For example, you may claim a Second Amendment right to have a gun on your person, but I have a property right to prohibit you from having it on my property.True. Your home is your castle. You're free to bar me from carrying there, just as I'm free to never darken your door under that agreement.I could also argue that I have a First Amendment right of "free association" to NOT associate with those carrying guns - which would require you to let me know if you have one (i.e., concealed carry violates my First Amednment rights).That's a flawed understanding the the right of free association IMHO. Your right to express yourself alone or in a group with like-minded individuals doesn't trump my right to defend myself in public. I can't keep you from expressing yourself, you can't keep me from defending myself, even under the bizarre theory that my being prepared to defend myself prevents you from expressing yourself. FWIW I'm armed 24/7/365, as are millions of other residents of Michigan, civilian and law-enforcement.The Constitution has always place constraints on various rights. The Constitution itself grants people the "right" of interstate travel - but I still need a drivers license and insurance to use my preferred mode of exercising that right (my car). Why would not licensure and insurance be an appropriate regulation of firearm owners?Because it would place an undue financial burden on those wanting to exercise their rights. If you require licenses and insurance for those exercising their right to keep and bear arms we might as well bring back the poll tax.Add to that, "statutory construction" (interpretation) - which includes the Constitution - require that each and every word be given meaning. If it didn't have meaning, why is it in there? The words "a well regulated militia" require interpretation. Some argue it means "trained" (ok, so let's require "training" for all gun owners - like we do for all drivers). Some would argue it gives the governemnt the right regulate more broadly. Whatever, it must be given some meaning, or it shouldn't be there - and that is a debate that continues, but the SCOTUS (in an opinion by Scalia - not the most liberal by any stretch) has indicated that it does, in fact, give the governm,ent the right to impose restrictions on gun ownership.It's quite clear that the ability of the people to form a militia (under state control or not) is dependent upon their being armed in the first place. The people being armed is a requirement to form a militia if need be, a milita is not required for the people to be armed. As it happens militia statutes still exist in state and federal laws, it is the duty of every citizen to come to the defense of their state/country in the case of an attack. Yes, that means you too. If I have to do so I'll be armed. Good luck deflecting an enemy with a recitation of your views on how their invasion is depriving you of your right to free association... I'm sure they'd enjoy that speech as they're carting you off to dig your own grave.I applaud the Second Amendment. As I do all of the Bill of Rights amendments - but I abhor those who think the right is absolute (or who "covet" their guns in what I would consider abnormally dangerous ways), and believe there is middle ground - lest we now allow private ownership of grenade launchers, tanks, drones, and other "arms" of modern warfare.I no longer support any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. If you can afford a tank I'm fine with you owning one. I used to support restrictions but arguing with liberals has changed my mind on that. I won't fall into the "b-b-b-but we can ban this!" game any longer. If the government has it we can have it, end of story. They are our servants, after all, why should they be better armed than we, their bosses? We don't "belong" to the government, they belong to us.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS.