[cracker45]

Well, you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion. Everyone has one, but I find it curious that you’ve twice diluted the importance of the 2A in comparison to others, first as a “hunting license” and now as a “burglar alarm”. Good luck with that approach; the anti’s will take advantage of that on their way to marginalizing the remainder.

You failed to mention another recent Florida law that prohibits towns, cities and counties from using local ordinances to set different rules and restrictions on gun regulations peculiar to their own locales that conflict with state law making it legally hazardous for one to exercise a basic 2A right. That too was part of the anti’s agenda.

JC

JC

[SampleMan]

Well, you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion. Everyone has one, but I find it curious that you’ve twice diluted the importance of the 2A in comparison to others, first as a “hunting license” and now as a “burglar alarm”. Good luck with that approach; the anti’s will take advantage of that on their way to marginalizing the remainder.

I haven't done any such thing as you suggest. Reread my post. The fact of the matter is that a discussion of "rights" presumes that we are speaking of rights recognized by others, because if they are not recognized, then it is an assertion of exercise, not a recognized right. Now, based on the premise that a right would be unchallenged, property rights are king. In fact, unquestioned properly rights would de facto cover the possession of firearms. We can have a realistic discussion that the right to keep and bear arms is a special caveat of property rights with specific meaning, but it is superfluous if property rights are secure. And yes, we both know that is an academic point, not a real world expectation.

You failed to mention another recent Florida law that prohibits towns, cities and counties from using local ordinances to set different rules and restrictions on gun regulations peculiar to their own locales that conflict with state law making it legally hazardous for one to exercise a basic 2A right.

I failed to mention lots of things. I didn't mention that, because it was not supportive of my statement that the NRA needs to recognize all rights and not attempt to make one persons exercise of rights subservient to another's. As I said, people have a right to do certain things that we don't like or agree with.

Per the cases you mention, these are not issues of individuals having dominion over themselves or their property, but rather governments restricting rights without cause.

You may note that I included my renewed NRA membership in my first post.