“If its a RIGHT, then we do not need to provide you with a NEED.”
_________________________________________
That is well said, Sir.
Not much more I should add, except that I see that some of the comments on the CNN site suggest that times are different today than when the Constitution was written and it was mainly muskets that folks would possess and for the purpose of a militia.
Maybe true. But maybe not.
With the same basis for their position, the Internet didn’t exist when the Constitution was written, so does that mean that the Right to Free Speech isn’t necessary today?
I think NOT.
Damn, our Founding Fathers had some great foresight.
Thank God.
If a Citizen can only own a Musket, the New York Times can only own a Printing Press.
I’m of two minds where it comes to explosives, personally. There are a LOT of people I wouldn’t trust to have tanks, mines, bombs, etc. But I haven’t reasoned out yet whether it makes sense to restrict them, constitutionally.
As far as firearms, I believe that ownership and safe use should be free - but unsafe use (including criminal use) should carry restriction. If I were to have an automatic weapon, and don’t put any other person in danger when I use it (excluding self defense use), then it should be legal, IMO. (And FUN!)