- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Second Amendment question
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:10 pm
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:10 pm
Let me start by saying I am very pro-2A, so don't get your panties in a bunch before reading the whole thing.
With the Hobby Lobby fallout going on, one of the issues that has come to the forefront is about rights. People are making a big deal about how women's rights are being infringed by the HL decision.
My most succinct response to people making this argument is that abortion-inducing drugs (or any type of contraceptive/abortifacient) is not a right. Consumer products and services, which require other people to provide, cannot be an inherent human right.
Then I thought about guns....
If owning a gun was truly a right, wouldn't they have to be provided free of charge to the citizenry at large?
My first thought was that the 2A is simply an emphasized expression of the inherent human rights of life, liberty, and property. I thought this made sense as the 2A states "keep and bear." To me, this says that owning a gun is not a right, but not having the government deprive someone of his weapon is a right.
Thoughts? FYI, I'm about 4 bourbons deep, so bear with me.
With the Hobby Lobby fallout going on, one of the issues that has come to the forefront is about rights. People are making a big deal about how women's rights are being infringed by the HL decision.
My most succinct response to people making this argument is that abortion-inducing drugs (or any type of contraceptive/abortifacient) is not a right. Consumer products and services, which require other people to provide, cannot be an inherent human right.
Then I thought about guns....
If owning a gun was truly a right, wouldn't they have to be provided free of charge to the citizenry at large?
My first thought was that the 2A is simply an emphasized expression of the inherent human rights of life, liberty, and property. I thought this made sense as the 2A states "keep and bear." To me, this says that owning a gun is not a right, but not having the government deprive someone of his weapon is a right.
Thoughts? FYI, I'm about 4 bourbons deep, so bear with me.
12
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:13 pm to UGATiger26
Why does the fact that something is a right mean it has to be free?
I have the right to an almost endless number of things that I still have to pay for.
I have the right to an almost endless number of things that I still have to pay for.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:15 pm to UGATiger26
dude stop. if i have to provide a gun to all the poors just like i provide schools, food, and healthcare then i really think i am leaving the country.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:15 pm to UGATiger26
The second amendment does not say the "right to arms". It says the right to "bear" arms, meaning it is the activity, not the actual good, that is the right.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:15 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I have the right to an almost endless number of things that I still have to pay for.
Such as?
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:16 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:17 pm to UGATiger26
There is absolutely zero comparison.
The constitution says that we have the right to bear arms. The constitution was written before a large portion of the population became dependent on the goverment and started expecting everything for free.
It does not say that we have the right to force the companies to provide women with the morning after pills because they are irresponsible.
Back when the constitution was written, the government didn't give anyone shite, they worked for it. It wasn't written with freeloading, irresponsible, welfare kings/queens in mind.
The constitution says that we have the right to bear arms. The constitution was written before a large portion of the population became dependent on the goverment and started expecting everything for free.
It does not say that we have the right to force the companies to provide women with the morning after pills because they are irresponsible.
Back when the constitution was written, the government didn't give anyone shite, they worked for it. It wasn't written with freeloading, irresponsible, welfare kings/queens in mind.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:18 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The second amendment does not say the "right to arms". It says the right to "bear" arms, meaning it is the activity, not the actual good, that is the right.
That was the first conclusion i came to. I was just seeking the Poli-board's opinion on this brief dilemma I found myself in.
It's all cool. Everyone can go home now.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:21 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
The second amendment does not say the "right to arms". It says the right to "bear" arms, meaning it is the activity, not the actual good, that is the right.
quote:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Do all left sided people not read correctly?
The second amendment does not say the "right to arms". It says the right to "bear" arms, meaning it is the activity, not the actual good, that is the right.
quote:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Do all left sided people not read correctly?
This post was edited on 7/5/14 at 9:22 pm
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:24 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
Such as?
You believe that the term "right" explicitly implies that one must receive it free of charge?
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:25 pm to UGATiger26
You asked a harmless question. It's all good. Have another drink.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:28 pm to UGATiger26
I might not have a problem with the gov providing a pro-2A firearms training course 'free' of charge.
Of course, that will never happen.
Free guns? Not so much.
Of course, that will never happen.
Free guns? Not so much.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:30 pm to themunch
quote:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[2][3]
The amendment was written to protect the citizens from the government.
And for the gun control crazies out there:
quote:
The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If you take away the legal guns, the illegal ones will still be out there.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:32 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
You believe that the term "right" explicitly implies that one must receive it free of charge?
Yes. To me, "right" is a very strong word.
"Free of charge" makes it sound as if I believe there are products/resources that can be a right. I do not believe there are.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:33 pm to MSCoastTigerGirl
Constiutional Rights only limit government action. They don't entitle anyone to anything. If people could only understand this simply truth, we'd all be better off.
Those rights are saying this is what gov't can do and this is what gov't cannot do.
Those rights are saying this is what gov't can do and this is what gov't cannot do.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:35 pm to Sentrius
That's my point.
The constitution wasn't written with the entitled fricks that we have today in mind.
The constitution wasn't written with the entitled fricks that we have today in mind.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:37 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
Yes. To me, "right" is a very strong word.
"Free of charge" makes it sound as if I believe there are products/resources that can be a right. I do not believe there are.
Then you disagree with the basic definition of a right that many hold and its pointless to discuss this further.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:37 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Constiutional Rights only limit government action. They don't entitle anyone to anything. If people could only understand this simply truth, we'd all be better off.
Those rights are saying this is what gov't can do and this is what gov't cannot do.
This. Motherfricking this.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:42 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Constiutional Rights only limit government action. They don't entitle anyone to anything. If people could only understand this simply truth, we'd all be better off. Those rights are saying this is what gov't can do and this is what gov't cannot do.
This.
This post was edited on 7/5/14 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 7/5/14 at 9:42 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Then you disagree with the basic definition of a right that many hold and its pointless to discuss this further.
Do you want to elaborate or are we gonna keep playing twenty questions?
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News