3 thoughts on “The Right To Bear Arms

  1. Ryan Olcott

    “It is now up to the legislature,” Gottlieb said, “to craft a statute that recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to carry outside the home, without a sea of red tape or a requirement to prove any kind of need beyond the cause of personal protection.”

    Why does nearly everyone concede that weapons, objects of property, have to meet any “need” test before we can be permitted to own and keep them about our persons? Aside from drugs, do we treat any other class of objects this way? Is a right a Right or is it just another term for a slightly less restrained permission granted by our master(s) [in other subjective words, this and/or this]? In modern parlance it seems the word has no special meaning distinct from ‘permission’ except that it carries an anachronism based emotional appeal to individual sovereignty that it no longer honors.

    I greatly appreciate what SAF is doing and has done, because less chains are better than more, but they are winning battles and conceding the war. That sentence should have ended after “carry”.

    1. ken anthony

      You’re not suppose to notice such things Ryan. Your interview with the department of corrections thought police is pending. What day of the week is not good for you?

Comments are closed.