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.
It is right there in the Constitution.
Provide and Promote are not the same thing, but somewhere down the line that have conflated the two terms to mean the same.
One means give, the other means educate.
Promoting the general welfare, does not mean provide it.
I have tried explaining that at least a dozen times. The left absolutely refuses to believe that provide and promote have completely different meanings. It's willful ignorance. Period.
We are generally responsible for our own safety and also the safety of others around us. Just because I have a disregard for my own safety does not mean that I can legally drive drunk and kill someone else.
If I'm a gun owner, I'm responsible for the safety of myself, my children, and others... I must keep my gun out of the hands of children, I can't lend out my gun to my next door neighbor who says he'd like to go shoot up a church, etc. I also have to follow basic safety laws, can't swing around a loaded gun in public, and so on.
If I call the police because someone is threatening to bomb a shopping mall, then the police are responsible for taking the threat seriously and intervening to the best of their ability. If they shrug and say, "we're too busy giving out traffic tickets today," then they have not lived up to their responsibility to keep society safe.
I'm responsible for my own safety in that I should refrain from doing idiotic things like diving off of the roof of a building or darting into traffic. I should also take basic safety precautions like not flashing large sums of money in public and staying out of known dangerous areas at night (or at least not being alone in those areas).
We depend on the government to keep us safe from various threats, too. They should be keeping us out of wars to the extent possible, they should intervene if another country is sending missiles to attack us, and so on.
So the answer is "all of the above" depending on the specific situation.
First and foremost, I am responsible for my safety. But so is the state, and everything that comes along with the state. But I'd be a fool to think that the state is going to be the first line of defense against a personal attack.
None of my property is responsible for purposefully killing 14,000 people per year.
Neither are 99.99% of the firearms owned in this country. But that isn't what I asked.
I said name the property you own where someone else's opinion on whether they felt you did or did not "need" it was the basis for you being legally allowed to purchase it.
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.
