The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
Freedom isn't the exclusive possession of one party or another, and those who defend it can make errors. This debate is about freedom and the correct interpretation of our rights.
But let's remember that the "assault weapons ban" came about while Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Scalia said that some regulations may be possible. He didn't say that any are required, and the Heller ruling left open what could be permissible.
No one has argued that there exists no right to "keep and bear" arms, so long as such arms are possessed and used collectively in the context of the armed forces, a national, international,or local police force or a private organization acting on the behalf or with the approval of the former. The argument should not solely consist on what restrictions society should place on the "right" to use of small arms and non-professional destructive devices, but should instead focus on which elements of society have a right on which to place restrictions upon. If such a right to "lawfully" obtain and possess weapons applies to persons or entities other than state actors or persons or organisations engaged in an occupation which manifestly requires the use of arms, where does such a right (that is to the possession and use of small arms by civilians) originate from? Who or what entity has endowed you (and ALL of us for that matter), a mere person with a right, which you claim is so fundamental that any regulations upon such right must be subject to strict scrutiny?
If such right to arms does exist, (as you claim, but provide no evidence to describe the need for such a right or more importantly, who has endowed you with this "right", besides a group of five elderly men) in the context of the civilian world, the very concept of individual liberty demands that it be strictly regulated, for the purposes of safeguarding the right to life (the most important right) of another? Stated more simply, if civilians have a right to "keep and bear" small arms, they by exercising such a right as a society jeopardize the human right(s) to life, liberty and property, as is demonstrated by shootings, armed gangs, and muggings?
This is why my side can't even discuss compromise with your side. People on your side see us as enraged crazies just waiting to slaughter innocents. Some even deny the existence of individual rights. Mikeb, ask yourself this question, and be honest about doing it: Would you trust an opponent who called you an insane murderer?
The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01 ... l-defense/
orlin sellers
Freedom isn't the exclusive possession of one party or another, and those who defend it can make errors. This debate is about freedom and the correct interpretation of our rights.
ReplyDeleteBut let's remember that the "assault weapons ban" came about while Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Scalia said that some regulations may be possible. He didn't say that any are required, and the Heller ruling left open what could be permissible.
No one has argued that there exists no right to "keep and bear" arms, so long as such arms are possessed and used collectively in the context of the armed forces, a national, international,or local police force or a private organization acting on the behalf or with the approval of the former. The argument should not solely consist on what restrictions society should place on the "right" to use of small arms and non-professional destructive devices, but should instead focus on which elements of society have a right on which to place restrictions upon. If such a right to "lawfully" obtain and possess weapons applies to persons or entities other than state actors or persons or organisations engaged in an occupation which manifestly requires the use of arms, where does such a right (that is to the possession and use of small arms by civilians) originate from? Who or what entity has endowed you (and ALL of us for that matter), a mere person with a right, which you claim is so fundamental that any regulations upon such right must be subject to strict scrutiny?
ReplyDeleteIf such right to arms does exist, (as you claim, but provide no evidence to describe the need for such a right or more importantly, who has endowed you with this "right", besides a group of five elderly men) in the context of the civilian world, the very concept of individual liberty demands that it be strictly regulated, for the purposes of safeguarding the right to life (the most important right) of another? Stated more simply, if civilians have a right to "keep and bear" small arms, they by exercising such a right as a society jeopardize the human right(s) to life, liberty and property, as is demonstrated by shootings, armed gangs, and muggings?
Republicans defend freedom in the same way a fox defends a henhouse.
ReplyDeleteRight-Wing Gun Nuts want their guns so they can murder people when the Call for Violence is raised.
This is why my side can't even discuss compromise with your side. People on your side see us as enraged crazies just waiting to slaughter innocents. Some even deny the existence of individual rights. Mikeb, ask yourself this question, and be honest about doing it: Would you trust an opponent who called you an insane murderer?
ReplyDeleteI don't call you an insane murderer or say that all of you are enraged crazies. I'm tired of repeating this.
DeleteI say you are so self-centered about your fixation on gun rights that lots of bad stuff happens as a result and that you are responsible for it.