Have any Liberals reconsidered their stance on the 2nd Amend since Militarized Police

[KGB]

This right has limitations.....does it not?

Like every other right, yes. However, a lot of these limits are most likely too restrictive. If I don't need a permit to speak freely or pray where I choose, then I should not require a permit to have a weapon. There's just no reason for it. If I commit a crime with a weapon, I go to jail. The permit means nothing & had no effect. With that said, it's an individual right. Attempting to reclassify it as anything else is factually incorrect.

And......it can be infringed. Attempting to say it cannot is factually incorrect.

It can be but not for the reasons you think. The Constitution clearly states it shall not be infringed, but is done so all the time. That is how tyranny is born...

 

[Pogo]

Missing poll answer choice:

3. "What the **** is a "progressive"?

WHO exactly is your target audience? Define your terms. For that matter, what do you mean by "gun control"? Kinda vague, doncha think?

Did you think this poll question through?

[ ] Yes.
[X] No.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Like every other right, yes. However, a lot of these limits are most likely too restrictive. If I don't need a permit to speak freely or pray where I choose, then I should not require a permit to have a weapon. There's just no reason for it. If I commit a crime with a weapon, I go to jail. The permit means nothing & had no effect. With that said, it's an individual right. Attempting to reclassify it as anything else is factually incorrect.

And......it can be infringed. Attempting to say it cannot is factually incorrect.

It can be but not for the reasons you think. The Constitution clearly states it shall not be infringed, but is done so all the time. That is how tyranny is born...

Nor for the reasons you think.

A Constitutional restriction on a civil liberty is not an 'infringement,' as it comports with Constitutional case law.

The Second Amendment right, as is the case with all other rights, is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, where such restrictions have nothing to do with 'tyranny.'

 

[Political Junky]

The Right seems to be applauding the actions of the policeman in Ferguson, Missouri.

 

[KGB]

And......it can be infringed. Attempting to say it cannot is factually incorrect.

It can be but not for the reasons you think. The Constitution clearly states it shall not be infringed, but is done so all the time. That is how tyranny is born...

Nor for the reasons you think.

A Constitutional restriction on a civil liberty is not an 'infringement,' as it comports with Constitutional case law.

The Second Amendment right, as is the case with all other rights, is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, where such restrictions have nothing to do with 'tyranny.'

See reading comprehension is key. The Constitution states it "shall not be infringed". That's pretty clear as day. An exception clause isn't built in. The term "reasonable restrictions" is an artificial construct plain & simple. That's not to say the right does not confer a responsibility onto the citizen, it clearly does, but every time a gun control law is passed, that is an infringement. Instead my solution is easier & far more effective. Increase & enforce the penalties by crime committed with a weapon. That places the onus of responsibility of the right on the individual where it clearly belongs.