Walter,Sounds just like my two year old !
October 8, 2015 at 2:11 p.m.
Are you trying to make two points?A) It is reasonable that the obligation of a person to protect himself and his family is "owned" by that person. No other person (or entity) has that obligation.
B) Completely separate from a) is the Constitutional words that inorder to secure a free state the ability of it's citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Are you suggesting that all persons who have been convicted of violence are being "infringed" by not permitting them to protect them selves and their families with a firearm. Are you suggesting the same for those who are mentally ill, or who have been dishonorably discharged etc.
The simple truth is that our current laws DO infringe on the right to bear arms. It is very difficult to buy certain types of arms; that difficulty is therefore an infringement.
Are you arguing that any person, for any reason, must (in the constitutional sense) be permitted "without infringement" to purchase and possess any firearm they desire?
Could you clarify your remarks?
October 8, 2015 at 12:03 p.m.
@ Dontbe,Very valid point regarding felons. But for the moment lets keep rehabilitation as a side consideration. The accountant who is convicted of tax evasion finds he can not purchase a gun, he can't adequately protect himself?
(of course this scenario is based on the premise that the gun rights advocates propose that every person has a absolute right to protect themselves and that a gun is necessary to do that)
I would suggest in both instances (the former prisoner and the mentally ill) the potential for gun violence is not the illness or the conviction but a tendency toward violence itself.
Not all felons are violent, just as not all mentally ill are violent. So how does a society identify those who can become violent?? Aren't these the persons who should not be able to purchase, or for that matter have easy access to guns?
Sufficiently provoked (or depressed) aren't most of us capable of violence?
If so, should anyone have guns?
I'm not necessarily advocating elimination of guns, just suggesting that the idea of who should not have access needs more refinement.
October 7, 2015 at 1:03 p.m.
One of the arguments for gun ownership is the obvious right to protect oneself. It seems that the consensus is that mentally disabled persons should not have the right to purchase guns.
The logical conclusion then is that mentally disabled persons are denied the right to protect themselves.
How do you solve this?
October 7, 2015 at 10:20 a.m.
Should be MWD. ( thanks to auto correct)
September 19, 2015 at 10:40 a.m.
@da,Thanks to bush-Chaney and the mud lie.@oviets,And exactly how many vetoes has Pres. Obama invoked.
Finally what does either of these things you folks have brought up have to doe with Kim Davis?
September 19, 2015 at 10:38 a.m.
And with all those "sweeping" victories what have you accomplished?
And by the way, what does that have to do with Kim Davis?
September 19, 2015 at 12:49 a.m.
And all this relates to Kim Davis how.
September 16, 2015 at 9:36 p.m.
@excel,And this relates to Kim Davis how?
Are you suggesting that she chose poorly when she took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the laws of Kentucky?
Maybe you could clarify hoe your choices comment relates to Davis.
September 16, 2015 at 10:41 a.m.
@daIt has nothing to do with the topic.
September 15, 2015 at 1:45 p.m.