The Second Amendment doesn't say that gun ownership has to be free of charge (barf alert)

Chicago Tribune ^ | 16 apr 2019 | Dahleen Glanton

[KC Burke]

Dear Dahleen:

Then Freedom of the Press did not mean free of charge. You have to pay the down -state Republicans to write your little drivel. The fee can only be paid after it has been submitted, reviewed and approved.

You have a right to vote, the Poll tax is just to pay for the process. In your case, it is 10k.

You have a right to a fair trial. We will let you know the fee for that after we have your banking records.

Now, do you see what a fraud your statement is in your article? How it is meant to mislead the weak minded?

Puppies on the block. There have got to be some puppies on your block. That is what you should write about. It suits you.

[Tenacious 1]

The bill simply would make it harder for people who aren’t supposed to have guns to legally obtain them.

WTF!!!? Wait a minute! If they aren't supposed to have them (as in illegal), we need a law to make it harder for them to get them "LEGALLY"? Does this A$$hat exist on a diet of stupid pills?

Did he mean he wants a law to make it MORE illegal? Maybe we should just pass a law that makes the punishment harsher for killing the same person more than once.

[IronJack]

It’s burdensome to ask voters to prove their citizenship, but it’s okay to impose “a little inconvenience” and fees on people wanting to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Got it.

How about we license journalists?

[edwinland]

Same author, different "right":

DAHLEEN GLANTON

Bruce Rauner was courageous — and right — when he signed the Illinois abortion bill

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of abortion rights, you must admit that Gov. Bruce Rauner was courageous. In signing the controversial bill Thursday expanding taxpayer-subsidized abortions for low-income women, the moderate Republican governor angered conservatives across the state —all...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/chi-dahleen-glanton-staff.html?page=24&device=mobile&deployment=overlay&

If the left didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all.

[Political Junkie Too]

You have to pay to exercise free speech? You have to pay a surcharge if you don’t want soldiers quartered in your house? You have to pay extra for a speedy trial?

If you have to pay a cop to not look at your persons, houses, papers, and effects, that's called a shakedown.

-PJ

[VanShuyten]

She wants the state government to impose more checks, when the government failed in its check on this one guy when he got a FOID card.

This failure is besides the point that virtually none of the people that commit murder with guns in Chicago have a FOID, although many of them already have their fingerprints on file.

[New Jersey Realist]

I also wonder if the army back in 1776 asked volunteers if they had criminal records. Pretty damn sure they didn’t.

[GoldenPup]

It’s just a fact of life that handguns are now permanent legal fixtures in the American landscape.

And has been for well over a hundred years. Same for automobiles which kill even more.

[bramps]

And someone’s right to own a gun certainly does not trump the safety rights of the rest of us”

That’s precisely what it does

****************

Thank you

[Bonemaker]

Tribune is puppy potty training paper.

[Boogieman]

Well, it would, if “safety” was a right to begin with.

[Fightin Whitey]

If 2A is not absolute, neither is 1A.

Let them find out if the pen is mightier than the deplored.

[NorthMountain]

Hey Dahleen! MOLON LABE, punk.

[itzmygun]

And someone’s right to own a gun certainly does not trump the safety rights of the rest of us.

This is what the pro-gun people don’t seem to understand.

No, you don't understand the nature of our rights. They are INDIVIDUAL rights, not collective rights.

Let's go look at the Constitution. I'll show you where it says, "shall not be infringed," and you can show me that right to safety clause you're talking about.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“The issue is to use every single incident as an excuse to take guns away from law abiding folks.”

The model for this is the supposed opioid crisis. They are using the opioid crisis to force doctors into denying prescriptions to law abiding citizens who need the medication to live a productive life.

This is soviet tactics 101. Take something that can parallel the issue you want to own, try it out, make corrections and once it works, apply it to what you really want to do. Call it continual service improvement.

[ravenwolf]

It says nothing about free of charge, it says the right for the people
to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed which seems to be what you
are advocating.

There are always problems in a free country unless you compare it with one
that is not free, infringing on people’s rights to keep and bare arms is not
no answer.

[ravenwolf]

Somes one’s right to own a gun certainly does not
Trump the safety of others.
,___&_&&&_____&&&_____o
I disagree, I do not carry a gun myself so if I
am out in the boondocks I feel much better if some one
else out there has one even if they are strangers.

[tet68]

It doesn’t mean that owners can’t be a tiny bit inconvenienced.

One person’s “inconvenienced” is another person’s
“INfringed”.

Also if ownership of a firearm is relative to safety,
who is she to deny others that right.

[Retvet]

Taxing gun ownership is infringement on the poor.