Lumber said:
I think he wouldn't be so sloppy. To many, they beliebe the right "to bear arms" is incorrectly interpreted from the constitution to mean that you have the right to own a gun. Futher, while many of you may disagree, I beliebe that some rights are more intrinsic than others. You can put anything you want into a consitution and make it a "right", but that's not always make those things intrinsically "right". The right to bear arms, for example. I believe that as human beings, we should have freedom of association, freedom of opionion (unfortunate as it is sometimes..), freedom of though, belief and opionion, and the right to life, liberty and security, etc.
I'm not sure I follow. He IS that sloppy, he said he thinks if you're on the no fly list, you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. There is no wiggle room there for you to say "I don't think he'd be that sloppy"
If you read the second ammendment with the same framework that is applied to all the other ammendments, and you read the background framing comments on why the second ammendment was made, you are completely wrong. The intent was to prevent the state from controlling a monopoly on the tools of violence, therefore no law shall infringe the right to own firearms.
These things I believe are intrinsic, and I believe most people would agree. The right to own a gun? Is that really intrinsic? Can we really infer from the human condition that owning a gun is something everyone should really be entitled to? I don't think so. Ergo, taking away the right to own a gun is a lot easier to stomach morally and to act upon than to take "others if he sees need to satisfy his ideology."
Intrinsic rights are only those you can keep. Laws don't give you rights, they either defend existing rights and give you more tools to defend your rights, or they take them away. Governments never stop making laws. Never. Once a set of rights is enshrined, they start making laws to diminish those laws.
Once normalization of removing gun rights is set to the low bar of someone was on a list with no due process, it becomes much more easy to justify taking all gun owner's rights away. Then his next limit to freedom will be compared to how guns were taken away and done in a similar fashion.
Maybe next time it will be something that you like, like the right to own a vehicle that goes over 30 km/h, the justification here would be that vehicles kill more people that guns on orders of magnitude. This is not so far fetched as we already have govenments willfully establishing speedlimits that have been proven to kill more than higher engineered limits.
Or how about the right to travel across provincial/state lines, for example NB is getting stroppy about the revenue it looses to alcohol sales in Quebec and is looking for solutions to it's declining population due to people fleeing to find other work.
How about the right to not have your savings account drained whn the government has a shortfall? What intrinsic right do you have to keep what you save? The surpluses in CPP and EI have already been tapped. Your responsibility as a citizen is to keep the economy flowing, so if you save too much money, perhaps it should be taxed from you to help someone else. What intrinsic right do you have to stagnate the economy?
How about the freedom to choose your own career, afterall if your career choice fails, the government has to help you up don't they? why shouldn't they be able to tell you what job you will do from now on? What intrinsic right to you have to choose your employment?
The freedom to purchase snacks? Healthcare costs from improper eating habits cost billions, so for your own good, no one can have any. What intrinsic right do you have to fritos?