- 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 9:16 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 9:28 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 9:45 pm to UGATiger26
Following the OP's logic....
I want a printing press, my own religion, and my own militia all provided by the gubment.
Where philosoraptor really flips his $hit is when we ask if the government has to provide everyone their own religion, is the government establishing that religion.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 10:00 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
How did you arrive at this?
From this:
quote:
If owning a gun was truly a right, wouldn't they have to be provided free of charge to the citizenry at large?
quote:
I'm about 4 bourbons deep, so bear with me.
I'm trying brother. I'm at two for the sake of being to understand you further.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 11:03 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
If owning a gun was truly a right, wouldn't they have to be provided free of charge to the citizenry at large?
you clearly don't understand that a right can't be something that someone else produces with the expectation to turn a profit.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 11:10 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
If owning a gun was truly a right, wouldn't they have to be provided free of charge to the citizenry at large?
No, rights limit government. The Second Amendment prevents the government from disarming citizens.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 11:11 pm to UGATiger26
Right to own doesn't mean it has to be provided free of charge.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 3:21 am to UGATiger26
quote:
My most succinct response to people making this argument is that abortion-inducing drugs (or any type of contraceptive/abortifacient) is not a right.
None of the drugs HL has a problem with have actually been shown to work by aborting a fertilized embryo. Even the Catholic health journal published an article stating that Plan B works exclusively by preventing ovulation.
And equal access to health care regardless of sex is a right. If the employer is covering all of the men's health care needs and not all of the women's, that's not equal access.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 3:23 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News