Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 14th amendment says that no government can deny the privileges or immunities of any citizen due to skin color, ethnicity etc., all citizens must get equal treatment.
Imagine if a Federal building put up a sign in a hallway saying, "No black people allowed past this point". The outrage would be immediate and overwhelming, for obvious reasons: Not only is it hugely insulting and detrimental to blacks who don't deserve such treatment, but it is a flagrant violation of the 14th amendment. The Fed govt's job is to uphold and obey that (and all other) amendments, not to violate it.
Now imagine if a Federal building put up a sign that said, "No guns allowed past this point". That is just as much a violation of a Constitutional right, as the other sign would be. And law-abiding American citizens who would like to carry a gun (as the Constitution explicitly permits), have done nothing to deserve being treated like second-class citizens this way. Yet many Federal buildings have exactly such a sign, and they even try to enforce it.
We certainly can't put the first sign (about black people) in a Federal building. Why can we put the second (about law-abiding people carrying guns)?
The 14th amendment says that no government can deny the privileges or immunities of any citizen due to skin color, ethnicity etc., all citizens must get equal treatment.
Imagine if a Federal building put up a sign in a hallway saying, "No black people allowed past this point". The outrage would be immediate and overwhelming, for obvious reasons: Not only is it hugely insulting and detrimental to blacks who don't deserve such treatment, but it is a flagrant violation of the 14th amendment. The Fed govt's job is to uphold and obey that (and all other) amendments, not to violate it.
Now imagine if a Federal building put up a sign that said, "No guns allowed past this point". That is just as much a violation of a Constitutional right, as the other sign would be. And law-abiding American citizens who would like to carry a gun (as the Constitution explicitly permits), have done nothing to deserve being treated like second-class citizens this way. Yet many Federal buildings have exactly such a sign, and they even try to enforce it.
We certainly can't put the first sign (about black people) in a Federal building. Why can we put the second (about law-abiding people carrying guns)?
Skin color isn't a deadly weapon in the same sense that a gun is.
Skin color isn't something you choose.
You can leave your weapon at home but you can't do the same with your skin.
A gun doesn't constitute part of your existence as a human being whereas your ethnic background does.
Skin color isn't a deadly weapon in the same sense that a gun is.
Skin color isn't something you choose.
You can leave your weapon at home but you can't do the same with your skin.
A gun doesn't constitute part of your existence as a human being whereas your ethnic background does.
I imagine those are some of the differences.
Irrelevant, of course. The Constitution takes none of those things into account when declaring what rights it protects, and its protection is not affected by any of them.
Anyone else?
Why can we violate one constitutional right when we can't violate another?
The 14th amendment says that no government can deny the privileges or immunities of any citizen due to skin color, ethnicity etc., all citizens must get equal treatment.
Imagine if a Federal building put up a sign in a hallway saying, "No black people allowed past this point". The outrage would be immediate and overwhelming, for obvious reasons: Not only is it hugely insulting and detrimental to blacks who don't deserve such treatment, but it is a flagrant violation of the 14th amendment. The Fed govt's job is to uphold and obey that (and all other) amendments, not to violate it.
Now imagine if a Federal building put up a sign that said, "No guns allowed past this point". That is just as much a violation of a Constitutional right, as the other sign would be. And law-abiding American citizens who would like to carry a gun (as the Constitution explicitly permits), have done nothing to deserve being treated like second-class citizens this way. Yet many Federal buildings have exactly such a sign, and they even try to enforce it.
We certainly can't put the first sign (about black people) in a Federal building. Why can we put the second (about law-abiding people carrying guns)?
The point of the thread is, of course, that banning a law-abiding citizen from carrying a gun in a Federal building, is constitutionally no different from telling a black person he can't go into the Federal building because he is black.
The Constitution forbids either act, to an equal degree, and with equal force of law.
So why are liberals fine with one act and not fine with the other?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
