alawadhi
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
I'll get off politics after this post... gotta get work done. 
Every single one of your Constitutional rights is subject to some level of regulation and to the evolution of society's basic standards over time. The exercise, breadth and scope of every single one of your Constitutional rights has changed over time due to precedent created by Supreme Court decisions, for example. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
In 1789, every human being absolutely needed a gun to survive. And any foreign attack would require the government to be able to call upon its regular citizenry for the common defense. The Second Amendment makes total sense. Today's military conflicts will not be fought with our handguns, nor does everyone need a weapon. However, the government cannot protect all of its people at all times, therefore the right to bear arms is still absolutely relevant. As I said, I firmly support this right.
But as society evolves, so too must the frameworks with which we live. With our kids having access to ever-more information, with school shootings happening once a week, and with 1300 children dying from firearm-related injuries each year, my simplest answer is this: I find it entirely acceptable -- even advisable and positive -- to say that yes, you have the right to bear arms, but that you must take a class to show you understand the laws and rules for doing so, and you should demonstrate that you understand the basic principles of firearm safety. As your fellow citizen, and as a fellow gun owner, I think anyone having complete and unfettered liberty to own any kind of firearm without any kind of required training or knowledge puts me and my loved ones at significantly greater risk.
Summary: right to bear arms, yes. Complete, totally limitless freedom for anyone to have/carry/use whatever firepower they seek with zero minimum requirements for training/competency, no. I respect anyone disagreeing with me... but in my humble opinion, it's entirely consistent with the entire legal and constitutional framework of the USA for said right to be reasonably regulated just as all others are....Show more →
In my understanding, about this point, is like the freedom of speech. I totally have the freedom of speech, but, when I accuse someone of, lets say robbery, and hide behind "freedom of speech" without proper evidence, this gets into another matter. "My freedom ends when it conflicts with yours" especially when it is a legitimate one. You have the the full freedom to carry a weapon, I have the full freedom to stay alive, not because you are a lunatic who gets happy when killing a living creature or a spoiled child who lost an online Playstation game, someone looses his/her life!
|
