04-02-2018, 10:12 PM
(03-08-2018, 11:25 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: In my opinion, it is a constitutional right by de facto (i.e. enough Americans believe and want it to be a right that, in effect it is). Be that as it may, there are other constitutional rights which have restrictions.
Freedom of Speech has some conditions upon it. If someone holds a BLM rally in the middle of a KKK convention, local authorities are probably going to step in and "repress" one or both groups' right to state their opinion at that particular place and time before someone gets hurt.
Similarly, Freedom of the Press can get stifled during wartime. The government generally tries to handle this with "kid gloves". But there was the famous episode in 1942 where the Chicago Tribune decided to leak secret information about how we broke Japanese codes in order to win the Battle of Midway. Uncle Sam was less than happy about that and that story got pulled schnell machen (sorry, my German grammar ain't too hot).
The list could go on. We like having these rights. But over the years there have been people who have abused these rights to criminal levels (i.e. hey infringed upon other people's rights). As a result, it has been necessary to sometimes restrict rights. The question becomes, "At what point has someone abused the rights?"
I have yet to see someone provide actual proof that voting rights have been abused enough to require I.D.s. If someone did provide actual proof that this was a widespread problem, then I think most people would see the need for this.
Gun rights are a bit different in that most of the restrictions I would find reasonable already exist in many places across the country, meaning that a lot of people have already come to the conclusion at some point that they were necessary.
A think a national classification system could be accomplished. Some differences between firearms are pretty obvious (such as the difference between a hunting rifle and M-2 Browning). But just because other classifications may be more difficult or contentious shouldn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water (even though that seems to be the current way of conducting politics nationally).
Amen. I think people may be washing over these facts in the rush to take political sides on the issue. And local officials trying to avoid their own culpability and avoid responsibility aren't helping the issue.
Universal standards will fix many, but not all problems. Many is good enough for me. But that requires an agreement, which requires give-and-take, which seems to be something that people have forgotten how to do.
I've come to the conclusion that wondering if the screwball standing in line with me is packing is a better situation than actually seeing that he is packing.
But this is Arizona and open carry will probably never go away here.
At best they'd serperate the two groups from one another to avoid conflict. Both groups will still be able to say what they wanted, just not where they wanted. Hardly stepping on their right to speak.
Minor objection though.
