02-26-2018, 02:57 AM
I think requiring the purchase of insurance to be able to exercise a Constitutional right would never survive a SCOTUS review.
I think that is a very shallow, limited, view of reality. All black and white without any recognition of the myriad shades of gray.
Rights have limits, rights have been regulated all along. As Carey said in the last (now locked up) gun thread:
You can still have the Constitution & regulation of firearms.... You have lived with it ALL OF YOUR LIFE! & are living with it today!
Whereas I think saying the constitution blah blah blah as if it's some shield that gives gun enthusiasts some sort of blanket immunity from all things rational is just that, irrational. My god man, yes there are cars, and by golly you too can have and drive one, but god help you if you do so outside of a very well defines set of regulations. And those regulations change dependent upon the circumstances. Some roads have 35 mph speed limit, others 60 mph.
And besides, at the moment we have a national crisis. Guns are being used to kill us at an unacceptable rate. Rules change to fit the situation, and gun rules (rights) are no different than any other rights. They are malleable to fit the needs of society. Thank goodness we are not so infantile as to have some carved in stone from some long ago era set of rules and not be able to change with the times. Otherwise we'd still have slaves. Women would be subjugated and corporal punishment would be an acceptable way to raise children. All of which were the rage when your "sacred" 2nd Amendment was crafted.
Rob, I respect your proposal, and think it is a far cry better than without, but think that there should be even stricter regulations on top of that. But yes, responsibility should be clearly defined and an owner should be expected to take it upon themselves, just like a car owner is, with the appropriate insurances.
I think that is a very shallow, limited, view of reality. All black and white without any recognition of the myriad shades of gray.
Rights have limits, rights have been regulated all along. As Carey said in the last (now locked up) gun thread:
You can still have the Constitution & regulation of firearms.... You have lived with it ALL OF YOUR LIFE! & are living with it today!
Whereas I think saying the constitution blah blah blah as if it's some shield that gives gun enthusiasts some sort of blanket immunity from all things rational is just that, irrational. My god man, yes there are cars, and by golly you too can have and drive one, but god help you if you do so outside of a very well defines set of regulations. And those regulations change dependent upon the circumstances. Some roads have 35 mph speed limit, others 60 mph.
And besides, at the moment we have a national crisis. Guns are being used to kill us at an unacceptable rate. Rules change to fit the situation, and gun rules (rights) are no different than any other rights. They are malleable to fit the needs of society. Thank goodness we are not so infantile as to have some carved in stone from some long ago era set of rules and not be able to change with the times. Otherwise we'd still have slaves. Women would be subjugated and corporal punishment would be an acceptable way to raise children. All of which were the rage when your "sacred" 2nd Amendment was crafted.
Rob, I respect your proposal, and think it is a far cry better than without, but think that there should be even stricter regulations on top of that. But yes, responsibility should be clearly defined and an owner should be expected to take it upon themselves, just like a car owner is, with the appropriate insurances.