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 children have rights as well which must be protected, and for my money their right to live far outweighs your right to have toys.
Good thing the statement above is just your personal opinion and not reality. No one's rights outweigh another's in this country. At least, that is supposed to be how it works. So pull your personal feelings out of the equation. Equality under the law is paramount. And currently the citizens of this country have the RIGHT to bear arms, weather you like it or not. Also, you may want to rethink your statement a bit when it comes to children's rights. Last time I checked we hold a lot of those rights hostage until they reach certain ages. And teachers act as if students have no real rights at all when in the classroom. They run those classrooms like their own personal fiefdoms. That was my experience in school anyway.
PS. Constantly referring to guns as "toys" doesn't further your argument. For some, it may even be a bit confusing. Also, sadly, no where in the Constitution are we given the "right to life". Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were mentioned in the Declaration of Independence of course, but no where in the actual Constitution. All it says in there is the state can't deprive you of life without due process. Cheers!!!
Well, you could just overturn SCOTUS ruling on that one just like Roe. There's actually nothing in the Constitution in and of itself that would explicitly prevent states from banning gun. In fact, from 1939 to 2008 that's exactly what the status of the issue. That is the collective rights theory the court reversed that precedence for more of a limited individual rights theory, that is the Constitution, to a limited respect, does guarantee individuals the right bear certain arms, but not other arms like sawed-offs are assault rifles, and not in all cases such as if you're mentally ill. Then in 2010 it was further interpreted much broader terms and under the 14th Amendment considered to be incorporated.
Which is kind of problematic when you think about it as it opens up a hornet's nest of issues. Seemingly there all sorts of things might fall afoul of "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." For example, the mentally ill, convicted felons, firearms in federal buildings, schools, and on airplanes. All of would seem to infringe upon the current 2010 interpretation whereas in the pre-2008 collective rights interpretation none of them would. Under collective rights it's more about the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." half. States could regulate firearms as, well, it was their business how they wanted to regulate their well regulated Militia. Abridging rights to carry firearms on planes wasn't really huge issue as you could always check them and honestly it's not like the founders thought about the need of the well regulated Militia to redeploy via commercial airplanes where they'd need access to their arms well en route.
*shrug* I think it's a rather giant leap to go from "no guns on airplanes" to "no guns because they could hurt kids".
Most of that discussion would thus boil down to materiality of the impact and very importantly, the effectiveness of the effort.
I can certainly respect that there are existing limitations and I do not fall in the "We should be able to have rocket launchers if we want crowd"
*shrug* I think it's a rather giant leap to go from "no guns on airplanes" to "no guns because they could hurt kids".
Most of that discussion would thus boil down to materiality of the impact and very importantly, the effectiveness of the effort.
I can certainly respect that there are existing limitations and I do not fall in the "We should be able to have rocket launchers if we want crowd"
I'd say they're identical. You can have guns on planes, done so myself, and guns also can hurt kids. Mostly that would be a we need a total prohibition on guns argument in either case which is, well, a total prohibition on guns. No leap at all as it's exactly the same.
The problem with the individual rights theory is rocket launchers are arms and seemingly that does conflict with no law shall abridge the individual's right to bear arms. It doesn't surprise me that it's such a messy legal situation. Generally even pre-1939 you didn't have the concept of incorporation. As a country we've spent an awful lot of time under the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment prohibit the fed from abridging the right to bear arms in the context that states needed to have Militias and militias needed arms. Then in 2008 and 2010 concept was entirely turned on its head and it became an individual right but we've got all these pre-existing issues to sort out.
Making it more convoluted the activist judges in 2010 couldn't even decide on what basis the 2nd Amendment was being incorporated. Alito and Co wrote their justification on the grounds of the narrower Due Process argument. That is the fed can still, as long as it follows due process, abridge the individuals rights to bear arms. Thomas on the other hand said it was because of Privileges and Immunities clause. That one is basically your inalienable rights type of stuff. Very different implications between the two. Now we'll need to go through and sort out the deets. Is it a due process thing and the fed can say no RPGs for convicted felons allowed in federal courtrooms during trials or is it more a Thomas inalienable right to have mah RPGs where I want mah RPGs.
Guns are already highly restricted. Many if not most homicides occur in cities or states with the most restrictive and onerous gun laws in existence.
There are 22,000 gun laws on the books plus laws against murder and using guns in a crime. Criminals and crazies don't follow them, only the law abiding, so you just restrict their right of self defense.
How many screaming lefties does it take to change the constitution? How many irrational arguments will it take to change the mind of gun owners? How many shameless comments will the left utilize to end ILLEGAL gun violence by mentally ill criminals? Why is it that some murders matter more than others?
The second amendment is the right of self defense.
Why then are we not protecting institutions at a high degree where that right is not allowed? or regulated?
There's a guy named Neil Steinberg who did an op-ed on the Chicago Sun-Times about that case. I linked it from an archived copy on Archive.today instead of the Chicago Sun-Times itself. https://archive.ph/ouRUV
I wonder if Neil Steinberg is a good friend of Kurt Eichenwald who's now know for liking anime tentacles? Then I wonder if he have some private security? I doubt he do what he said.
Swimming pools are far more dangerous to children.
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.
Then I wonder if he have some private security? I doubt he do what he said.
