Balancing gun rights, safety is no simple task [More]
Sure it is--as long as you let me do my own balancing.
If you presume authority to do the balancing for me, well then, we're in danger of provoking Fudd's First Law of Opposition, meaning you get pushed back hard.
6 comments:
"so it's hard to strike a balance between this right and the perils of gun violence and the rampant sale of **ugly black rifles with 1880s self-loading firearms technology**.
Doesn;t sound quite so reasonable any more.
"It is ludicrous that in this country if we carry a large bottle of shampoo in our carry-on luggage before boarding a plane, it gets seized by TSA agents who are stripping us for safety. But it's becoming increasingly easier for criminals and lunatics to obtain guns."
I'd like to know where it has become EASIER to legally obtain a gun. No specifics, strangely.
So because we've already ceded the right to presumption of innocence when traveling, jettisoning all the others is just logical. Commendable. Patriotic.
Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles...
"Under the proposed legislation we would have to get used to seeing weapons at universities and, who knows, in the future maybe also in parks, beaches, shopping centers, churches, workplaces and even schools. It would be like living in a state of civil war."
No, Mr. Roth, seeing weapons everywhere would not be like living in a state of civil war. Continuing in your efforts to take our Liberty from us forcefully would wind up a whole lot like living in a state of civil war.
However, if we do end up living in a state of civil war you probably won't end up seeing guns for very long since you are complicit in the attempts to steal our liberties from us (thank Bill Clinton for that).
Fudd's Law... thought you were talking about some on the SCOTUS!
A 2008 comment that's long but educational, so at your discretion, David. There's nothing new or original in it, actually, it's just a good example of how the foes of freedom contradict themselves without realizing it, and being repeated today.
Set up the gun-free zone for criminals to play in, then complain because there aren't enough armed people to fight back, then urge more restrictions to make it harder for people to get guns to fight back with. Los Angeles, where they learned nothing from the Rodney King riots.
I wonder if this guy is still alive.
"I understand that the Brady Campaign is looked upon with disdain by some gun owners, and that those people are reasonably worried about their second amendment rights being infringed or even terminated. But comments suggesting that the Brady Campaign is part of some sort of conspiracy with the government to take away guns from citizens so they can control the populace, a la Nazi Germany, seem almost paranoid.
[That's one. -- D.]
"I live in Los Angeles, where my experiences with guns are perhaps far different from those who own guns to hunt or even for protection. My community has been terrorized by criminals with fire arms, many of whom have large scale automatic weapons. [Two. -- D.] It's simply not possible to equivalently arm myself or my neighbors to combat these crimes, at least without some sort of terrible civil war breaking out. The only solution to me is to prevent these criminals from possessing these guns in the first place, and I'm in favor of whatever restrictions accomplish this. [Three and counting. But he's not anti-rights. -- D.]However, I also don't wish to take away any law-abiding citizen's right to own a gun. Certainly there's some sort of reasonable middle ground that all parties can agree on."
The reasonable middle ground was left behind decades ago.
Pathetic and blind. He should walk down Miami streets blindfolded at night, with $50 bills hanging out of his pockets. Since he thinks he knows so much, he could this way put his mouth into practice. He figures he is in as much danger from a CHL carrier as a lunatic or a criminal, it would be a toss-up as to who would get him first.
Post a Comment