Re: Big win for the second amendment
posted at 12/12/2012 4:28 PM EST
In response to tvoter's comment:
In response to MattyScornD's comment:
No, it's not about freedom. It's about a privilege vs. a right and about america's fascination with weapons and violence of all kinds.
Guns require permits for a reason...because it's premission granted by law, not permission assumed by "freedom".
Lots of people have no business owning, much less carrying guns. If people had to undergo psychological testing before ownership, then half would probably fail.
Again, note that I am a gun owner, but I am not licensed to carry....a fair enough compromise that has no bearing upon my "freedom", perceived or otherwise.
You speak for America? Only in your own mind. A healthy facination with guns is what America has!
Permits are only required for concealed carry. It is a constitutional right for law abidimg citizen to own guns! It's the placement of the comma remember??
In your opinion (that no one cares about) "lots of people have no business owning much less carrying guns"! What is that opinion based on? Half would fail testing? Any evidence or just more extremist rhetoric?
Another opinion stated as fact.....yawn
I'm speaking about America, not for it. And as mentioned here, the millions of victims and families of gun violence might have something to say about how "healthy" our national gun obsession is.
Your obvious fallacy maintains that a freedom to own guns not exercised is a freedom lost, and I'm saying that's just not true.
The facts support my argument: that gun violence is far more likely to occur in presence of guns. That's not too hard to figure out, even for you.
And again, you're interpreting a privilege as a right by couching it in "law-abiding" terms. That's a fairly broad, vague brush you be painting with. Should a tax cheat be able to own a gun? How about an embezzler?
And again, I AM a gun owner, so I may have an informed perspective that you don't.