JimH52
If the NRA wants people to have rights to guns and ammo,
why not organize a business network and offer insurance?
Cars require either insurance or proof of ability to pay (in states offering that alternative).
Similar to driver's education, tests, licensing and insurance,
why not treat guns with the same degree of responsibility for public safety and costs of any damage?
Because you don't have a God given right to a car.
Yes @Vasator but here
I'm talking about public safety in both cases.
People do have natural rights to defense when enforcing
and following laws, but do not have rights to abuse guns to violate laws
because that would violate the rest of the Bill of Rights the 2nd Amendment is part of.
For right to guns, that's within the Bill of Rights,
ie within the context of defending the laws, right
to security, due process, etc.
It still requires Knowledge and compliance with the laws that
come with armed defense and gun ownership.
Conservatives take this for granted because they
automatically do this, learn and respect and enforce
the other laws the 2nd Amendment is part of.
Do you agree that with rights come responsibilities?
Rush Limbaugh complains that the problem with liberals
is they only teach "rights" but not the "responsibilities" that come with them.
Invoking the right to bear arms comes with
the responsibility for enforcing and defending laws not violating them.
With cars, we REQUIRE people to learn and pass
tests in order to get a driver's license.
With guns we've taken that for granted that
the same people invoking and teaching those rights
are the same ones teaching and enforcing the Constitution in general.
So it's like unwritten laws and process because
it's part of natural laws. But it's a similar process
and principle that in order to invoke rights under
law then you have to be following not violating those laws.