workplace. You ever notice that all the 'sensitive places' are places were government employees work? In CA it is EVERY place that a government employee works, plus some.
Forget the 'neccesity' of the firearm. I don't have to prove I'll need my gun to carry it. You have to convince me that the government has a legitamite right to stop me from carrying
anywhere. There's no logic and no statistical data to prove that these 'gun-free zones' are any safer for their lack of guns.
They affirmed that dangerous and unusual firearms may be restricted. This should be obvious and not controversial.
I couldn't disagree more.
ALL guns are dangerous. So, all a gun has to be is unusual to be restricted. I like unusual guns. I know a guy that has an old flint-lock musket; it's my favorite gun to shoot and it's the only one like it I've seen.
So, what constitutes unusual? This is a slippery slope to tread.
OK, forget the semantics. I want to own the most lethal and most unusual firearms I can find. What gives anybody the right to stop me?
I apologize for the rant here, but it just steams me when the people claiming to be on the side of gun rights are so happy with the sink-hole we're trying to dig our rights out of.
WAKE UP! The right to keep and bear arms serves one purpose more important than all others: being able to violently overthrow a tyranical government. Gonna be a lot harder to do that when we're limited to weapons that aren't 'dangerous.'