Besides all around petty knee-jerkiness, can you think of a reason to pass any such law? Are you in favor of passing laws out of sheer vindictiveness?
Well, the disclaimer at the beginning of the video says its the opinion of one commentator, not NRA policy or anything.
Don’t we already have that (assuming you aren’t counting police and security). Federal buildings, prisons, courthouses, school zones and any private property where the owner doesn’t want guns.
I would prefer that it be needs based.
That sounds like a good idea. On the flip side, you can’t deny gun ownership to anyone with a gun license (you take away gun licenses from felons, etc) so a licensee can own a gun in Massachusetts just as easily as they can own one in Wyoming. Just eliminate all local gun laws.
In what way does knowing several positions enhance safety or health?
Are we giving him a gun to take home with him?
Thats not how rights work. We have a first amendment right to free speech and and lets say we decided that in order to even out speech we gave every voter as much money to spend on political speech as the Koch brothers spend on political speech. If we later decided to eliminate that speech subsidy, we would not be able to take the extra step to eliminate political speech. Right?
Well, I certainly don’t see the need for PSAs trying to protect our third amendment rights when noone is trying to limit them in any way shape or form. Maybe I wasn’t clear what I was getting at.
None that I know of, but that doesn’t mean the government is providing incentives, either. I was responding to Bricker’s statement:
I don’t see all these other rights getting getting the sort of government incentives he suggests. I don’t see any sort of government education program telling me I can’t be subject to excessive bail, or subsides to those who petition the government for redress of grievances. The government should promote guns because it promotes all other basic rights? Um, no, it doesn’t.
To be fair, I think Bricker is overstating the argument of the video; I don’t see that NRA commentator making such a sweeping statement about promoting all other rights and freedoms, mostly just particular policies such as education. He does mention parks, though, and asks what it would be like if the government limited access. Well, it does. If you don’t believe me, just stop by the Grand Canyon someday and try to get a spot in one of the campgrounds for that night.
“The following video contains the opinion of an NRA News commentator and does not necessarily reflect the views of other individuals or organizations”
It sounds to me like they approve of his message.
Sounds to me like they are intentionally vague about who endorses this message, other than that one guy.
Well, not quite. See they figured that if they watered down those bills so that they didn’t effect Sportsmen, hunters or target shooters*, everyone would be happy with the compromise.
Turns out they were wrong.
And it didn’t help that the Pro-gun control groups jumped on the DCA of 1968 as “a start”.
It doesn’t help today that nutty anti-gunners come up with laws that would seriously limit ordinary sporting guns, such as a $1 per bullet tax, or a ban on all guns that can penetrate a bullet proof vest. etc.
- they though these were their main member base.
OK, so Bricker’s first sentence is an overstatement. It seems like his second sentence was his conclusion.
Mandatory would be pushing it too far; there are too many hoplophobes out there who want nothing to do with guns. Even back in the 18th century, early drafts of the Second Amendment included protection for conscientious objectors against serving in a federalized militia. I would certainly like to see firearms instruction as an elective high school course, and shooting teams as a common varsity sport.
I disagree. That is how rights work.
You have freedom of speech because you can choose to say nothing if you want. If you are required to speak then what you have isn’t freedom. If church attendance is mandatory then you have religion but you don’t have freedom of religion. If attending a public rally is mandatory then you have assembly but you don’t have freedom of assembly. You only have freedom of something when you can say yes or no to it.
If the government prohibits you from owning a firearm then you don’t have freedom of firearm ownership. And if the government requires you to own a firearm then you also don’t have freedom of firearm ownership. In both cases, it’s the government deciding who owns firearms not the individual so it’s the government that has that freedom.
What does a fear of kangaroos have to do with it?
No-it’s a fear of beer with too high an IBU rating.
you said: “If the government has the power to make you own a gun then it also has the power to make you not own a gun.”
The government in fact does have the power to make you speak. That doesn’t mean they have the power to keep you from speaking (subject to normal constitutional exceptions).
Your other analogies are bad. I think you may be taking the first amendment analogy a bit too far into first amendment specific ideas.
I don’t think that the power to force you to own a gun translates into a violation of the 2nd amdmt any more than forcing you to own an email account translates into a violation of the first amendment.
I don’t think that point has been brought up before. Would forcing everyone to bear arms hold up constitutionally?
As an aside, we went on a class trip to a government gun range in 12th grade. We sat through a gun safety lecture, then shot at some targets with 0.22" bolt-action Mausers. It was fun.
It was about as mandatory as any other school outing - a note from our parents would have been enough to keep us home. I don’t remember many kids skipping it, though.
I’m assuming you are posting from prison now, right?
I thought the requirement in the video was that everyone own, not bear. And it is clear we can constitutionally force people to bear arms (or at least contribute to the war effort) Selective Service System - Wikipedia